jrh206

I think they would have better success by actively seeking what they want, though, rather than expecting it to turn up at their doorstep.

Even in the conclusion quoted here, the author says "I think it's quite a compliment". As if when you first hear the term "girl code", you're supposed to think "ew", and the author is there to convince you otherwise.

Why not just call it neat or organised instead? Using a gendered term does nothing but appeal to stereotypes and solidify them.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. But I think this criticism could have been phrased more constructively.

For instance, 'Most of What You Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People' is a perfectly fine article in isolation, but to bring it up in direct response to an article is tantamount to calling the author insane.

For instance, it's muscle memory for me (as a full time java dev) to define my instance fields as `private final` but most tutorials have theirs with default access. Similarly, it's typical for examples to use classes like `NumberFns`, which I wouldn't like to see in real java code. Tests are nowhere to be seen (although to be fair, they're not in this video either).

The tutorials that are accurate tend to have such low production value (e.g. not scripted, too long, constant buzzing sound) that youtube either buries the videos, or they are not worth watching.

With these videos, I'm hoping to create a set of resources that people can use to learn java concepts, without teaching them bad habits.

I eventually search for 'business' on the LibreOffice website, and found this article: https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-in-business...

Now I see that this article is linked in the 'Download' menu.

Even being on this page, it's not clear what they want me to do (unless I read the whole page, but c'mon).

I'm with you, if they want more people to use the Enterprise edition they need to do a better job of educating people that it exists.

Compare it to, e.g. Slack (https://app.slack.com/plans/T01JN93179R?geocode=en-gb) or Zoom (https://zoom.us/pricing)

Notwithstanding any accounting issues raised by worble, which I'm sure will be ironed out over time

Sure, Haskell's type system is nicer, and the error messages are, I'm sure, more helpful (although the Java/C++ ones make sense when you learn what they mean).

There is an example of domain modelling in Haskell:

    type Dollars = Int

    data CustomerInvoice = CustomerInvoice
        { invoiceNumber :: Int
        , amountDue     :: Dollars
        , tax           :: Dollars
        , billableItems :: [String]
        , status        :: InvoiceStatus
        , createdAt     :: UTCTime
        , dueDate       :: Day
        }

    data InvoiceStatus
        = Issued
        | Paid
        | Canceled

Quote:

  Modeling domain rules in the type system like this (e.g. the status of an invoice is either Issued, Paid, or Canceled) results in these rules getting enforced at compile time, as described in the earlier section on static typing. This is a much stronger set of guarantees than encoding similar rules in class methods, as one might do in an object oriented language that does not have sum types. With the type above, it becomes impossible to define CustomerInvoice that doesn’t have an amount due, for example. It’s also impossible to define a InvoiceStatus that is anything other than one of the three aforementioned values.

Other brief rebuttals:

  Haskell has a large number of mature, high-quality libraries

  Haskell enables domain-specific languages, which foster expressiveness and reduce boilerplate

  Haskell has a large community filled with smart and friendly people

But I agree

EDIT: In other words, if you know to hoover up the easy marks, you get a better score anyway.

Occasionally students get hung up on difficult questions, determined to solve them, losing time for the remaining questions. Yes, this is an anti-pattern, but it is a fact of life. By incorporating an impossible question, you waste the time of honest[1] students.

Some will recognise that the question is impossible and move on. Some with good exam technique will know not to get stuck on a problem they can't solve until they've had a go at all of the other questions.

But some honest and hard-working students will have got a worse grade than they deserved because of this stunt.

[1] Consider, as well, 'desperate' students - students who need a certain grade for some reason or another. Maybe this class isn't these students' priority, but they need to pass to be able to study the classes they love. An impossible question could drive these students to cheat, when they never would consider it otherwise[2][3].

[2] Consider the detail "about half the class left the room to use the bathroom during the test - far more than the usual".

[3] This bears resemblance to vigilante groups targeting peadophiles. I don't know what to make of that.

I'm not an expert, so I might be wrong (seriously, not sarcastically). I _think_ this is technically arbitrage even though you never complete the loop.

My gut instinct is that this is incorrect, too, but I don't know enough about surgery to make a compelling argument.

I'd back myself to pick up Ruby (a language I've never touched before) and be productive, more than I'd trust a surgeon who only has experience with heart surgery to operate on my brain. Maybe that's ignorant of me.

A billion is a number with two distinct definitions:

- 1,000,000,000, i.e. one thousand million, or 10^9, as defined on the short scale. This is now the meaning in both British and American English.

- 1,000,000,000,000, i.e. one million million, or 10^12, as defined on the long scale. This is one thousand times larger than the short scale billion, and equivalent to the short scale trillion. This is the historical meaning in English and the current use in many non-English-speaking countries where billion and trillion 10^18 maintain their long scale definitions.

Nevertheless almost everyone uses 1B = 10^9 for technical discussions

I think the counter updates should use functional updates, since they depend on the current state. My understanding is that this can lead to a potential race condition, although I'm not 100% on the details.

  setCounter(currentCounter => currentCounter + 1)

Interestingly your code is similar to some the first code in the basic 'into to hooks' section of the docs. Perhaps it's not a huge issue? Maybe somebody else who knows a bit more about React internals can chime in.

0. I have two sets of things, and I can perform operations on each set

1. These two things are the same size (this is your example)

2. If I do operation A on elements (a, b) in set A, then perform the isomorphism on the result, this gives me the same thing as if I performed the isomorphism on a and b independently then performed operation B on their result

3. The isomorphism has an inverse with the same properties

[There are various types of isomorphism depending on what part of maths you’re thinking about. But they all have roughly this idea of “same size” and “preserves something cool that I can do in each of the spaces”]

Of course the infrastructure costs money to maintain, and the people working there are paid.