davelnewton

IMO that's an explicitly different issue than a comparison between Promises/async/await and Ruby's metaprogramming, though.

Not to mention that part of the issue with Promises is the various polyfills invented before broad acceptance, which is a separate can of worms, and a different type of complexity than the (relatively) heavy use of metaprogramming in Ruby (relative to JS).

Promises/async/await seem very different than Ruby's (and Rails') metaprogramming to me. I'd need an example of a cryptic stack trace to know exactly what you're referring to--half the problem is because of the overuse of anonymous functions that bork the trace. There's an easy solution to that (and it makes the resulting code easier to test as well).

Couldn't disagree more, but I think you're taking the term "magic" too literally.

There is a ton of magic in Rails. It consists primarily of magic. I've been doing Rails since <1yr of introduction (Ruby for longer than that, and Lisp for longer than either). I'm very familiar with metaprogramming. Metaprogramming fits the canonical definition of magic in this context.

Ruby, and Rails, also makes it very easy, and seductive, to add more magic. This is powerful, but dangerous. Like Lisp macros. Understanding the magic is not just a matter of "understanding the conventions" and reading the docs.

DI/IoC is a separate thing from the ecosystem; the benefits are just as strong in JS or Ruby--it's just that in JS/Ruby some of the benefits aren't as noticeable because of language malleability and openness.

> Python already exists as a dynamically-typed server language.

Ruby isn't new; it's only slightly younger than Python, and brought things to the table. Rails and Django are roughly the same age (and Django started off more as a CMS). That Python exists isn't an argument against Ruby. Lots of other languages exist, each with their own cost/benefit tradeoffs.

> [...] writing server-side web stuff in JS does make sense given it's what you're using in the client.

I don't understand the argument. Matching client/server language is a different goal than matching task/language, and the task isn't the only driving factor.

There's some crossover in that the language is the same, which means you could standardize on JS developers, but the ecosystems are not the same, and the required overall skillset is different. In wee shops the tradeoff may be worth it, but at scale, the benefit is oversold.

* http://www.govtech.com/data/People-Counting-Cameras-Are-Watc... * https://www.fastcompany.com/3025926/one-company-is-trying-to... * https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/new-ways-of-counting-pedest... * https://www.eco-compteur.com/en/solutions/pedestrian-monitor...

Etc. It's either happening, or would like to happen, all over.

Why? You can't understand what you can't measure. From city planning to business locations to traffic signals to targeted law enforcement to... If you don't know where people are you can't do anything except guess what should be done.

Of those three? Python. Why? Lots of stuff built in or well-known.

But it's almost entirely irrelevant: reasonable companies will either (a) expect you to code in the language they're hiring for or something at least used within the company, or (b) not care (within reasonable bounds, e.g., don't do your interview in Piet).

Winter is coming.

I don't know why not; IIRC FireWire was LVDS (4+m), and LVDS doesn't specify ("care about") distance, just loss between driver and receiver. I vaguely recall lossless transmissions between 10-30m, which is more than enough for a vehicle.

Trivial hacking is probably unlikely. Vehicles generally use CAN bus, but whether or not the camera data is available on the bus... I have my doubts, but if it's there, that'd be pretty cool. My guess would be there's a dedicated image channel off the main bus--but that's just a guess. I'd be interested in knowing if it's on the general network. It is peer-to-peer so in theory it can be deterministic, so maybe it is.

I disagree. This doesn't "diminish the person's feelings", it's saying that feelings aren't always relevant. Not being motivated is part of life. If something must be done motivation (or its lack) doesn't matter. Sometimes the suck must be embraced, feelings be damned.

> Your remarks here strongly suggest my conclusion was spot on.

I believe it suggests what I said in the comment above: you're putting the onus on women to "know what works" instead of on men/whoever.

> Your remarks here are simply convincing me that your ideology and mine are fundamentally incompatible.

That is why the world is in the state it's in.

But it is more or less what you said:

> [...] women need to know what works and what doesn't.

I think men and women need to not treat people as sex objects regardless of how they dress. Saying that "women need to know 'what works'" is precisely victim-blaming, because it puts the onus on women, not men, to be responsible for men's behavior.

(Any genders above can be replaced with any other gender classification; it's irrelevant to the point.)

If it's necessary then motivation is irrelevant. You don't have to be motivated, you have to work.

Your problem isn't motivation, it's not understanding that not all work is, or needs to be, pleasant, or intrinsically enjoyable.

