zorga

Yes, it's much better code that solves all kinds of hidden problems in the second style. The second style seems ok to you, then you've not yet learned the benefits of abstraction nor of bottom up programming. It's easier to build simpler programs when you build them from many simple parts. It's easier to build parts if they do one thing. It's easier to test everything if they're all separate things. It's easier to reuse logic when they're separate things. It's easier to fix bugs when they're separate things. It's easier to separate implementation and interface, i.e. low level vs high level logic. It's easier to plug in alternate implementations when they're each separate things. That all adds up to being much easier to write, evolve, and grow a system using the first approach than with the second.

I think the generally understanding is that psychopaths are born, sociopaths are made.

Many of us aren't, haven't worked anywhere but home in nearly a decade; full time remote work is great.

I am the GP, I think I know what I meant better than you, which is why I clarified that in the comment you just replied to.

If you have a replica, you have two db's already as I've suggested. And no one said anything about uptime; the point was single point of failure, not uptime. When I said single master, I just meant a single db as opposed to a master/slave setup.

A single master db isn't sufficient for any production app; you should have no single points of failure and that includes having at a minimum 2 db's. Clustering isn't a what if scenario, it's a must have for any serious business, single points of failure are not acceptable.

You can't predict what the next great discovery will be, or where it'll come from. Generally however, they're on the theoretical side, not the experimental side, so your point doesn't really stand. Those big machines rarely do little more than confirm exiting theories and those theories can very well come from one person who is anti-social.

Science is about being right; not about getting along with your peers.

And one would be wrong. The current economy proves without high taxes, gains go to those at the top rather than the middle. The war created the demand, the taxes ensured the workers got the gains.

It took both, the above is why there were jobs; the taxation is why those jobs paid well rather than all that money going to just those at the top as it does today. High marginal taxes are a huge incentive to pay your workers better rather than just your executives.

That's not a golden age, that's a bad era of American history where industries were corrupt and dominated by monopolies, our best times were post WWII when our incomes taxes were the highest ever, that's what created the middle class and the American dream.

> but if you steel a few gallons of milk from your local supermarket then you're not depriving them of selling that particular brand of milk either.

You've deprived them from selling those specific gallons of milk to someone else and caused them a direct monetary loss. Conflating that with brand is intellectually dishonest.

> but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with them. Well you can, because it's extremely hard to regulate, but that frankly doesn't make it any better from a moral point of view.

Yes it does, it's hard to regulate because it's stupid precisely because you haven't actually deprived them of anything which makes it morally not wrong.

> if you could download and 3D print a car, risk free, you probably would steal it.

That wouldn't be theft, that would be making your own care. Theft necessarily involves depriving the person you stole something from of having it. It'd be theft if you downloaded the blueprint and then deleted it from their servers so you had the only remaining copy; that's theft. Copying is not theft.

> Host only original content of which you or your registered users are the declared copyright holders.

And what magic spell do you expect publishers to cast to distinguish the two when you allow users to post content? Do you have the faintest idea how absurd what you're saying is?

No I haven't...

> getting along with your peers is the most important thing

No it isn't, hence the yuk. Anyone who thinks getting along with your peers is more important than getting the science right, isn't someone I trust doing science. The most important thing is getting the science right, full stop, end of story.

Scientists who aren't climatologists have uninformed opinions about the climatology, aka the climate; they shouldn't be listened to just as you don't poll brain surgeons about the intricacies of heart surgery. Being a scientist doesn't make you qualified to speak on the climate, being a climatologist is what makes you qualified to speak on the climate. You don't ask climatologists about physics, and you don't ask physicists about the climate. If you don't have a PhD in the field, you don't belong in the big discussions where consequences matter.

So even if your story is true, those kids did exactly the right thing.

Regardless, the consensus that's bandied about comes from the IPC meta study of all published peer reviewed articles from climatologists; not from a few kids.

You've merely reinforced his point.

I understand, but science isn't supposed to make life easier, it's supposed to progress mankind's knowledge and that necessarily entails eliminating bad information from the body of knowledge. Avoiding challenging bad papers because someone you know wrote it and you're worried they might not like you for it; well, yuk.

Obviously, hence the word "too".

Wow, that's a clear sign science has become too political. Proving other scientists wrong used to be how careers were made, not something to fear.

Sure, but weather isn't climate and fluctuations over a 30 year period of the weather aren't indicative of the trends in climate.

