atx42

On the other hand, I find most frameworks don't allow for DRY. The typical case is making a 40 char DB field, and then having to code a check in the payload to ensure field is 40 chars. I've wondered if any system has achieved such enlightenment.

I'm similar, I find (instrumental) Jazz works, although it's generally not my first choice of genre.

I'll claim the only universal truth in programming as in anything is: "moderation", and it's corollary, "there is no silver bullet". They are all rules of thumb, and knowing when to apply them is the most important aspect of rules.

In this case, unit tests are a very reasonable place to "repeat yourself", so you don't have to figure out what it's actually doing. Seeing the code all in place makes life easier.

If you've read the book, the movie is a supreme disappointment. Such good stuff in the book that disappears in the movie.

I don't think they did real world testing on the "improved" ones. I'd say it's obvious the number thirty could use a degree sign after it, but making it smaller and putting a box around it instead of in water, makes zero sense to me.

My take is we were asking the wrong questions, and now we know that, so hopefully we can figure out the right questions.

Always upvote articles that imply Agile can be lacking. Really, meta-processes are the way to go, and can be defined by checklists. E.g. For this effort, will documentation be helpful? check yes/no. Then you aren't blindly just doing stuff because it is or is not part of the process. The process itself is configurable.

I'd think the Keystone pipeline would have been the lesser of the two evils.

Don't worry, they will just ask their next interview candidate and then they'll have the solution.

It means they just need to solve the "halting problem" first and then transactions can get back to normal.

Replace "consciousness" with "gobbledygook". Does it exist? Can you get closer to it? Can't apply science to it.

I think you are saying we have a rough idea what it means, but then it's a sliding scale as far as ability to get closer to it.

I think consciousness probably requires pleasure/pain, and no, just setting negative/positive values in training does not mean pleasure/pain is involved.

The best a neural network could is pretend it is conscious (I'd have no trouble turning it off). Would artificial consciousness be useful outside of some kind of companionship app (eg. replace my dog)?

My quick take on "gifted" programs. * These are really supposed to be for kids that learn differently, not necessarily "smarter". * The percentage of kids in these programs is higher than should be expected. * The number of kids that happen to have teacher parents or some possible inside track seems high.

I think people hear "gifted" and think they are being left out, but that's not supposed to be the case. Sort of the difference between classroom and home school, sometimes one works better for a kid than the other, not that one is necessarily better than the other.

Interesting. I guess it gets back to "first cause" argument. If life is organizational, does it require an organized process to form.

Isn't metaphysics the only thing we have to figure out how we got here? Provable or not? Even science agrees that there are true statements that are not provable.

Wouldn't the Big Bang represent a much higher level of entropy than now?

Does reversing time makes it "easier" to get life, than the current direction?

I've wondered why we don't just assume the arrow of time was reversed in the past? We know that in the past the universe was more organized (had less entropy), so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch from believing entropy started out that way. Wouldn't that make it easier things like life to form, etc. and simpler than reaching for alien life / multiverse theories? Or does it make it just as difficult? Just a lazy armchair physicist here, but maybe evening TO morning was the first day?

I think Go and Angular should have died, and would already be footnotes in programming history if they had not been introduced by Google. Let's make procedural programming great again? I get it, you can compile it and it has concurrency, but there's better alternatives in my mind, unfortunately not as popular.

Thanks, I didn't know there was a name for it. But every single code example out there is an anti-pattern to this as far as I've seen.

Why do we organize by shape, and not by function in our monoliths? We put all our controllers in a package, all our DB accessors in another package, all our "data objects" in another package. Even in OO languages like Java where we have package accessors that never get used because we layout our code such that package scope can never be used. We instead layout the code according to "shape".

When figuring out what to spin-off as a microservice, we do this by functionality. Why not just make it easier in the monolith and organize by functionality instead? Let's act like 4yr olds, not 3yr olds: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12090481/

I disagree. If you are able to merge them you spent the work to originally have them split. So more work to start with microservices. It goes back to agile, the easy solution is have a monolith and figure out later how it can be well-split.

I find it bizarre that anyone familiar with software development would think this is a good idea.

I mean if gov't creates a useful API (eg. weather), or creates some reusable useful module (eg. something like hibernate), that would be nice. But, just generally publishing everything? REALLY BAD IDEA.

I think it's called a toll road. Around me they are owned by some French company.

Exactly! Where do you draw the line? Does CIA/NSA have to drop their shorts?

Actually, it's going with the wind, but faster than the wind. Veritasium also has a video of the dead fish going upstream though.

From the wiki source, my inference is that the tunnel is at least 4 inches long if he was able to line it with 4x4 boards... But aren't 4x4 boards typically called "posts"? I'm amused by how poorly Time reported this.

The entry on Seymour Cray is disappointing. An "8ft x 4ft" tunnel? What does that even mean? I thought tunnels are 3D.

Was thinking the same thing. It would also predict that animals with higher body fat would have less burials as well. Not sure if that could be checked.

Also, not an expert, but I'd think that would stop after one is dead? Although some differing (male/female) chemistry at death could come into play.

It does seem like some sort of survivorship basis, either before death or after (heh - after death sounds like an oxymoron). Females have more fat (?) and might float better in a flood keeping them clear of the burial material longer. Maybe females are just more adept to dig themselves out of the burial material to live another day, or more like you say the physical or material matter somehow is better preserved after burial.