> Will you also complain when enough Waymo cars start running on the freeways that a couple of them in a row can effectively enforce following distances and speed limits, for example?
In my state, that would itself be a traffic violation, so yes I would. The leftmost lane on an interstate highway is reserved for passing. An autonomous vehicle cruising in that lane (regardless of speed) would therefore be programmed in a way that deliberately violates this law.
Enforcement is its own challenge, whether robots or humans.
Shell scripts are a byproduct of the shell existing. Generations of programmers have cut their teeth in CLI environments. Anything that made shell scripts "no longer a thing" would necessarily destroy the interactive environment, and sounds like a ladder-pull to the curiosity of future generations.
Chase Private Client refunds ATM fees too. It's especially nice if you live in a location where a substantial fraction of Chase ATMs and branches are shuttered!
Sibling reply notes the "process" is the problem, amd I would second that. I would also like to add, it's perfectly possible to produce a high quality code base with poor practices. This can happen with very small, expert teams. However, certain qualities become high-variance, which becomes a hazard over time.
The risk is anything else dropping your connection while an interactive long-running process is going. You can nohup, or run inside something like screen/tmux,
If TikTok didn't exist, wouldn't you expect those Pro-Palestine viewpoints to appear somewhere else? The whole thing is unverifiable because we have no test/control, but it seems implausible that the platform was the only avenue for this particular speech.
Why exclude indentation? A block of code that is indented say... 5 levels deep at 4 spaces is missing 20 columns. If that loss of space gives the developer discomfort, it sounds like a healthy reminder about complexity. Every level of nested scope is additional mental context of "global" state for a maintainer. There should be (reasonable) pressure on the author to refactor towards less indentation/nested scope.
He fell off the rails when Trump was running for office. I remember being really disappointed to see the trading observations (and his own product advertisement) replaced by political rants.
I think it's quite different. It involves money, but QE is all about monetary supply and interest rates alone. Buying entire companies comes with a lot more implications, like decision-making power over the organization. You want that for API keys, but do you want that across the board? Seems like regulation would be much cheaper.
> the government doesn't have to spend taxpayer money on countless r&d experiments
If you expect the government to make a tender offer on the largest market-cap companies, they sure as heck _are_ paying for r&d indirectly. And a lot more!
> Branches where there's enough history to be worth maintaining multiple commits should - 99% of the time - be separate PRs.
I appreciate that anyone saying this is probably already on the same wavelength as me, but I don't find this to be true for myself. Many times, complex application features end up represented as a series of related, but atomic/meaningful changesets. I want the pull request to make sense as a whole, but expect that code review or audits are easier to accomplish diff-by-diff.
I see it like building a recipe. I want to hide all of the false starts, sloppy mistakes, do-overs, and checkpoints, because they are useless from a historical standpoint. But I still may want to publish a sequence of changes that accomplishes something.
I can't speak for anyone else, but this can clearly be interpreted on a personal level. Every day I can do my best to influence public policy; but even if I am successful, a policy change takes time. In the meantime, I can decide whether I will wear a mask; but I cannot force any other person to wear a mask.
A perfectly efficient market is the asymptote, you would never actually reach it.
In any case, if everyone had an omniscient genie, then free will would clearly not exist the way we understand it. That doesn't sound like a fun world, regardless of financial markets!
I rented an electric car from Hertz out of necessity. They gave me NO information about this functionality, and in a new car UI my priorities were covering the basics for safe travel. This is not a realistic perspective, that EV-specific in-car features would provide help for an unfamiliar and weary traveler. That will change over time but it'll continue to be painful for now.
Ehhh I think labeling user input as backpressure, because the software is waiting for _input_, is somewhere between confusing and inaccurate. When I have seen backpressure discussed in my day job, it has always involved a (theoretical or real) slow consumer, and therefore some queue in front of that consumer. I agree that "networking" or not, is irrelevant.
> ... something more like how humans get along with dogs, cats, cattle, insects, or microbes?
There's some MASSIVE selection bias here. Note that we're significantly more capable than anything you listed. Where are the Neanderthals? They're all long dead, because they were credible competition but we were just better.
In a hypothetical scenario of superintelligent or supercapable AI imbued with some physical capability of force, we'd be the marginally weaker species before we hit the threshold of "pet".
A rebase to clean up your branch is great, and I lean on my team to do this. Unfortunately it's impossible to automate, because it amounts to craftsmanship. I've seen larger teams fall back to squash-merging, which at least discards checkpoint/broken/WIP commits. But it loses the nuance of more complex changes performed in logical stages.
It can be, but usually isn't. Similarly, dropping a feather and a bowling ball simultaneously might be science, or might not be. Did I make observations? Or am I just delivering some things to my friend at the bottom?
This really sounds like victim-blaming. The community is vulnerable to somebody publishing asinine modules, which should be addressed. However, this individual is still the perpetrator.
Why didn't the IT folks step in and provide the labor for the conversion? This helps them accomplish their goals. Tading desks love free labor. This shows a novel way in which cost centers can attribute their costs to lines of business. Finally, this demonstrates leadership and initiative by the IT department and heads--especially if they have to fight an uphill battle about IP, and they succeed in convincing the desk.
People in general should not be seriously forced to consider that a coworker will murder them, regardless of the power imbalance in the workplace. This is totally out of line.
> let's be honest, a lot of this oversight is probably a result of Knight Capital
Gray-box trading and humans in a control loop over automated trading have both been happening for decades. Knight Capital makes for a pretty spectacular example, but that's about it.