MrOwnPut

i think there's probably a correlation, sure. will we find adhd & ocd are symptoms of a "puzzle gene"?

i don't need an e-diagnosis from a few sentences of mine though, thanks.

i know what i make and what others make and how easy it comes to me. the label doesn't matter.

i tamed my mind and my environment long ago, any thematical "adhd" attributes concerns me not...

in Twitter's case it would be direct accounts with the advertisers.

you have to make sure you only show certain companies ads next to certain content, or they will pull out.

therefore you need to control the client. only show tier 2 ads next to nsfw content, etc.

i agree, except for the scaling, a 10x can make an entire project it takes 100s of engineers for, and they'll do it in magnitudes less code.

but that long topic aside... i was just pointing out the ideal environment for "10x programmers".

you put a 10x on a team and treat them the same, they become a 1x (or worse because they are bored and procrastinate), the others will drag them down to their level.

to make teams work, let the 10x design and develop the initial system solely. then the 1x work in a scoped domain (using a plugin/extension system etc) within the 10x's vision

nope, not satire, is yours?

you negged and put your opinion down, but you forgot to put down why it's "horrible"!

so, until then... yes-huh!

Radar can be supplemental, but it has many false positives. Blind spot monitoring will go off if you pass metal poles a certain way.

You could invalidate that false positive with another sensor, probably computer vision, so you should have just used only CV in the first place.

You have to make sure you only use cameras because you need to drive in all scenarios. If you can't visibly see, the other humans can't either, and it's acceptable to pull over and wait.

Relying on additional sensors just makes your driving less reliable when you don't have it available. Best to only use the common denominator. Less noise, more predictable.

That is Tesla's thinking. If someone wants to prove them wrong, they are free to make an attempt!

10x programmers aren't going to be good at grinding tickets.

they'll procrastinate on them because they are boring and tedious and will go work a massive project instead because it's fun to them.

they'll finish that massive project in the time everyone is fiddling their thumbs with the stupid back and forth of the meetings and whatnot of those "tasks".

if you are lucky to get one of us, let us run free, we'll make you some really cool shit without any input.

if you stifle us and try to fit us in a box, we won't make shit. we'll eventually get bored, pissed off, and leave.

oh and don't touch our code, it's beautiful, and it's the only way it'll work, trust us! ideas welcome, code not!

we don't like teams. one person, one thought, one architect, one vision, one program.

source: am one, believe me or not idc, i prefer being mythical.

My understanding is anything more than stereoscopic vision, like lidar, will fail in many conditions like snow/rain so you might as well never rely it.

The fact that we can do it with just vision means the computer vision should be able to as well, ideally better.

There's a lot that goes into showing ads, prebidding, making sure there's no nsfw content, etc.

Even if they implemented it correctly you wouldn't really trust a 3rd party to show your ads and risk strikes on your account.

> If you lot are so deathly afraid of a tool taking over your job

Not at all! You'll be sorely disappointed if you do actually get rid of the humans that you pay to solve your problems.

> so we are not beholden to a bunch of overpaid pampered prima donnas

They bring the logic into existence because you couldn't.

So yes, you are beholden to them, because you are latching on to them, feeding off them like a parasite.

> Whose job a program can do ... Good riddance.

A program made by who? Trained on who? ;)

And you are definitely speaking too soon... let's try "no code" one more time!

The reality of today is you still need us to solve your many problems...

Thanks for saying the quiet part out loud though.

> A very unlikely planet-killing asteroid

There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid.

> I can live with the odds.

You may be able to, but a lot of people don't want to gamble the existence of the human race if there's a chance we don't have to.

You may also live with the odds of no backup to a database, but others here will attest to the importance...

> Let's face it: space exploration is cool, that's all. No need to find excuses :)

Well, you asked "why do this and not focus on Earth", so I gave you one reason.

But yes, I agree, space exploration is cool all on it's own, so I don't see what the complaint is.

Because you can't adapt to a planet-killing asteroid.

That's what the backup is for. Yes, you should focus on a primary, but that's no excuse to not have a backup.

People have other reasons of going. You don't colonize during the asteroid event, you colonize long before. You won't have people fighting to go to save themselves, you'll have them wanting to go for various reasons, legacy, reputation, isolation, etc.

That being said, I don't agree with your premise that you can't be a healthy person and care about the human race. You haven't added enough to support that claim.

A dead battery is more of an issue than varying levels of thinness.

Battery life, for a portable device, is probably the most important metric.

