mitchty

> I am mostly interested by gains in security, gains in maintainability, and gains in simplicity. Dynamic libraries reduce the number of parts that need to be managed, reducing overall complexity.

I'd argue they do no such thing, the complexity is still there, only now your users can upgrade libraries and potentially break your app in ways you never expected.

Lets take openssl as an example, i've seen upgrades of that break applications easily.

Your app should take any dependency change as a new version or patch upgrade. And if you're releasing a new version of the application, what gain did a library provide? About none.

I've seen it from both static and dynamic sides, I vastly prefer static binaries cons to the cons I've seen from dynamic libraries.

Indeed, and "much slower" is somewhat ambiguous as its a lot more nuanced than that based on what I've read so far. I know Firefox switched to clang+llvm for more reasons than just "binary size and program speed" alone.

Indeed, all that would do is make me walk out and say good luck with that tactic. I'll find somewhere else to work.

> Personally so far what I've seen working ok for us in human systems is to just have a talk with the person we are interviewing, see what his/her hobbies are and generally feel if he/she is a good fit.

Bingo. Thats basically our interview process. I could ask stupid technical gotchas but thats idiotic. Better to ask pointed questions like: oh you like to program micros on the side, if you've programmed SPI before tell me what your most fun debug session involving that entailed.

These questions tell me more than anything like fizzbuzz can. You dig into details as much/little as you need to based on the replies but I honestly think the people you want shine though with their stories, not their rote knowledge.

If someone started spouting off intentionally wrong things in an interview as stated in this comment tree, I would call it a day and say thanks for all the fish, but I'm not starting off having to rebut 2+2=5 for this company. Even if that is a tactic for discussion, lets just have the discussion, as it stands that just makes me not want to work there as now what is the day to day like? Do I have to prove the world isn't flat constantly? Better to not find out and look elsewhere, even the weird cs quizz jobs are better than trying to deal with those kind of dynamics.

Exactly, making the card is half of the trick to remembering. If you can’t commit to making your own materials you might as well forget about using things like this. Yes it’s harder, but no there is no shortcut for learning in life. Just like exercise you can’t fake doing the work.

Reminds me of that one quote attributed to everyone under the sun: Honesty, if you can fake that you've got it made.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/12/05/fake-honesty/

So like aluminum then.

> Vincent is in the lobby, do you want to meet them now?' Them who? Vincent and his unannounced friends? Maybe Vincent is actually 3 kids stacked on top of each other in a trench coat?

My them example was in reference to the parent's phrase, not a general prescriptive. And in your example, while them would be a bit odd, from context you can gather them refers to Vincent alone. If there were further people one would likely be saying Vincent and his children are in the lobby, do you want to meet them now? In either case, I was primarily referring to they.

> And what do you propose for all the languages where nouns and verbs and adjectives are gendered?

I don't. I was explaining they usage that a lot of english speakers seem to not be aware of. I agree with this linguist: https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/08/singular-they-prono...

Singular they works and has been used since the 1300's.

Say do you want to meet them? would work fine in this case.

> I cannot wait for the day that the US seriously revisits the farming subsidies and agricultural practices we've adopted.

As someone that grew up on a farm, can you explain why? And also explain why the practices, aka fallow fields, are incorrect? A lot of the subidies and practices we have in place today are direct results of things like the dust bowl.

> Surely there are better, healthier ways to grow food that are still economically viable.

Have you validated such assumptions? I can guarantee that large scale farming is a lot more nuanced than one can assume in an arm chair style.

Until you've seen what pests can do to a field that hasn't been treated with fertilizer or say herbicide, its really hard to understand why they get used. It is the difference between having a crop to sell, and going out of business and selling off your farm.

This black and white thinking that comes from people that haven't any experience in the chosen field is honestly more annoying. Should we improve? Sure, no farmer would disagree, but would you be ok with increasing your food costs by 5x? 10x? even more? These are the things you ultimately have to consider when you knock modern practices.

There is no free lunch (pun intended) if you ban modern practices. There is a good chance that requiring the things you want makes large scale farming impossible, and results in more people without food at all. I'm not sure that is an overall net positive.

Right but that seems to be the ultimate thing at question here not? Whether the ninth circuit's decision is correct.

I'll have to wait for this week in law to cover the case from a legal perspective, they're lawyers so they tend to have a more lawyery view of things and bring on experts in the field. There tends to be more nuance than most engineers tend to bring in "apple charging 30% is immoral" arguments.

> If you're trying to learn a language, you should learn the way children learn their first language: by speaking.

I respectfully disagree here. After using the methods/strategies in the Fluent Forever book/videos/etc... (of which SRS is but one), while this strategy will work, its ultimately a longer road than necessary.

Kids don't get the chance to learn any other way than by observation and learning what not to do by inference. They're also very willing to make mistakes to tune their understanding. Adults tend not to be, taking the kids learning strategy as an adult is both ignoring the fact that you can take advantage of being an adult that can take in information differently, AND can speak to natives in a more structured way to much more easily learn grammar.

You'll still need to practice with native speakers no doubt, but knowing/learning words based on their frequency in the target language is something that you as an adult can take advantage of that kids realistically have to infer.

Immersion is great, but isn't ultimately a realistic option for most adults.

