engineeringwoke

> Sometimes you push hard, and a good glass wine is exactly what you need.

Because it makes you feel good? You certainly don't need it. It's a crutch. For socialization, sure. But to "wind down" or "de-stress"? That's not healthy in the long term.

> I recommend everyone working out, but when you had a stressful day or week, a gym workout might just add more cortisol.

Huh?

Of course. But I think it's quite common to claim that one's problems in life are incontrovertible when they are not. You stated it as a fact when we really don't know

> Neuroscience shows that this is not the case, and that those with schizoid personality disorders have true physiological and neurological differences.

Sure, but you assume that the physiological and neurological differences exist in themselves when you could also say that are causal, due to the abuse/neglect. The effects on ones mind from negative life experiences would have to have a physical manifestation in the brain in order to create the patterns of disordered behavior of course. If they are caused by negative life experiences, then they could also be reversible.

> It's about "when this function executes, what data does it see, and did any of those values get changed out from under it in a way that could potentially break the logic"?

You're just describing the semantics of functions versus classes, and the consideration has existed long before hooks came around for exactly the reasons you describe. This discussion has also existed long before JavaScript, React, or hooks existed obviously. It's secondary to the discussion because function components have existed for a long time.

None of what you're saying changes the fact that replacing classes and lifecycles with hooks was done despite the fact that 99.9% of the API users would never care about the performance implications of classes, while that is precisely why the React team made the change. JavaScript is plenty composable with classes and without nested useEffect calls, which is one of the most absurd foot gun APIs that I have seen released in my entire career.

> This works because closures capture data in a scope, whereas mutable class instances could have gotten changed and refer to a single `this` instance.

So `this.state` is hard to optimize?

> Hooks had nothing to do with v8 optimizations or `this.state`.

Huh? That's what you just said. The spec makes it hard to optimize. The JIT compiler can't infer enough about the shape of the data.

How would Facebook convince the community to dogfood their new API without some marketing buzz? It's pretty obvious that V8 has trouble optimizing changes to object properties because of the design of the spec, and they were also pretty open about it in the blogs where hooks were introduced. I think it's also clear that useEffect is harder to grok than it's lifecycle equivalents, so there might be other things at play than composability.

It's also a bit funny that certain kinds of people can just brush off these things with some non-sequitur on a message board when there are almost always bigger things at play.

It is purely because `this.state` is hard for V8 to optimize, nothing more and nothing less. They did it for their own purposes, for better performance on low-end machines. You can almost certainly just use classes for 99% of use cases

Sure, but the government should legislate that companies be given a reason and not stonewall customers. The absurdity of allowing companies to giga-scale and not have real customer service is just dumb and bad for society

I am sympathetic towards OP's situation and made similar mistakes when I was younger, but telling people what they want to hear is not helping them and isn't actually empathetic. I've spent most of my life around non-neurotypical people, and this does seem pretty self-inflicted. People like this don't need to read any more technical books or learn any more about software engineering.

They would be more effective in every facet of their life if they spent some time reading history, philosophy, and psychology... or just talking to people. No one exists on an island, and the issue is almost always that they don't find things external to the self "interesting" because they are self-centered. Notice that all three subjects I mentioned above are about other people.

What I've seen is that engineering departments tend to be engineers all the way down, so you often end up in a situation where the roles are reversed: the IC is neurotypical and the manager is autistic (especially asperger's).

And then, there is a lot of difficulty for the non-neurotypical to see anything beyond their "literal place on the totem pole", or their title. They lean on their experience to say what is right or wrong, even though they have far less context and the IC is trying not to ruffle feathers or hurt people's feelings.

Also a common trope, playing out the "manager" or "business person" as an idiot when in fact often times there are bigger things at play. Looking down on people who aren't like you is not generally a positive. Understanding them is the source of empathy.

That could be your ego talking? Always re-interpreting reality to put yourself on a pedestal? It is a bit silly talking in circles with people that have theory of mind deficits. You just have to avoid the "correctness conversation" and try to point them in the right direction, but it's honestly like pulling teeth.

Ribbonfarm is better than anything else for non-neurotypical people. The examples are real and accurate although it does kind of spiral into odd places at the end.

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

When do you let them grow up then? Or is it more about controlling your children than helping them?

No. Only a child-acting parent yells at their children. It might be popular in your culture, but it doesn’t make it right.

It’s so absurd. They call their children sneaky liars in the Anglo-sphere and then never tell them the truth in a silly attempt to “protect” their innocence. Of course they are sneaky liars?

There was a recent Economist article that said that 6% of the performance in PE is driven by earnings growth. It’s a Ponzi scheme built on debt because PE has so much money that they just trade around companies at higher multiples. Lol imagine believing in synergies, or that the trash you guys make is somewhat legitimate at all. Cutting shit to the bone and sending it to the next guy isn’t good business.

Enjoy the money and the carried interest loophole while it lasts. Community Health Systems? Dex Media? I’m not one of the fools that will buy it. Maybe it helps you sleep at night or whatever but if rates continue to spike, all the trash adjusted EBITDA nonsense will all die and you guys will lose your shirts.

It trashes your IRR though. Now what does the sponsor make?

It's healthy to depend on your coworkers for their specific knowledge. The landscape is too large for everyone to know everything, and honestly if I heard someone say this in an interview I would chalk it down to social deficits because this is not how life, businesses, etc. work

Why else would you want to avoid transacting in USD?

> sovereignty

There is no such thing these days, if there ever was any. Nation states are inherently unstable and dependent on other nation states for their survival. It doesn't matter how big you are. For example, Russia has no modern oil and gas technology of their own and China has no modern vaccines. Both are causing giant respective headaches. So much for that "sovereignty"

The only currency denomination that could work to evade the feds for a contract like what you're describing is CNY, which would basically require you to be Chinese and/or have a trusted party and be big enough to negotiate something like this. Maybe a couple thousand people in the world could do it

So, a "high" for the whole day then?

It's funny that you believe the nation states' excuses for de-basing their currency. People just use fiat because it is dominant and has a legal system attached. They de-base because they can.

The fact that they thought M2 and its equivalents across the world could rise faster than inflation in perpetuity is just silly in retrospect. They're the same thing in the long run. It was used to get around the lack of ability to enact fiscal policy and to make old people rich, and you bought it, hook line and sinker.

Grapperhaus is a power-grabbing asshole, in broad daylight since the Helsema texts debacle. He doesn't give a fuck about kids.

Sommige Nederlandse mensen geloven dit? Ik weet het niet hoor.

Anything that violates the tight seal that the nuclear family has relative to society in the United States is universally hated. All the problems start in the family but you are not allowed to go there here, probably because of religion. It's just the way we are, unfortunately.

Providing education isn't expensive; big campuses and teams of administrators are. Universities could easily return to the old ways, just cap annual loans at $20k per head. It would be painful, but they're fat, and what they're doing is bad for society.

It's just another engineer being an armchair physicist. Nothing to be alarmed about

I studied economics. Everything except basic micro is nonsense. Intermediate micro is just calculus with silly variables. All the macro we studied was based on like fifty years of data, that of course showed the amazing power of economic theory, that everything compounds forever! Wow, what incredible achievements us humans have made. Pat on the back for us!

Is it somehow righteous for academics to study self-referential things that their offspring then go to study in perpetuity? For example, money holes like string theory haven't produced any major breakthroughs, and in fact, that is by design. Chipping away at the near infinite scope of the infinite problem is good for writing papers to get PhDs. It is not good for science, or human progress.