throw-qqqqq

1) Asking five years apart only confirms if the bias is stable/changing. It doesn’t correct anything.

2) Asking more people gives you an answer closer to the ‘truth’ (i.e. the true population mean; the mean answer if you asked ‘everyone’). It lowers sample error, not directional bias.

I would be careful with trusting the answers to those questions.

People remember things to be more positive than they were. This is an established bias in human psychology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosy_retrospection

Sure, I see that point.

I replied as I did, because lukeify implied that lack of ownership is

> one of the primary reasons I can never get interested in contributing to open source

To be fair, it is often a thankless job to contribute, especially if the project is popular (and thus get lots of low-quality PRs).

Patience and persistence helps, but it can be daunting IMO

I think of it as expressions vs statements, but I think we agree.

Lexing for tokenization -> recursive descent for statements -> Pratt parsing for expressions.

S-Expressions and prefix-notation are so easy to work with (compared to in-fix IMO), because the precedence is explicit.

Doesn’t this also apply to closed source software, but with the extra downsides that you can’t fork it etc.?

I contribute to open source software because it improves stuff I use and/or care about.

It seems too pessimistic, IMO, to abstain because things could potentially change to the worse, sometime in the future.

For me, the win is that a Pratt parser is more data-driven.

It’s easy to look at a table or map of operators and their precedence and convince myself that it’s correct. A recursive descent parser needs to be very clearly structured to have similar clarity, IMO.

You can easily combine Pratt parsing with recursive descent, using the Pratt part only for expressions. FWIW, this is my favorite approach for parsing C.

Assuming we have limited time (i.e. that there is a deadline, a “point of no return”) and money to move out of fossil fuels, it makes sense to aim for the cheapest energy source, to optimize the probability of getting there before it’s too late.

So IMO we don’t need all the expensive options, when the cheap ones are already viable.

Sure, but in most (all?) financial settings, this would still count as exposure.

It doesn’t matter if I bet $N on something using cash or margin, my exposure is still $N.

Since you can’t have unlimited exposure, this would still lock up capital, until the bet can be resolved.

4

I try to manually manage as much of the context as possible. Most of the time, I limit myself to a context window of 200k, and it works great for my use cases.

Nice “chiptune version” of Das Model by Kraftwerk!

I agree with you in principle, but also you can’t fight all the battles singlehandedly :(

One man’s privilege; another man’s punishment :D

I absolutely cannot take that smell.

It’s pretty common in Sweden and not too expensive. I bought from ICA last time I tried it.

Plenty of places ship internationally AFAICT

https://swedishgoods.co.uk/shop/ <- this one for instance

This.

I recently switched, but at my previous job, the PMs (who would typically do most of this work) got so overworked after AI took hold, that they’ve doubled the PM-to-dev ratios on all (the productive) teams.

I have read about this in other companies as well. Some teams in Google have a PM pr dev, I hear.

Where I work now, sh*t gets done MUCH quicker with AI, and to a higher quality as well.

IMO, if you work with software and can’t get a meaningful boost out of AI, I think you’re doing something wrong.

Whoah, I’m blown away! Did not know this technology existed. Thanks for sharing, TIL

> At project level, then it's purely functional.

Calling C a functional language because you’re able to manually emulate one feature that functional languages give you automatically, is like claiming C is a garbage collected language because ‘at the project level’ you remember to call free().

I can’t follow or understand your japan/crypto analogy, I’m sorry.

Sure, I agree that you can write C in a functional style, but you wrote that C was a functional language.

> C in indeed a functional language […]

… which it isn’t, it’s imperative ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

FWIW I agree with that perspective and think it is a quite common one.

There are no authoritative definition AFAIK, but this is a way too coarse definition to qualify for me at least.

I think many equate FP with referential transparency, garbage collection, first class functions/closures. But usually it’s a sort of mix of all the above or opt-in. Standard ML makes it easy to mutate state for instance.

C is by no means a functional language. It is perhaps the definition of imperative; the poster child.

> C in indeed a functional language in that most C projects are things that have been observed in real life and have subsequently been uploaded into computers.

I don’t think you share the same understanding of functional as TFA uses.

Not functional as in “working”/functioning. Functional is meant here as in functional programming, the paradigm.

In my youth, people would quit Windows 3.1 to run games in DOS, because the overhead of the OS was too much.

Don’t know if that could be an explanation.

This made me laugh! :D

You have a good point.

To me, this says something about the level of expertise they offer.

I’m a senior developer, I use Claude every day and am amazed at the quality.

But I also see the shit that comes out of Claude when some colleagues, who were poor engineers to begin with, drive the AI.

It’s not just about the model IME. How it is used, really makes a difference.

I think this is a big part of the answer: the human driver brings judgement and taste (IME, YMMV)

Yeah I could imagine!

Personally, I don’t care and it’s nothing I would find “wince-inducing”. Just thought I’d give an answer to your question :)

> Can you explain for the rest of us the problem with this usage?

> Many other countries

Which countries are you thinking of?

I only know of Finland and Norway (and in some states of Germany) where this is true.

Enormity has two meanings:

- great magnitude/size/scale of something - wickedness, evil, atrocity

Purists insist on the second meaning only, and will perhaps suggest you swap with ‘enormousness’ instead.

You are not banned FYI

This is true, but I want to add that FODMAPs are not inherently bad for you (unless you have something like IBS), on the contrary!

Fermentable carbohydrates are prebiotics and feed your gut flora, which produces short-chain fatty acids that are healthy for you.

But yes, you also get gas from FODMAPs. And no, I am not advocating for processed foods - just wanted to comment on the FODMAP aspect.

I know no mentally healthy people who wash hands ~32 times daily (16hours awake) - except if you work in a kitchen or as a doctor etc.

For office work, it sounds excessive to me.

I think most people only wash their hands after toilet visits and perhaps before eating (many don’t).

Are you kidding/trolling? The P=NP problem is FAR more fundamental, and if proven true, would basically be a proof that e.g. public key crypto can be broken (NOT a description of how to though).

Basically, it would be a proof that all the REALLY hard (combinatorial) problems out there, have a much simpler solution, if we were able to find it.

EDIT:

NS is used daily in engineering and gas/fluid modeling. We sort of “know it works”. The smoothness proof is “just” formalizing what practitioners assume is true (very coarsely said, no intention to diminish the result!)

It’s a bit like the Collatz function IMO, empirical evidence isn’t proof, but we’ve got a huge amount of evidence for the behavior we’re trying to prove.

I believe P vs NP is a different beast entirely. We don’t even know which way the answer should go.