jbjohns

I don't think that's really fair. Unity 3d and Vue.js are not random.exe.

Terrorism, without a doubt. If you win it gets amended to nice names like "fighting for independence".

Friction points are unavoidable. The point is they survived and have flourished under the direction of these companies who benefit from their continued existence.

I agree a hostile takeover would not be good for anyone but if the existing management structure turns out to be a roadblock maybe stewardship from a big tech company wouldn't be so bad.

Well I think Amazon has a vested interest in the language at this point. Does the core team even matter that much now? If the core team falls apart could Amazon not simply pick up the reins? It doesn't seem to have hurt C# or Swift to be driven by a company.

It's actually quite a good design idea because it is often the case that lower level code knows everything that can go wrong but has no idea what to do about it. Higher level code has this knowledge. For an example, I remember reading a C library for handling some common encoding. It simply swallowed format errors because it didn't want to fail the whole function for them and didn't have a way to communicate anything was wrong. In a conditional system this could have been a condition and the default function could be set up to ignore it, for example.

I'm fairly certain I've done similar things in Ocaml (in fact, I think it's where I learned this technique).

I'm not even sure the actual behaviour broke any contract. What people are complaining about is a short entry in a list of short entries.

It's amusing how many people are literally offended that they didn't explain why. But the answer we have is: because they wanted the smaller box. They are paying for it, no further explanation is required to the employee or anyone else. The employee should get the smallest box as requested and then they can try something like "may I know why you want the smallest box? I might be able to provide better help".

Why would immutability guarantee no cycles? Here is a line of valid haskell:

        star e = let (sp, a) = (Split a e, atom sp) in sp

EDIT: I guess I should probably explain it: star is a function that takes an expression "e" and returns the value "sp" which is "Split a e" where "a" is the results of calling the "atom" function on "sp". This is creating a representation of a regex star operator. Note that the tuple defined in the let definition is only to define a name for the two values of the tuple so that they can refer to each other.

Is there such a method?

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-scientific...

The article kept saying HR was responsible but I don't understand why this wouldn't be split organisationally. A manager knows who is on their team (and when they leave), it seems to me it would make the most sense to split the "groups" into teams and make the managers responsible for keeping their group up to date.

You can think of tags as folders. The big different being an object (e.g. file) can be in multiple "folders" (tags) at the same time if you do that. But it would probably mean you don't have nested folders.

Isn't SELinux turned on by default in most mainstream distros these days? I think it's not "nightmarishly difficult" as it is "nightmarishly difficult" to use with the most complicated scenarios you can come up with but the system will let you be as permissive or restrictive as you like. I really wish more would be invested in making SELinux more convenient because it appears to me to be the best solution when dealing with virus', malware and so on.

I saw a clip from a Joe Rogan podcast some time back about a man who was doing long distance swimming. He was dropped off in the ocean in the middle of the night and had to swim toward the cost or some islands or something. With the boat out of view and no light pollution, what he could see was the stars above and the lights all in the water. If I recall correctly he said something like it became hard to tell where one ended and the other began and he had the feeling of flying through space.

>even though those artists are probably why people subscribe to the streaming service in the first place.

Then surely the solution must be to try and determine which artist actually brought in the users and give them some kind of lead bonus. I would assume any platform that started doing that would eventually beat platforms that didn't because all the lead generating bands would move there and no new users would have a reason to go to the other services.

I wouldn't see this as unfair, just changing the compensation model. In the past you still had background music playing on the radio or Musak or whatever. Now the compensation model is changing. Maybe the actual problem is people are assuming bands people actively want to listen to should be compensated more but it's actually more important to make the kind of music that ends up on the most "background listener" playlists if you want to get paid the most.

I have daily "1:1s" with my manager. I think of what has to change for WFH is that people understand that not every video call is a "meeting". Some of those calls are taking the place of the coffee/lunch conversations that were happening before.

If "1:1" here means those awful 360 review meetings then I can see not wanting to do them weekly (we don't explicitly do those at all anymore) but for me it's just keeping the communication channel open explicitly (as opposed to by happenstance).

Where I live we have jaywalking laws but they only apply if you are within a reasonable distance to a cross walk. I think it's possible to have reasonable laws so long as you have relatively reasonable politicians. :)

The scale. In the past you had to watch what you said about those who had the power to hurt you. Now you can have your life derailed by people you've never met and never will, who's only power is being popular in some community you may have never heard of (and may not even exist until years from now).

Except Wal-Mart generally would not allow their name to be listed as a user of the product either.

I wish companies and politicians would follow your recommendation.

> Caine's character withholding physics advancements for years

But he didn’t do that. He and Mann had determined there was way forward and they were right. Without the new data from the black hole physics had gotten as far as it ever would.

EDIT: and Hathaway’s character didn’t intend to sacrifice humanity. One option was as good as any other. She even turned out to be right and most of the crew would have survived if they listened to her from the start.

Not fraud but she did write an entire book blaming Russia, and a whole host of other things.

He made a very obvious joke at one of his rallies.

Here's a pretty interesting website from the creator of "Children of a Dead Earth" which focuses on near-term space combat ships.

https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com

CPS can be kind of thought of like a normal programming language with the modification that every function takes an additional parameter "the rest of the program" and calls this instead of "return". Of course once this mechanism is in your language you might have multiple "rest of the program" parameters which the function can pick between.

I found this old thread talking a bit about the lisp condition system [1] which also mentions implementing it in a typed manner.

I used Lisp for a while myself as my favourite language (the condition system was part of the reason) but the problem I ended up switching to Haskell because it has much of the power macros provide coupled with a very strong type system. That's why the potential occurred to me that CPS can probably implement something effectively equivalent condition system.

[1] http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1544

Isn't it possible to do in any system with CPS as well? I've not tried it but I would expect to be able to have a "conditions system" using the CPS monad in Haskell, for example. And Haskell doesn't even have variables the way most programmers think of them.

Surely that improves more than it hurts? I'm under the strong impression that most software developers aren't on these FAANG salaries.

In the western European country I live in, everyone was pushing for more and more outsourcing. Initially India but they started using eastern EU countries as well which was cheaper but didn't have e.g. timezone issues. They're mostly pulling back to in-country. There could be a lot of reasons for this, but if the issue is about work quality then I don't see why that changes now.

Anyway, fearing getting replaced by outsourcing is like fearing to get replaced by robots. Maybe it will happen in the end but if so, we never could have stopped it anyway. If it's the right direction and we should pursue it.

It's not that SF/US based employees will look to be paid more it's that people in India who have comparable skills will look for compensation closer to what one gets in SF/US. Why would they accept prevailing outsourcing shop wages now that they can work directly for western companies? This change is already occurring in the circle I'm in contact with.