mceldeen

I practice a non-denominational version of Christianity that embraces a dispensational viewpoint. I regularly read from pretty much all parts of the Bible. However, the core of my reading involves reading 3 chapters a day: one from Romans-Galatians, one from Ephesians-Colossians, and one from Thessalonians on a constant loop. This is the foundation upon which I add readings from other parts of the Bible. I’ve been bringing in Genesis as of late. Most days, my wife and I do this together out loud. This practice is very grounding. I notice that it helps with my ADHD. I find it easier to organize my thoughts. I also find that I’m more patient with people in general.

I know a couple of people who are in the process of riding companies down, so to speak. They’re pretty close to retirement (if not already able to retire), they like their coworkers, and are comfortable where they’re at. They’re happy to man the ship as it slowly sinks. This might be the case for a good many IBM’ers on the “underperforming “ side.

I have always deeply deeply disliked non-compete clauses. The only thing that I could come up with is that it’s akin to indentured servitude. But this is much more eloquent way of putting it in language that the businesses and politicians would understand. Thank you.

Haskell family languages are something unique. I’ve never worked with Scala so I can’t say.

> IMHO, type-less provides some resiliency. If you write code for a "string" anything that satisfies "stringiness" will still run just fine.

Things like that are actually possible to do in a light weight way in FP languages and many of them are part of the stdlib. (PureScript happens to be my favorite example.) Many times it brings back the same feelings I had working in Ruby (which I also happen to love), but with the added confidence of a strong type system.

Category Theory might be a good fit for this. There’s even a category of morphisms (relationships). Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your comment.

This reminds me of the time that I tried to remove a little used feature of a product that I worked on. I could demonstrate that a total of four people had used the feature infrequently in the last year. It took forever to get the approval to remove it. I think that may also contribute to bureaucracy size. It’s next to impossible to remove something from the system as soon as it gets introduced. In other words, bureaucracy is monotonically increasing.

It almost sounds like reversible computing is immutability at the hardware level.

I think this talk is relevant https://youtu.be/lLnsi522LS8

I don't get the impression that GDPR will be well enforced against government agencies.

So what I'm hearing is "so big they had to fail".

I'd say it's at least on par with accounting and finance which are pretty ubiquitous in our society.

I personally never take out my phone DURING concerts. It's usually off so that I can save battery to call for an Uber when I'm done. However, I do occasionally use it to text friends to find them when I'm in the venue but before the event starts. This would completely prohibit that. More importantly, I like to rock out at concerts (halestorm, the pretty reckless, etc.). This would potentially discourage me from doing that, because I would be worried about that bulky bag popping out of my pocket and subsequently getting stepped on. This directly hurts my appreciation of their music and the event. I dislike this so much that I will boycott any artist who does this.