1,420 karma · joined October 5, 2019
I think most people come to git with their own mental model of what a branch is, what a merge is, etc.
Learning git is often mostly undoing their preconceptions (ie by saying 'a branch is just a ref').
But ultimately, we humans tend to think of a branch as a branch, not a ref. For instance, the previous sentence probably made perfect sense to you.
I agree that we end up needing to know about refs because of git's user interface, but I consider that a flaw or limitation.
However, I think tests are high-maintenance. Often they consume the same amount of time to write as the actual business code.
I don't know how automatic null checking tests would work. Wouldn't you need to specify what happens if a null is input?
In contrast, I find the cost if typing very low for the value it delivers. Unless the code is very ephemeral (like a one off script) then I highly prefer typing.
That is, did you remember to check for null? Did you remember to write a test for floating points in languages that just have generic number types?
I don't see the value in relying on unit tests to enforce types.
It might be possible, but it relies on the programmer to:
1. Remember all of the types (was this an int? Or a float? Or a int | null union?
2. Implement exhaustive tests for each type
3. Remember to update the tests when something changes.
4. When reading code, if the types emitted are not specified, having to examine the unit tests to determine the type limits.
And the advantage of this is that it saves me a few keystrokes so i can write:
X = 5
Instead of
int X = 5
The racial tension Adams exposes are terrible, and the wrong direction for repairing the country. But let's not pretend that this was ever fair.
Black separation is celebrated by the left, White separatism is condemned. As usual, they have no sense of hypocrisy.
It's not so much that we like what Adams said, but we just find the double standards too much to bear.
It has no bearing on suing organizations or departments, such as this lawsuit, AFAIK
I was listening to Thomases questions, and I think I agree. He is basically saying that any choice constitutes an opinion.
He brought up a bookstore that had a section for 'reliable' books versus 'unreliable' books.
That leads to other hypotheticals. Like is a bookstore making a recommendation by putting some books at the front of the store, and some at the back? Is a bookstore making an opinion when it decides to organize books by sales instead of alphabetically?
When you start to really analyze it, it starts to seem really ridiculous IMO.
Google says their mission is to organize the world's information. But any sort of organization presents some sort of opinion.
If you go to Google and search for 'shoes' something has to come up in the top slot. Should it be zappos? The Wikipedia article on footwear? An organization with the acronym SHOES?
Finding a "neutral" algorithm is dubious.
I think the plaintiffs are correct that the algorithm, even if 'AI' (they call it that), is a decision. They make the point that whether it was a human deciding what order to show results, or a human choosing an algorithm to order results is the same (I agree).
But then the same could be said for any system. Even reddit style upvotes/downvotes is a decision.
I also think this counters the spirit of section 230. From Wiki:
> In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., the court concluded that because Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and was legally responsible for libel committed by its customers.
Obviously the pithy response by Prodigy would have been 'Well I guess we will not moderate content at all then, if it results in our being liable' and congress did the right thing passing 230 to stop the implications of this ruling.
To believe the plaintiffs we would have to conclude that 230 protects companies who moderate content by removing it, but not who moderate content by sorting or recommending it.
IMO this is counter to the spirit of 230, which is to allow platform owners to exercise moderation without being liable for any mistakes.
This is a common tactic that left-wingers use to prove that wages are insufficient, and that companies are exploting society because some full time workers are eligible for food stamps.
This fails on 3 fronts: 1. The threshold for food stamp eligibility is sufficiently high that normal wages qualify, eg. 70k. 2. Technically any wage can qualify for food stamps if one's household size is large enough. 3. We also believe in equal pay for equal work.
I often seen foodstamp eligibility used a marker of poverty, but this is largely an anachronism from the past where foodstamps were reserved for the destitute.
Many states now set the requirement at 200% of the federal poverty level. Which is allready fairly generous--that puts 5 member households as foodstamp eligible if their income is under 70k.
Because eligibility is determined by household size and income, you can have two people living in the same city working the same job, but one is eligible for foodstamps and another is not.