I think this is their argument ultimately:

Apple has seized upon a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged instead of indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others. Part of the concern, the court said in that case, was to free judges from having to make complex calculations of damages.

I'm no lawyer either but that seems to generally be true of this case in that users shouldn't be the ones bringing cases but developers could by my read. But whatever we'll see what the court decides.

Still gated by the speed of light. It might be spooky action at a distance, but it will still take as long as light/gravity would take to observe.

Because females are the ones that bite and transmit malaria.

https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/mosquitoes/index.h...

Killing the males is pointless if your goal is preventing disease.

> It's all about tradeoffs, Android phones getting updates usually means the phone gets faster as opposed to ever closer to unusably slow.

You say this like it is unique to android, iOS 12 was basically the same. And I can say from friends experiences, its not always true for all android phones.

Yep, if we haven't observed it, it is effectively not happened.

Same as finally observing some of the first galaxies created after the big bang. Speed of light ~= speed of information. If we haven't seen indication of it directly or indirectly, its at best an inference.

> Consider this, does an electric vehicle have ANY emissions reducing equipment at all that one must maintain?

Yes, you need to keep it clean, drag affects all things equally, and dirty anything means more drag.

I'll snag that book then, thanks for the pointer! I'm semi-useful right now but every little bit helps.

Edit: neat, its on safari queue, i don't need to buy a thing (sorta.... ignore that I pay for this yearly)

> I am currently and avidly learning Rust. It's a steep learning curve

I'm (re)learning rust (last i used it was 3 years ago), after Haskell/Idris/Agda its really not that big of a deal I find.

My only annoyance is similar to what JAI is intending to accomplish, that is RAII resource cleanup like c++ does isn't always the best solution.

But other than that its fine, I'm championing using it in a new project at work and testing it out for embedded things at home.

I bought the 2018 mbp on day 1, so far zero issues with the keyboard.

Not definitive by any means but its all I can offer up to go on. YMMV but thats true of all hardware.

Ok so 2015 gets features added to it or would this instead be the 2018 edition?

> NLL will be enabled in Rust 2015 sometime early next year

Wouldn't that be 2019 not 2015?

> Language changes over time, you can’t use an outdated 18th century term to refer to the modern linguistic meaning of a term.

Thats just it though, science is natural philosophy. Doesn't get changed by modern terminology at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Your personal definition of science and philosophy don't override the overall usage of the terms. Feel free to encourage their use, but know those definitions aren't the overall accepted definitions in use.

> Philosophy is not science becase it does not work.

I'm slightly amused by this statement, as modern science is descended directly from philosophy. Indeed without philosophy, I could easily argue there is no science as we know it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

> I've no idea about BMW but if they did the design and someone else did the manufacture, then BMW would still be a car company; they would 'just' be designers and not manufacturers. What's wrong with that?

In a nutshell, it ignores modern reality. BMW isn't in the business of building ECU's, they leave that to Bosch. Similarly to how Airbus and Boeing both don't build their own APU's and buy/contract out the building of that to experts.

> So, if Apple make [all] their own hardware except the silicon then you could have answered the question rather than composing a strawman.

Strawman how? You've an absolutist view of manufacturing that no manufacturer could meet. I'm almost certain that any phone you have has an 8 bit micro that guaranteed wasn't designed or built by the people that put it in. Same as capacitors.

Apple designed their A series chips, their faceid stuff, touchid, security enclave, ac chargers, etc... They contracted out to someone else to build it and used other things like qualcomm LTE chips when there isn't much other choice. I work at a company that does the same for custom hardware as well. I'd be hard pressed to hear that we didn't "design" our own stuff.

> Yes, if BMW don't make their own electrical systems it makes them less of a car company. Is that controversial to you? It's supremely sensible for a company to buy expertise by outsourcing elements of manufacture of complex products IMO.

Is it controversial to me? Yes only in that you completely contradicted your own viewpoints in a single post. Your end is sensible, the start is not. Mostly as its not a very useful view of modern manufacturing. Lots of components are off the shelf from other companies. More than you might think.

Doesn't mean BMW isn't a car company, or Boeing isn't an aircraft company. It is no different than pulling in a shared library for xml or json parsing instead of rolling your own.

> You do realize that 99% of people feel cold in 40F.

Yes, I addressed that in my last sentence. You presume I don't feel the cold, I do, I've just learnt how to tolerate it. Buddhist monks can dry wet towels in -40 weather. The human body is rather more tolerant of cold than you might think.

Also, source on 99%?

I've gone for runs in -30 weather, its not that bad if you cover up your skin.

40-60F is short sleeve/shorts weather around here for me. Around freezing is when it starts getting fun to run.

Yes I'm an abberation but I didn't start out this way.

> I thought they were a design/branding company

A design/branding company that designs their own chips? Sure then they are a design company. A company that builds brands, also sure.

What proportion of hardware do they have to "make" themselves to be considered a hardware producer? Having TSMC fab silicon doesn't make Apple any less of a hardware company than BMW not being a car company because they buy ECU's from Bosch.

> Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem:

Sorry? I attacked your phrasing and logic, not YOU. Its like you're wanting to get angry at nothing.

I'm done here if you don't want to act civilized.