82 karma · joined May 1, 2022
Edit: not trying to derail what you had said either, just a comment
Not saying this is that, but just a thought and I’d be curious to see if this is a trend that continues.
Maybe to give a more obvious example:
“Do you like to play any shooters”
“Nah, I think shooters are stupid.”
This halt’s the conversation and reads as “I think the thing you like is stupid, and also now I want you to respond to that.”
If the goal was to continue the conversation, the same feeling could have been expressed conversationally as…
“I’m not really a fan of shooters tbh, I’m more into puzzle games.”
This does 2 things — it expresses your disinterest in the topic presented without insulting your conversational partners preference and it follows up with an offer of similar topic that might be of interest to the other so that they could respond like…
“Oh, I haven’t seen any good puzzle games lately! You have any recommendations?”
I don’t really think there is an exception to this rule. The reason for this is that responding negatively should imply you find the others opinion unsavory:
“This driver is so terrible, they must be Asian.”
“That’s racist.”
The reason that the negative disagreement is used here is not to continue the conversation; rather, it’s to let the other person know that you think their opinion is wrong/bad. (I’m not saying this is a good way to go about this conversation either, I just think it’s more obvious what effect the negative disagreement has on conversation.)
I’m curious what caused you to go down the route of transpiling? Do you think that this methodology will be a core facet of the architecture, and will it be able to be changed when rust gives you the tools you seemingly want? Do you think that the transpiling will be annoying to debug and update as rust continues to mature?
(Just be clear, I don’t mean literal website ads, I mean posts that advertise products and businesses, whether it be obvious or not.)
Edit: I can’t help but feel like I’m being trolled, so this is where the conversation ends.
Typically when something is confusing to me and I see nothing to grasp onto, it usually means something is flawed or poorly communicated. In other words, when no one can explain why something has utility (in everyday programming) and there are a fair number of responses, then the chance of bad communication goes down and bad reasonings (non-answers) goes up. I have a feeling it is not coincidence that you have the opinion it is not utilitarian in everyday programming and that I responded to your initial post.
Would I be correct in saying — there are less complex objects, which are defined in category theory, that are useful in a generic way in combination with one another?
If the answer to that question is yes, is there a place I look to find the mappings of these software topics/designs to these category theory objects such that I can compose them together without needing the underlying design? If that were the case, I could see the use in understanding category theory so that I could compose more modular and generically useful code.
I have to admit though, I’m still fairly speculative and my thinking on this is very abstract and probably very flawed.
However, as I started off with, I’m always willing to try something out or see the reason in something. Can anyone give me a practical applied way in which category theory is a benefit to your design rather than just creating higher level jargon to label your current design with?
I wouldn’t personalize your resume for any company, nor do I recommend writing a personalized cover letter for any of them — you have no idea the skill set that will be valued by the person reading the resume, as they are an unknown random variable. I feel it’s just a time waste and there is no proof that this sort of thing is fruitful.
Also fuck leetcode. I’ve refused to do the leetcode and still gotten the offer to do an interview without it. Imo, we should all show some backbone and stop accepting all this superstitious mumbo jumbo as the accepted form of recruitment.
Edit: After looking at your post history, I realize you just want to tell people they are wrong and you are smarter than them. Don’t bother responding, I don’t care what you have to say.
I will note that you addressed none of the points made in the article. My assumption is that either you feel the need to attack the authors conclusion, having no defense of your own, or you’ve foregone reading the text altogether.
Then 2 paragraphs in I run face first into a 5 meter high stainless steel marketing pitch. Wtf.