sebastialonso

> Ask questions > When showed different opinion, complains like a bitch

HN is very cesspool-ly indeed

Uh, so you Brits have this kind of chaps too?

Honestly expanding this point for the joy of debating.

Granted, grandparent comment used _charged_ words. Let's rephrase: labor is used to ultimately provide owners more money than they put in.

Is that not a fair assesment of the real world? Who starts a company to lose money? Who starts a company solely for "creating jobs"?

What exactly is the beef with grandparent comment? Is it just the negatively charged words? It's the rephrased version beef-inducing as well?

This is the way. If the C-suite idiocy is inevitable, as I believe it is, the more moral thing to do is to take advantage of such idiocy.

I believe this provision already exists in screen media. That's why you get some awful movies, like 2015's Fantastic Four.

Catch is perhaps a strong word. Trade-off would be more accurate.

Every action in the known universe (and surely in some unknown ones too) results in a trade-off. This is maybe the only precept on software architecture that doesn't "depends" on anything and is closer to natural law.

The only correct answer to the question asked is "I don't know the context, I need more information". Anything else is being a bad engineer.

Man, more than two decades of open source and people still don't understand what free as I'm freedom means. It's depressing.

If this is correct, which I partially believe it is, it's even worse.

It's not measuring the "useful" kind of stress, like when you're on-call or in active incident handling.

It's just measuring how you approach problem solving and coding while being judged and looked at, on the spot, which is *hardly* a common scenario in real life!

Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd. The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match.

As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths.

Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.

Another misconception I'd say.

"Time is not a thing in math" is not understanding what math is. Time is another ideal object following certain rules under a given domain. Programming is coming up with objects of different size, with different characteristics, with interact at different points in time, i.e. following certain rules.

Got it, thanks for the reply

A lot of people in this type of threads always makes the same mistake: confusing what math is with branches of math, or rather, ways in which math is used. The way the education system is built certainly contributes to this.

I've always found the car metaphor to work very good to understand this: A car is a machine that can transport itself to point A to B (some other rules apply). There are different types of cars, but you certainly haven't understood the definition of you say that something is not a car because is not a Volvo, or because it doesn't look like a Ford, when it's clearly able to transport itself.

Math is the study of ideal objects and the way they behave or are related to each others. We have many branches of mathematics because people have invented so many objects and rules to play with them. Programming is nothing if not this very definition. The fact that you don't have to "use math" when programming is not really addressing the point, it's like saying a car is not a car because it has no discernible brand.

Is it possible your mental model of what CS is more aligned with software engineering rather than actual CS? Could you share some examples of what you consider to be CS but lacks any mathematical relation?

I agree is not a useful grouping in practice. I'm just interested in what makes you think like you do.

You read it right. There's no contradiction. The famous original bit started with "a man and his son". This bit is certainly part of the LLM's training corpus, so it's expected to acknowledg it when you mention it.

The thing is, you didn't mention that bit to the LLM. You mentioned a completely different scenario, basically two persons who happen to be cousins. But you used the same style when presenting it. The issue is not a hidden contradiction or a riddle, the issue is that the LLM completely ignored the logical consequences of the scenario you presented.

It's like asking it about the name of the brave greek hero in the battle where the famous Trojan Cow was present. If you get "Achilles" is obviously wrong, there was never a Trojan Cow to begin with!

Yes, because it's not intractable. It's just a good definition and statement of the problem. Without that, you can even being thinking about solutions or make sensible assessments.

Sharks are not vicious killing machines. Hungry and aggressive instances of sharks are killing machines.

But you're also using "social media" a shorthand for "algorithmic-based attention-maximizing recommendation machine". That's the current implementation of the bigger and most impactful social networks.

Networks that don't work with that model, tend to be much more wholesome. And they work.

Please supply sources for this outrageous claim.

This is an outstanding resource, thanks!

Agree with the spirit of the argument, but I disagree about the bad design. BCrypt has its trade-offs, you are expected to know how to use it when using it, specially if by choice.

It's like complaining about how dangerous an axe is because it's super sharp. You don't complain, you just don't grab the blade section, you grab it by the handle. And

Can't believe the answers you're getting. The answer's a big fat NO. If you find yourself in that situation, there's something very incorrect with your design.

Thanks a lot!

Related to the subject, can anyone recommend a book about timezones? Not a technical, programming book, but one with the history of time zones and curious use cases?

Point 3 is dishonest, imo.

jj has no evidence today to support the idea that it will be a main tool in the future. An even heavier burden of proof comes from the idea that it could be adopted by mainstream forges, so it's certainly not an argument on how jj is better than git.

Interesting topic! Completely disagree with his take though.

> The centrality of computing stems from the fact that it is a technology that has been changing the world for the past 80 years, ever since the British used early computing to change the tide of war in World War II.

I take issue with the idea hinted at here. Just like Algebra and other branches of mathematics were invented to deal with daily down-to-earth issues like accounting or farming, you'd be hard pressed to find a consensus that mathematics "aims to explain the real world".

The historical origin is very clear, but the train left the "real world" station pretty fast, "unreasonable effectiveness" notwithstanding. Am I to understand that because Enigma was broken using a physical machine, the field is bound to study physical reality? To me this feels as uncomfortable as to refer to astronomy as "telescope studies".

> I believe that thinking of TCS as a branch of mathematics is harmful to the discipline. [...] > Theories that fail at this “explain/predict” task would ultimately be discarded. Analogously, I’d argue that the role of TCS is to explain/predict real-life computing

Yeah, if you hired me to design harmful approaches, not in a year I would have come up with something as harmful as this.

I can't stop thinking parent comment is ChatGPT output

I don't think that's the point of the article, happy to read the reasoning used to get to that conclusion.

To me the point is not concerned with usefulness, is with reliability. You could get correct answers out of the agent, but how often do you get correct data versus gibberish? It's an extremely important metric to consider, and it's the same reason you wouldn't hop into a self-driving car in the real world if it can drive flawlessly in a straight line, but once every three intersections turns the wrong way.

To be fair, that's tremendous

Wow the way this is presented is super confusing, to the point that your description includes a contradiction. Specifically, of a year is divisible by 400 it's also divisible by 100, so it's both a leap year and not leap year!

Instead of showing rules as a linear list, I'd suggest it's easier to visualise it as a tree, or simpler still, as a series of nested ifs.

But is this a practical argument in any sense of the word? Don't have a reason to think you're a bad person, but if I abandon you in an island with weaker people, there's a high chance you'll end up eating them to survive. But you're not a bag person. In other words, there's a limit of what you can do in any context, and those limits are imposed by the context.

Maybe it's easier to stop projecting our ideas of what "ought to be" into entities who inhabit a system in which those ideas don't have value, like for-profit businesses, no?