DavidWoof
In terms of "the tragedy of the commons", that outside incentive is usually public shaming in smaller communities, or rules and laws in larger and more anonymous communities. If you look at shared resources across history and cultures, you usually find communities enforce very strong outside incentives against spoiling the commons instead of just relying on the kindness of strangers.
And before someone says "but the Supreme Court overrules the states", no it doesn't. Many state courts have found that their state constitutions grant their citizens more rights than the US Constitution in various circumstances.
So he nailed a 13 second countdown. Who cares? Newscasters do this at every commercial break. Sports announcers do this without a script and they still nail the cut to commercial almost every time. Yes, there's a talent to timing your speech to a countdown in your ear, but it's a talent that people do thousands of times a day around the world on far less preparation than Burke had here.
The fact that this article calls a simple cut a "sleight of hand" just terrifies me. Does the public really not know what editing is?
It depends on the time frame you're talking about. Long-term SROs like boarding houses were absolutely affected in the 50s/70s by tenant rights laws. But they adapted. In the 70s/80s, SROs were still widespread in large cities except that they all had occupancy time limits (usually 60s days or so) to avoid tenancy laws. But people who relied on them could just move to a new one when the time limit came, so the market was still viable.
But then in the late 80s/early 90s they all got zoned away in the way this article talks about. It was really more NIMBY than reformer. Note that this time frame corresponds with the height of the US crime wave, and what was once a sketchy urban neighbor became the source of major neighborhood blight, especially as re-urbanization started up in the late 90s
The fact that you single out .reduce() here is really telling to me. .reduce() definitely has a learning curve to it, but once you're used to it the resulting code is generally much simpler and the immutability of it is much less error-prone. I personally expect JS devs to be on the far side of that learning curve, but there's always a debate about what it's reasonable to expect.
I clean my history so that intermediate commits make sense. Nobody reads these messages in a pull request, but when I run git blame on a bug six months later I want the commit message to tell me something other than "stopping for lunch".
> pedantically apply DRY to every situation or forcing others to TDD basic app
Sure, pedantically doing or forcing anything is bad, but in my experience, copy-paste coding with long methods and a lack of good testing is a far more common problem.
You may be 100% correct in your particular case, but in general if senior devs are complaining that your code is sloppy and under-tested, maybe they aren't just being pedantic.
IAW, there are no pure fast or slow thinkers, a lot of this is just how well have you internalized the background material. Having quick repartee in conversation has absolutely no relationship to immediately seeing what the loop variable should be in a programming problem. FizzBuzz isn't quickly solved by decent devs because they think faster, it's quickly solved because it's a trivial problem that doesn't require serious thinking for experienced devs.
When I'm programming for finance or medical, I often have to tell the PM "let's stop here and let me think about this for a day". Because it's not my field, it takes me a while to get my head around it. OTOH, there's very often algorithm conversations where I have to wait for others to catch up.
And I do wear these other hats sometimes. I think nothing of scripting a useful utility or cranking something out in R or VBA for a presentation. But when it comes to production code, I'll spend a lot of time trying to think of ways to reduce the amount of code required.
But it's two completely different philosophies regarding code, and unfortunately in some organizations AI is starting to blur the lines.
People don't really have that debate anymore outside of twitter casuals, and it's dismissed with a wave almost immediately in this article, which then goes on to examine the complex grammar of "try and".
Now, the important thing is offer a way to upgrade to a human. But I have no problem at all starting with AI, in fact I honestly prefer it.
But all the "ok, now add this feature..." stuff is just a sign that the interviewer is an insecure asshole. And you get insecure asshole interviewers in other professions as well, asking about obscure laws or diagnoses.
Software is still a bit of a craft, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask a job seeker on a construction site to go hammer a nail. But nobody is going to follow that up with a bunch of "OK, now do an L-joint" just to show off their own knowledge.
Obviously, there's going to be exceptions for large changes or big rewrites on the one hand, or for tiny label changes on the other hand.
PS. Reading the comments here, people seem to work in some pretty dysfunctional environments. Get the team together and establish some guidelines that everyone agrees on. Review time should be predictable, and the work should be reasonably shared.
Ob XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1414/
There's a lot of debate over the synoptic problem in the academy, but almost nobody doubts that the solution involves a literary source instead of an oral one.
I always think about using "clean up a pull request" as a fizzbuzz-ish screen in interviews. It just seems like a decent proxy for "do you care at all?".
It stuns me how many devs do this stuff manually, when virtually all editors/ides have ways of doing these things.
Sociology studies are such a joke.
AKA the lobbying group for plastic bag manufacturers, a group whose entire purpose is opposing plastic bag bans, quoted by the WSJ editorial board.
This is about as bad a source as one could possibly imagine.
Which... I largely don't care about. I understand why it's super important for academics, but in my book it's not a con or scam. It's accurate information. If somebody is giving me accurate information, the fact that they don't have correct citations isn't really a concern to me as a consumer of the data, and I absolutely don't put it in the same category as faking data or lying about results.
It never did. "Unit test" in programming has always had the meaning it does now: it's a test of a unit of code.
But "unit test" was originally used in electronics, and the meaning in electronics was a bit closer to what the author suggests. The author is being a bit fanciful (aka lying) by excluding this context and pretending that we all don't really understand what Kent Beck et. al. were talking about.
It's not. Accident is actually the older term. Cars have had accidents since their inception. Using the "crash" sound to refer to the accident itself didn't catch on until the 1940s (might be a war thing, I'm not sure).
Strictly speaking, you can't actually know the name of the interval until you see the written notes, although obviously you can make some educated guesses based on the standard practice of the music style.
He's being (purposely?)confusing here, but in context what he's saying is that you can't determine the names of intervals just by listening: i.e., you can't distinguish between an augmented fifth and a minor sixth just by listening to the two pitches.
> If you did this with any group of musicians
I think you mean any group of musicians in the modern western tradition. Not all traditions count the same way, or even treat numbers as a standard way of marking rhythm. I suspect that if you counted 1-2-3-4 to Sappho she'd just look at you funny and throw her lyre at you or something.
I'd like to be gracious and assume the author is using this weird phrasing to emphasize this universality of his points, but I honestly suspect he's being purposely obscure to emphasize his professorship.
Would you feel differently if he had edited the Wikipedia page for his subject to see which students used it as a study aid?
The equation of "you found this info on the Internet instead of in the approved course material and therefore you're cheating" doesn't seem completely solid to me.
Also, this is a nit but deterrence is usually considered to be about both the incarcerated individual and other citizens. Deterrence against re-committing the crime is an important part of incarceration, and I don't think it reasonably fits under rehabilitation.