ByteJockey

My understanding is that was their model.

If you let teenagers pirate your product, they're already familiar with it by the time they get hired. When they get hired, the cost to re-train them on something else is more expensive than the license (at least, in the short term).

Thanks. I appreciate the link. I'll take a look after work.

> it's a net positive to have a technocratic state, deferring decision making to those with the technical skills to do it.

Deferring to the technical experts is great when you want to know how to do something.

Deferring to them when you're deciding what to do is not necessarily as good.

Y'know what, I'll bite. I can do 10-15 pages. You have a link?

Is there enough money to recoup investment if they don't get the average engineer churning out crud apps?

I mean, there probably is, but what kind of market penetration would this require if you are only going after the specialists?

Correct. I know plenty of enterprises that do not touch any of those, mostly because of their fear of not being able to find devs familiar with those languages.

As discussed elsewhere, it's possible niche might be a better term to describe what I'm talking about here than obscure.

Niche is fair. Basically, I'm trying to describe "not mainstream".

I agree with you. But I think it's a relatively niche position (by niche, I mean less than 1% of the population).

Fair, but I think the idea that everyone has to have the same schedule regardless of field of work (or even within the same field) isn't necessarily the best idea.

> Sure, but it was never said to be purely an identify verification process. There have always been other requirements

Yeah. That's what people are annoyed about. That wasn't twitter's public position.

A lot of people consider anything not in the tiobe top 10 to be esoteric (especially for the purposes of enterprise work).

Maybe obscure is a better word here?

My understanding is that they basically have.

If your ad spend is greater than ~$5k, you get a twitter liaison that can fast-track verification.

That still implies it isn't about identity verification.

It's still not instantaneous like `vim .` is. Also it leaves me outside of my terminal. I know, I know, just don't leave emacs, but that's not how I work.

I appreciate the tip about zile though. That looks cool.

I mention using doom in the last line of the comment you responded to.

But, yeah. I use it for the start up time/vim compatibility out of the box.

I mean. Emacs has the ability to do basically what vim does. Evil mode is really nice (though I can never get used the = register evaluating elisp instead of vimscript).

What kills me about emacs is the startup time. Breaks my flow when I'm jumping around and need to edit something quickly.

Though I'll admit that doom provides a very nice environment for when I want to play around with some lisp.

It's lisp on the jvm.

Do you have any good links for starting points?

I've always been interested in the subject, but articles that cover it competently are usually few and far between.

I don't think science education is going to help the particular problems we have. Understanding science doesn't change anything if you don't trust the institution running the experiments, and it's become very clear that a large percentage of the population doesn't trust the institutions we have.

If you build it right, sure. Some roman concrete structures are still standing, and we've had better concrete than them for at least 50-100 years.

That doesn't necessarily make building everything out of it good, but concrete can definitely last a long time.

Personally I trawl it (there's a couple of search engines) looking for the weird stuff from the early internet that's hard to find these days.

Is 90% of it crap? Sure, but 90% of everything is crap (sturgeon's law), and it feels less corporate than the current internet. Also people seem to be less angry (on average).

> Engineers aren’t allowed “one small fuckup” when building bridges and buildings. Doctors aren’t allowed “one small fuckup” in the OR or when calculating dosages. These mistakes are grave and should be costly. Pilots aren’t allowed small fuckups when flying planes.

That's BS and you know it. Any system that relies on humans being perfect fails rather quickly.

While major incompetence is generally punished, all of those systems you describe have ways built in to deal with routine human failures.

2007 implies right before the 2008 recession where housing prices tanked.

In 2007 people were panic buying houses because they thought that if they didn't buy right now, they'd never be able to afford to buy a house.

I would, personally, call something I've already signed for "something that I bought", not "something I'm planning on buying".

But maybe that's not standard in the business sphere.

> ...expects $240M to $265M in losses for homes they plan to buy in Q4

This part of the sentence blows my mind.

We plan to do this thing. It's going to lose a bunch of money. And they're still going to do the thing...

> Why don't you think it's simply an issue of many people who go through CS programs failing to master the material?

That's still a problem with CS programs. They're passing people who haven't learned the material.

There's a big difference between being mad at this particular incident and demanding 100% perfection.

Dealing with a normal mistake isn't a problem because I can just opt out. They removed that ability here.

The best experience I ever had with js was on an api that didn't use anything special.

No typescript. No import syntax. Nothing extra.

It was magical. The entire build stage was npm install && node app.js

Admittedly, once or twice a quarter, we'd update the dependencies and we'd spend a few hours fighting it, but the rest of the time it just worked.

Over 2000, actually.

The the problem of evil, as originally stated by Epicurus (assuming he was the original formulator) has always been weird to me. Dude was in an era where believe in multiple gods was fairly common. In addition, these gods were not generally portrayed as the combo of omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient at the same time that makes this an actual problem.

Don't get me wrong. Huge problem for followers of Abrahamic religions, but not really a big deal for someone in ancient Greece.

My understanding is that since Africa is connected to Europe by either land or a very small amount of water, you tend to get the same situation as Mexican immigrants into the US. You're optimizing more for risk-takers instead of wealth (which actually works pretty well with the US's culture, but might not in continental Europe).

African immigrants to the US, on the other hand, tend to be quite wealthy/well educated. I think at one point Nigerian applicants for US citizenship were the most educated nationality. Presumably this is because the sheer cost of going there filters out a lot of people.