jmts

The claim 'the effect of random noise is to amplitude modulate' is probably not 100% correct, because to my understanding it's not actually performing modulation (the modulation happens at the transmitter but the noise happens between the transmitter and receiver), but it is impacting the amplitude at a given frequency and to a receiver this is impossible to know whether said change in amplitude happened before modulation (signal) or after modulation (noise).

I'm unsure of what the correct terminology would be, but (for my linear algebra brain) you could say something like, for FM the noise dimension is orthogonal to the signal dimension, while for AM the noise and signal dimensions are the same. Therefore for FM any change in amplitude in the noise dimension should be mostly isolated from the signal dimension, while it is essentially impossible to tell what is noise and what is signal for AM - you could probably do some radio equivalent of a differential pair in order to detect noise and remove it, but then why would you bother when FM has improved noise rejection anyway.

I'm almost inclined to call that one rider error. Their general body language and control of the bike don't suggest to me that they're an experienced rider, and it almost looks like they've just panic-braked and locked up the rear, except it's an odd speed and place to have done that too.

Consider the possibility that you order two laptops from your favourite computer store. When you order them, you customise one, then in the shopping cart you hit "+1" to order two of them, so for the purposes of this example they are functionally equivalent. When they arrive though, they have different serial numbers ABC, and XYZ. So then we start asking the question, are they equal?

One way of asking this question is "Do these two things perform the same function?" to which we can answer yes, ABC and XYZ perform the same function - this line of questioning treats the laptops as ValueObjects as described in the article - laptop ABC and laptop XYZ can be swapped for each other without concern about whether they will behave differently.

Another way of asking this question is what amounts to something closer to "Is this thing the one that I care about?". This line of questioning treats the laptops as ReferenceObjects. You've just received both laptops, taken them both out of the box, they're functionally identical except that you've decided that you want to use ABC for work stuff, and XYZ for personal stuff, and now you have some work stuff to do. You pick up one laptop and ask "Is this laptop ABC?" - not because the function of the laptops matter at this point, but now because of what they represent.

Both have their pros and cons (as described, ValueObjects are better when they are immutable, ReferenceObjects might tend to be more complex), and different languages make different choices about whether certain language primitives and standard objects/classes are implemented as ValueObjects or ReferenceObjects, but understanding them both conceptually allows you to write code that forces one kind of behaviour because that's what matters most for your chosen solution, independently of what the language you are writing it in has as its standard behaviour.

MTTR: Mean time to repair

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Sleep [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXflBZXAucQ

https://www.xkcd.com/327/

My read on it was that bauxite was new as a solid bulk cargo, not that bauxite itself was a new cargo in general. I know nothing of the industry however, so I'm not sure whether this is a legitimate interpretation or not.

The point here is that the general rule for human error should tend toward compassion, because the vast majority of mistakes people make are not that serious. In my world at least it seems that we prefer to tend toward punishment instead.

Avoiding judgement of those that have screwed up or have done something wrong, and simply working with them to correct it goes hand-in-hand with this. By the time someone admits they did something wrong, they already know what they did - by dwelling on that you're just wasting time and energy.

I wonder occasionally how many problems there are in the world that have become much bigger than they needed to be simply because the person who messed up knows the news won't be received well, so they keep their screw up hidden. Similarly, I wonder how effectively we teach children this kind of dishonesty by teaching them that honesty results in punishment.

The goal of code, however, is simply to communicate a process to a computer. Or rather, when that process is subject to change over time, to communicate a process to a computer, simply.

I would tend to disagree. Code is not about communicating with a computer. It is about communicating with humans. The computer does not care how the code is written - it is the humans that have difficulty with it. In a way, programming is the translation of a language that the computer understands into a form that humans can comprehend. Not so much the other way around. In this regard, clever is fine for a computer, but it is not always understandable to a human.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny

At the other end of the spectrum (low-tech but maybe considered home-improvement) would be Primitive Technology [2] - an Aussie that builds all manner of things from clay, sticks, vines, and fire.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/clickspring

[2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA

Consider when children make a mistake or do something silly - often they are chastised or punished rather than educated and forgiven. Because of this we learn to lie about, hide, or pretend to misremember mistakes in a bid to mitigate the punishment we know we're about to receive. Later in life we're remembered by the things we've done in the past, and if you've done something bad enough (or even just silly or ignorant) it'll hang over you like a shadow for the rest of your life. Even if you personally feel like you've grown and moved on, there is always the risk that someone will dig up your past and throw it at you. In the end we live in fear of our past and feel controlled by it and that makes it harder to look into the future to become the person we might like to be. Those with sufficiently unfortunate pasts are increasingly rejected by society so they have no alternative but to continue adding to their unfortunate past because the communities that contributed to their past are the only ones that accept them.

Personally accepting that the mistakes you make don't define you as a person can go a long way to freeing yourself from some of the burden, but culturally it still lingers. Ultimately though there is a huge difference between shoplifting when you were a dumb kid, and becoming a serial killer. The threshold for redemption clearly varies with the severity of the crime, however it seems to me that in many cases we simply reject any chance of redemption outright and this probably hurts us more in the long run than it needs to.