Or more aplty: the problem is we have a deep divide in what constitutes bigotry. A significant portion of Americans oppose gay marriage, and a roughly equal portion would consider that bigotry.
You cannot run a society that way.
Im not necessarily trying to say you're wrong. Rather, I am trying to infuse some humility and shades of grey into a situation that I think you're portraying as black-and-white.
A past suit by a recruiter had emails filed as evidence to the court where recruiters were told to cancel all interviews with candidates who were not women or Black. [1]
And yet if you mention this, you're the racist. You're the White nationalist (even though the media celebrates Black nationalism).
Even so--they also have lawsuits alleging discrimination against promoting Black employees.
There's really nothing contradictory about this. Different individuals can be racist in different ways.
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/01/google-job-quotas-fav... [2] https://www.cspicenter.com/p/what-diversity-and-inclusion-me...
I was so wrong. One of my first experiences in VR was pushing myself to play 3 hours of Orbus. I thought I could just push through it and I would get used to it.
I felt awful for the rest of the day. Even sleeping did not fully restore me. I almost called in sick the next day because of a dumb game.
Sometimes I think Zuckerberg might just be one of the 10% of people who dont get VR sickness. The technology is really cool. If you haven't tried it yet--go find someone who owns one. But it's sort if a trap. If you don't feel sickness from it, you can very easily be deceived into thinking everyone will perceive it like you.
Im still an avid VR player, but I make sure I only play games where I am stationary.
I mean that in both senses of the word.
I would have thought access would just be abruptly cut.
I hate not trusting employees, because i know 99% are not going to do anything improper.
Years ago I was on a project where the QA manager insisted on cucumber. But it seemed like just a fancy syntax for tests.
So instead of writing:
clickElement(Selectors.SUBMIT_BUTTON)
You get: When user clicks submit (or given... I am still not convinced there is a difference)
... Okay. Great. You have a new syntax. What problem doesnit solve?
The primary reason is that it's roughly 2.5x the cost. And given that social security is allready the largest expenditure and it's going to be unaffordable in it's current state, I am skeptical.
If that alone is not convincing, consider that most social security recipients receive more than the proposed UBI. And as social security was income tested, you would effectively be transferring social security payments (which are ostensibly a promise/mandatory savings plan) from retirees who paid their dues, to everyone else.
And consider that many benefits are that are covered now would not be available in UBI.
What about people who need intensive nursing? That cannot be covered with their UBI.
I actually like the general idea of replacing a patchwork of county/state/fed programs. I also like the idea of eliminating the welfare cliff.
I just think the amounts being considered are so huge that it's just infeasible.
Of course, you can propose a plan for how this will be paid for.
If you think you made some grand point, consider that this can be determined in like 10 seconds of internet searching. And in fact you're just further proving my point that supporters have absolutely no idea about actual budgets.
Eliminate all military, and you can increase the UBI from about 15k to 18k per year.
Thanks for mentioning this though, as it's exactly the proof i needed that left wingers really dont know how a budget works.
It's a perfect microcosm of debate today. Left wingers get to propose a solution. Right wingers get to call the left wingers dumb idealists. Left wingers get to call right wingers evil racists, etc.
Even in rich countries, it was not long ago (like, in living memory) that meat was a specialty only afforded occasionally.
One of the things about principaled stances is they are a lot more powerful when adhereing to the principal is inconvenient.
My guess is there are always people stealing. They will use whatever post-hoc justification. If it wasnt the prices it would be corporations, or big-agri, or some provincial law.
So while the blog may be wrong in the strict sense that the app was not automatically activated, it seems to be using a 'activated' in a different (and IMO more a accurate) way. Most people would consider something active if it's communicating via bluetooth.
This is absurdly false in the general case. For one, Amazon doesn't even have much content to moderate.
On the general point: these doomsday scenarios are usually exaggerated. Software jobs are still growing. We just need to grow than at a normal rate.