Look at what your goal is: if the result isn't motivating, then the unpleasant work isn't the issue, rather your goal.

... By writing, like you said. It's no more complicated than that.

That you're asking this here leads me to believe there's some unknown (to me) internal resistance holding you back: start writing. Write some more. Then write some more.

You might be interested in books like "Bird by Bird" (Lamott) or "Do the Work" (Pressman) etc. (I've read BbyB a few times, and am re-reading/-listening to DtW again as I plow through some drudge work that's necessary, but irritating.)

Hrm.

I suppose it'd depend on the definitions of "great" and "work". Original moon shots? Latex? In general, once you reach a critical mass of code, it stops being "great" and starts being "mundane", because "mundane" works.

This brings back memories... One of the greatest heads-down hacking I did was back in the day, running some variant of Common Lisp, working myself through Koza's _Genetic Programming_ book. The designs arrived at were literally non-human. The story of the FPGA tone recognition circuit (spoiler: lot-specific design) was delightful.

That's redundant; all marketing is designed to manipulate the psyche of its targets.

Why would it go up more than 25% for 25% more hours? Did you mean the 22% you stated originally? If you work 25% more, you should make 25% more, seems pretty simple.

They do--they don't have a backspace key. But they mean backspace.

Yes, but not all keyboards have it (e.g., Apple) and you have to combo to get DEL.

Meh; I do freelance copy-editing and transcription, and I never use it.

The delete the character "before" the cursor; I'm not sure I understand the question. RTL languages still have forward and back, they're just RTL: it's still a backspace.

Re the larger question: historical. Never seen anybody with anything like it.

I'm not sure I'd use it very much; usually my mistakes are things I've just typed.

When they're not, I have to put my cursor near the error anyway, and if I'm doing that, I either put it in the right spot to backspace, or I'm performing larger-than-single-character-scale edits anyway).

If you're not directly profiting from the acquisition, then this is only barely a lateral move, with more work and responsibility (so not really lateral at all).

I would tread carefully: if it's a matter of the heart, that factors in, but: I would attempt to get guarantees from the acquirers before making the move in terms of work/life balance, length of engagement, etc.

It's more likely I'd take them on as a side client, charge per unit of work, but offer documentation and migration work for a (fairly large) fixed fee, and do that while you explore future gigs.

YMMV.

Without any analysis, this "seems" to be somewhat spurious.

TL;DR: Default RNGs aren't generally cryptographically random.

That said, the human mind is good at finding patterns where there aren't any, e.g., apophenia, pareidolia, etc.

It's supposed to set the time automatically?

AFAIK it just does NTP lookups. I don't know how often it's supposed to do that, IIRC there's a registry setting to set the poll interval. The time server used may impact functionality, e.g., the default MS time server may be timing out; you can try a NIST server.

Moving between time zones, don't know, hit or miss depending on various settings. Also, IIRC, it depends on your IP address, which is not always a good indicator of geography. Location services would need to be on as well (I think).

Updates may affect your settings, e.g., occasionally I've found my "update automatically" or whatever it is reset. I've never had to start the time service myself, but some people have, so that's something else to check.

Then you just need to read the chip docs and initialize "everything" to a reasonable state. There's not much to it beyond that--there's no generic process for doing that.

Loading an app from an SD card is likely harder than you think: it needs to be compiled/assembled correctly, you need to define where it starts, how it's linked, etc.

"Parse over the app executable for validity" is super-broad, and could mean just about anything. If you're trying to validate compiled programs, this will be difficult. If you're trying to validate byte-code programs (or something similar) it's significantly easier (or even unnecessary).

It'd probably be helpful if you were able to define specifically what you're trying to accomplish, and why an existing system doesn't meet your needs. While writing a trivial execution environment is really easy, writing a general-purpose OS is significantly more difficult.

I... am not sure what to say. Anybody can learn a language, especially if they already know any, relatively quickly. Teaching someone to think about how to solve problems is much, much harder.

I'd take someone who can think over someone who knows any given language any day of the week. Even in my preferred languages I still look up documentation and "how-tos", and that's not likely to ever change.

I don't care if someone knows everything in the JLS or is Java Certified. I do care if they can solve problems at a reasonable pace.

I'm not sure what you're actually looking for. It might help if you defined what you considered a "bootloader" to be. Are you trying to bring up an existing OS or app? Are you trying to initialize the processor prior to running your own code?