That's an anecdote, not data; boomers were the hippy generation, that doesn't mean all of them were hippies.

> Bitcoin is piss poor cash

Agree, but I'm not promoting Bitcoin, I think it's poorly designed by someone who doesn't understand the properties of good money. Another crytpo with better properties will supersede it. It's the idea of crypto that's great, not the particular implementation of that idea called Bitcoin.

Once you know an trust a vendor, paying with cash will eventually be a few percent cheaper just as it often is as brick and mortar places sometimes when they offer cash discounts because they too don't like the fees the cards companies force on them.

It's not an either or scenario, it's a both scenario; you should have the option of cash or credit online, just like you do in the real world.

> That is, at least how I read it, a good developer -- with high-productivity tools -- nets about 20loc/day.

And I'm saying that's still a terrible measure and not accurate. LOC is simply not a valid statistic to even look at. It's an example of lying with statistics; you could take a thousand good developers and you'd probably find their LOC per day counts all over the board. The amount of code you write is not a measure of how good a developer you are whether it's high or low. That's not how you measure a good developer.

The OP is trying to say looking for high LOC counts are not a measure of a good developer, and he's right; but he's failed to realize yet that the metric itself is what's bad, not the values derived from it.

Good developers don't have to be highly productive, but they might be; what matters are the results of their efforts. Do they produce good programs, with few bugs, that age well over time, and are easy to change to adapting circumstances. Good developers write good code; some write more than others, but LOC tells you nothing about how good a developer is whether that number is high or low.

Like any writing, it's the quality of the code that matters, not the quantity. You cannot measure quality by looking at quantity.

That's pretty much what every local bar is. Have you never seen Cheers... that's what bars are. That's what being a regular is. The other regulars become your friends.

You just described a bar.

> Market dominance is absolutely a fair argument for something being preferred by consumers,

It absolutely is not when you're discussing a new technology most consumers don't understand yet or have never used.

> unless if you’re going to allege fraud or assert that everyone is dumb.

False dichotomy, it's a new technology, most people simply haven't had the chance to use it yet and don't understand it yet.

> As an aside, we have internet money. They’re called credit cards and debit cards

Those aren't the money I'm referring to, those are 3rd party verified trust you'll get paid systems, money is cash, and doesn't require a 3rd party to be trusted to pay you.

> What I have yet to see is an actual explanation for how any proposed “internet money” is superior to my Visa without relying on any ideological claims.

It's pretty simple, the same reasons you might want to use cash in the real world rather than credit. When you pay for something with cash, you're not at risk of that vendor taking more than you give him, you don't have to trust him. When you give a vendor a credit card, you're always at risk of fraud, a debit card... you might lose all your cash and you can't dispute those charges, it's not a credit card. Both of those also require the 3rd party to profit, so they charge extra fees. Cash typically has no extra fees (internet cash will, but they should be way lower than cc fees).

Beyond that, you need to step outside yourself a bit and be aware of your privilege, much of the world doesn't have access to credit cards and debit cards or even banks. Internet cash is a way for them to join the online world. If you can't get past your first world privilege, you'll never understand.

There's no ideology here, I don't think Bitcoin is the right mix of features for a good Internet cash, but Internet cash will come.

> A competent, experienced developer should produce about 20 lines of code per day, on average, to have any hope for a decent code quality.

That's simply measuring the wrong thing altogether. Lines of code per day produced is simply not a valid metric at all. It's just a bad metric period no matter what number you put on it. You cannot measure the quality of a dev by the lines of code he produces, at all.

Solid point, thanks for the additional context.

> The counter to your argument is that widespread use of existing payment methods means the market prefers them.

That's not a valid argument. The market always prefers what "is" until a critical mass understands benefits of a new technology. The existing credit system was not designed for today's world, is pull based, and is rife with fraud on both the merchant and the consumer side. Merchants absolutely despise credit cards, we can't wait for something better to be invented.

The market preferred horses when cars were first invented; it takes time for new technology to penetrate. Internet cash will be a thing, Bitcoin might not be the successful implementation of that thing, but that thing's time will come.

Credit card companies are despised by merchants.

Those aren't free, they drive up prices by a few percent and frankly fraud only matters for large transactions and/or untrusted merchants. Bitcoin is cash, not credit, and avoiding 2-3% of fees tacked on by credit card companies is more than enough reason to want internet cash for purchases where you're not concerned with fraud.