handojin

Magick in Theory and Practice

Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

Discipline and Punish

The Ethics

Beyond Good and Evil

The Gay Science

The Master and Margarita

The Prince

A Book of Five Rings

The Book of Changes

A Hero of our Times

At Swim Two Birds

   > There are a lot of things between aesthetics and domain
   > knowledge that are audit-able.

I don't disagree with you. The pertinent question is 'does anyone care'?

   > A lot of code bases you can walk into and see a million
   > n+1 queries right away and the architectural patterns
   > that lead to them. Another canary is the test
   > complexity that reveals various anti-patterns like
   > active record. Another is correct IOC usage, a lot of
   > code bases will use it for creating POCO objects for
   > example. These are all very common and quickly
   > discoverable.

Again, I don't disagree. You're right, possibly even corrrect. But we're talking business plans yes? So feel free to buy that expensive suit (or hire a beard) and see if you can explain these issues and why they matter to the people with the money.

"If dogs could talk, perhaps we would find it as hard to get along with them as we do with people."

So, this sort of devolves to economics, at least where I work. What I mean is, the people that pay for the code don't care and don't care to know. And this is entirely rational from their point of view. If it appears to work, it's good.

To audit the code accurately (as opposed to merely giving out aesthetic advice), in most cases would involve learning the domain, and this is what's expensive.

To the business folks, we're a black box. Stuff goes in, stuff comes out. And it costs. Paying someone else at least as much to prove that we did it according to 'best practice' (I think this is what you're suggesting?) would be anathema.

There might be a business there but it's not mass market.

It's probably also worth noting that all of the above applies to other domains too. Substitute 'code' for 'marketing' quality. In some real senses, die welt ist alles was der fall ist.

No offense - but if $5K is an issue for your employer, after a year of essential magic, you might have the wrong employer and they might have the wrong employee...

Lost. Old TV show. Netflix maybe?

www.logicblox.com is one but it's also commercial/closed source afaik.

I think the intent is clear for people with preexisting familiarity with the same ideas. A clojure dev with some datomic. I read declarative, set oriented, database of facts, pattern matching and thought 'the revenge of prolog then'.

This is really nice work. I mean this in the best possible way: I think I could teach my children to use this.

Does a SubGenius programmer use Slack?

cough M-x cua-mode cough...

Genuine Aussie sea salt...

Strictly, for knowledge, which isn't the same thing as truth.

Isn't it possible that science is, occasionally, the problem, not the solution?

What experiment would you perform? To falsify what hypothesis?

P.S. Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. Love you lots, kthxbye.

Learning is continuous, and year round. It's weird but it's almost like they come equipped with their own OS and don't need anything installed...

The AV system was messed up during the preso. Might be that.

No.

Managing down is easy. Managing up is hard. How you go depends on the problems you want to tackle.

Take a 15 minute break yourself. There's objective evidence that getting up and going walkabout every for fifteen minutes every hour or two is good for you. I mean, it's not like you stop working right? The break and the distance can really help.

If you happen to smoke (or are gregarious, or can pretend to be) you'll also meet everyone (for values implying a random distribution of all people working at your company from AP to exec) outside. You might be surprised what you can learn.

Is not possible. No context.

The Ethics?

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm

The 80s birthed the smiths. Their like has not been seen again.

There's a hiccup like syntax within reagent which produces output via clojurescript. So (:div (... )) in your cljs.core turns into a react component.

There's also kioo if you like the enlive approach better.

A thousand times yes. With a suitably rocking implementation (as outlined by other posters up/down of me) this would be a net benefit to everyone not just the deaf.

The number of people on this thread who think this is a zero sum game is just massively depressing.

EDIT: for clarity, removing rhetoricals

Strictly speaking it's not ad hominem. A careful reader will see that nowhere has (s)he called you a "spoiled petulant, self entitled child". You're merely being asked to explain your understanding of the meaning of a highly pejorative term which you introduced into the discourse.

You are arguing from an abstract position. The universities in question have already chosen to provide free educational resources and are now being sued to provide a reasonable accommodation to allow a subset of the population access to those resources under the aegis of the law.

Old joke:

A marxist economist meets a market economist at a conference. After listening to an exposition on Smith and Hayek he nods vigorously and says "Yes, yes! I know it works in fact but does it work in theory?"

I will take that bet, if you explain the odds you are offering.

The standard is reasonable accommodation. Having someone walk the soup to people unable to climb the steps might perhaps constitute reasonable accommodation and not be an undue burden on the soup kitchen (which we'll assume for the sake of argument to be the recipient of a federal grant).

The law is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

You seem angry and you are constructing a false dichotomy. No one is arguing that content should not be released, just that content, produced in institutions which are recipients of federal grants, should be made available to the widest possible audience.

What is the standard by which we define 'widest possible audience'? Reasonable accommodation.

Your argument reduces to a statement that it is better for Harvard and MIT to offer this content without making an accommodation for certain individuals (of class D), because:

a/it is unreasonable for them to do so

b/certain individuals (of class A) benefit

It's an interesting argument, but one you've introduced no facts in support of.

Why? To discuss the law 'as it should be' invites nothing but a cacophony of opinion. On what basis could such a conversation proceed?

If I were uncharitable, I would suggest that such a discussion would serve only one function: that is , to create a distraction from the law 'as is'.

I'd prefer to assume your intent is to understand or construct a notion of morality. In that spirit, I offer the following question:

What is just?

Nobody is making it impossible. People are asking (by means of the public courts, as is their right) for equal access to that knowledge.