You've done nothing but ignore my words, misinterpret my bio, put words in my mouth, and spout off poor analogies.

I think we're done conversing, if you could even call it that.

I'm sure there's a lot of anecdotes from male programmers about how difficult it is to get in and stay in the field, it's difficult.

But if there is something to address, address the pain points specifically and directly.

Don't try to guess a "correct" ratio and work backwards with affirmative action (denying one race to boost up another).

For all you know the current ratio is the realistic ratio and where we should be.

I asked you the current regulation density and what your desired adjustment would be.

I assume you knew since you were advocating loosening the restriction. What's the restriction?

How much more dense should it be in your suggestion?

Until it's decided, no one can proceed with your idea right?

The American colonies supplied the Brits with cotton. The system was setup to do so by UK. UK was buying the slave picked cotton well after they abolished/outsourced slavery.

The UK even continued slavery in Indian colonies until 1843. They only abolished sugar plantations because it was not profitable anymore.

If the American colonies didn't rebel from the UK, they may have not abolished the cotton plantations themselves because they highly depended on it.

UK abolished slavery for themselves 30 years prior to the US abolishing it, mainly because their sugar plantations had lost their worth.

But the UK still continued to buy US cotton, knowing full well it was enabling the slave trade to continue.

And the most important point was they had setup all of these colonies with these systems in the first place.

Yes and that's a fallacy.

If females don't want to go into programming then don't make them.

There are really good female programmers, but males tend to be more frequent.

We all have different traits that make us good at different things, that's the beautiful thing about humans.

So you think me not agreeing the US "was hugely racist" is the same as me saying slavery never happened?

You don't think it's me saying that the US was part of a system that had existed long before it was even a country, even though I said just that?

BTW my bio is a homage to Socrates being persecuted for asking questions and going against the mob.

I wouldn't say "long" before. They did before, but they were also the ones who created those colonies with slaves in the first place.

They were also buying those slave made goods, continuing the triangle, even well after they abolished it in their homeland.

So yes, they may have "ended" it at home, but they basically just outsourced their slavery to colonies they had setup.

Where did I say it never happened?

It's a bit disingenuous to put words in my mouth.

Did I say that? Reply to what I say, not words you create. The system was created long before the US.

Many people were involved in this system, from the warring tribes in Africa selling prisoners, to countries like the UK setting up colonies with slaves for cotton, tobacco, etc.

We were the colony that finally stopped the system. It took a long time and a lot of blood because it was the system, but it was ended.

> Anti-racism seeks to end that system.

Explain how you apply "anti-racism" please. If you're excluding people based on their skin color or origins, that is racism, even if they are white or asian.

> Everybody agrees that the US was hugely racist to start out and for centuries thereafter.

Speak for yourself, not everybody. If anything we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world.

It's kind of a slap in the face for all those people who fought to end it.

It doesn't tell you how racist/sexist the system, it tells you your demographic.

There being more male construction workers doesn't make it a sexist system.

There being more female teachers doesn't make it a sexist system.

There being more asian doctors doesn't make it a racist system.

Let people do what they want to do, you can look at demographics but stop trying to read racist tea leaves with it.

Yeah doesn't make much sense right?

Some people think that affirmative action isn't racist.

But tell me what it is when you think like: "hey we have enough asians, exclude that person, let's find a black to get our quota"

Some people will defend it like a user said below:

"By engaging in deliberate anti-racism efforts to counteract subconscious racism."

But what is "anti-racism"? It's being racist in the opposite direction. You think Y group is being oppressed "subconciously" so you oppress X group as much as you think you need to, to "even" it out.

We should strive for equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.

Find a plot in New York City that isn't owned. If the owner isn't building housing, what makes you think new regulations will make them?

How much denser would you like the new regulations to be btw? Do you know the current density?

Learn to use words properly, it's not bolshevism lol.

How in the world would it be if they are privately owned buildings?

Now if the government seized them, it would be.

But yes there is a problem with cities like New York, but that's a local problem and will continue to be so if people keep voting the same people in.

No, and I guess you're the only one, please go inform the architects of your original idea.

We could call them tallrises, skytouchers or something like that.

You said: "Might be an easier solution than upending property rights entirely."

My point was that land is owned by someone already, skyscraper or not.

So if you want to force people to make highrises, you will have to take their land. Good luck with that.

Alternative: don't crowd all into one city, there's plenty of land and many jobs can be remote now.

Because there's no room left?

Almost every square inch of New York is already covered.