chriscaruso

Just use VSCode

I see this as fine for the case where someone is saying "it's fine assemble in large groups" or other negative contradictions.

But it's not ok for cases where someone is advising being more restrictive or cautious or other positive contradictions.

I don't see why a well written library could not serve the same purpose. It seems like a lot of cruft. I doubt, for example, Python would ever consider adding this and it's the defacto language that would benefit the most from something like this - due to the existing tools and communities.

It just seems so narrow and not at the same level of abstraction that languages typically sit at. I could see the language supporting higher level functionality so a library could do this without a bunch of extra work (such as by some reflection).

The list was not compelling at all.

Great book, this is how I learned NNs

Cool stuff. Love people who are passionate enough to embark on a tenuous DIY journey!

I think the best is a loose structure with high level delivery times. Open office is great for engineers in teams of 5-8 people, which is ideal imo.

Open communication is always key. It should feel like a family. The manager/lead needs to be strong, decisive, and protect their people from all the politics.

Learning should always be an opportunity. Engineers should feel safe taking risks and making mistakes.

"Before we prove our code is correct, we need to know what is 'correct'. This means having some form of specification, or spec, for what the code should do, one where we can unambiguously say whether a specific output follows the spec"

What's the difference between the specification and code at that point? If it's that detail oriented, then isn't the chance of bugs in the specification at least as likely as being in code?

Seattle, Bellevue $80/month

Is Apple still there? Let's be realistic, it's a fraction of what it used to be. From a creative standpoint, it's catatonic.

SsangYong CCR-1 (1995) looks very similar to Teslas