nickbauman

The bitcoin network is much too slow for real economic behavior. I don't understand this, but then I've been ignoring bitcoin for a couple of years. Did they change the proof-of-work requirements? (If they did, they're just competing with other fiat currency)

Yes, Popper was the original on this thinking. Not Taleb. This is where the phrase "freedom requires we be intolerant of the intolerant"

I find that the complex syntax of Haskell is something I'll never be able to remember. There's so much implied in the syntax. Lisp is so much more readable and thinkable-inable because there's almost no syntax. No other language is as easy to think in. But I've never studied math beyond pre-calc.

Your design can look very good yet be seriously flawed when you actually write the code. Designs (blueprints) civil engineers use are based on many years of practice that are enshrined in engineering codes sometimes going back thousands of years. Key issues in the design like the way forces interplay, are amenable to mathematical analysis. The only checking we can do of UML-like diagrams and written "specs" is peer review. Not the same at all.

I don't really know what it was trying to accomplish. What needle is being moved here from a "personal computer" perspective?

For example: What I really want is an end to the laptop form factor altogether. Take an RPI4 form-factor with a projection keyboard and a flexible fabric display I can roll up into a map tube and a few cables. Now THAT would be a game changer.

The cube was a rehash of the NeXT Cube. Why do that again?

Much of this is captured extremely well in Fowler's The New Methodology.

https://martinfowler.com/articles/newMethodology.html

I think what you're talking about here is an "intention document" not a design document. Design is about planning. Which implies you define things in detail with steps and techniques. Intentions are about what you want to achieve. Very different.

This is something that should be taught to folks while they're still in school. The "blueprint analogy" has baked in the idea that there's a "design phase" and a "construction phase" and that these are often discreet parties.

Nothing could be more incorrect when it comes to software. In software, the design is the code. The compiler/interpreter are the construction of the system.

Kuhl has been doing this for years, but they chose a slightly higher place on the pantline than Bleckley did. Wonder why.

https://www.kuhl.com/kuhl/mens/pants/rydr-jean/

What about the unsung blacksmith of Japan who basically created a variant of Damascus Steel to make the swords for Samurai starting around 1100 AD?

I read somewhere, (I think it was USA Today, no less) that almost half adult children in the US have no meaningful contact with their parents. Many of them have parents who do not even know where their children live.

Maybe "Harvard is different" but a friend went back to school (Metro State U in MN) a few years ago to get his comp sci undergrad after practicing for over a decade professionally. They were trying out online learning for full time students for many intro and secondary classes for the major, saving only the most "keystone" classes for live lectures held weekly.

The key thing was they required the students to respond to three questions for each class for each of the five days of the work week and those were graded. He loved this and excelled at it. He didn't want to sit in a lecture hall. The vast majority of the undergrads hated this and often blew off the questions. Many of them failed. Some A students were getting Cs.

There was a revolt, the students were angry and they decided to ditch the online learning and go back to traditional classes...

OK so terminology: touchtype to me means that you learn the fingering the keyboard in a specific way. Not just that you can type by not looking at the keyboard. I can do that. I just never bothered with the "correct fingering".

Where's the datepicker?

All valid complaints. However when you look at how doctors deal with data and information tech they seem unable to innovate in that space. No medical establishment has the capability to make something like what Apple is doing. It just doesn't exist in that intellectual DNA. Furthermore, in my experience doctors are terrified of tech. They fear being replaced for some reason. I've seen it over and over.

(full disclosure, I've been working the the health sector for a while making new applications using Apple's HealthKit.)

What exactly improved?

You don't need to know how to touchtype. Programmers are not a glorified typing pool. Furthermore, my father† has worked every job there is in a world class news organization since entering adulthood and never learned to touchtype. He could type 140 WPM.

The problem with this argument is you're already compiling your JavaScript to JavaScript anyway. You already can't paste ES6 into the JS console. And don't even start if you're using JSX. I think the opposite: nobody should write JavaScript. You should write in any other language than JavaScript, there are hundreds to choose from. https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-langu...

It strikes me that I need to be a mathematician to use Haskell. Especially when someone like Rob Pike makes claims that "I cannot read the syntax of Haskell and understand it."

Bad language design, IMO. The language shouldn't make the writers in it worry about how to organize the code to speed up the compiler.

Often I do because that's what CI does. This is pretty normal.

But the point is having a different view of what compilation means in the developer's workflow as a language designer. Having the engineer have to think about how to organize the code for the compiler is bad design unless that organization is built into the compiler. The compiler should reject programs that are not organized for optimal compilation. And the organization required at least does not impede understanding of the code (best if it improves it). This is Go's design imprimatur and it's critically important to the success of Go.

FWIW, I see large Java projects compile small changes take minutes to compile, even using hot-reload tools.

Figwheel in Clojure is not like this, however: they're doing something right there.

Yeah how fast is that compiler? If it's just another compiled language (rather than the kind of wicked fast compiled language like Go), my enthusiasm will be dampened...

There's a deep problem of all these comparisons of economies with public health policies:

Markets and money are vehicles for making agreements. They are all about negotiation. They are imminently and manifold fungible. They are contrivances. A deadly virus is not.

Let's also not forget for every death from C19 there are a handful-dozen people who survive to lifelong health problems from the episode. That has a cost, too.

I think this is a great analogy. A friend is a pro flamenco guitarist; plays all over the world. He's so good that he doesn't really practice to "improve" anymore. He practices to protect his biomechanics by watching himself play in a mirror. He makes adjustments to his body placement so that he can keep playing for the rest of his life.

You should be able to revoke the leaver's shared key from the keyring and reencrypt the secrets?

I have used EJSON and putting everyone's public key in a single keyring. Works but the secrets and keys end up taking up a lot of space.

I prefer to use it as a rendering library only. That part is good. But much of the ecosystem is a mess. CRA, a fundamental piece, is a trainwreck. If you eject you can see how much focus on local simplicity has been implemented at the expense of global stability...

It would be better if it were expressed using Maven instead of Gradle because Gradle is just one more languaged-based build tool that rides on Maven.

I would change your assertion from "Java" to "JVM-hosted languages"