prerok

The weather is an example of a non-linear dynamic system. Try as we might, we still cannot predict it really even a few days in advance. The stock market is much worse, even, so, no, it cannot be predicted.

Nah, let's just put a big sign "Kilroy was here", so they don't bother with the "mostly harmless" planet.

Not the OP but I guess what they are saying is that since this language is a subset of go and if you use it as such then an arena allocator cannot be used in the transliterated code.

Maybe it's possible to force the transliteration to use a different allocator and then you could use the one you wrote in C?

Indeed, but I guess OP is saying that the panics are not supported in this language.

Heh, I like the analogy but my question was really why it was considered such a hassle.

I mean we deal with daylight saving time all the time and I know it's not the same because the leap second affects UTC, not just local time zone, it's just that you are either dealing with monotonically increasing time like epoch, or you are dealing with "human" time and I found no distinction in the latter.

Is it "just" that leap seconds or delay seconds caused problems in epoch to utc conversion? Note the just in quotes, but did I just answer my own question? :)

So, it's solving a real problem, why are we dropping it? I mean, why does everybody agree it's a bad solution?

I agree, I don't like it either. But... how would they then implement a world where you can wander everywhere? What it brings to the table is that you can wander across the world and not become terribly outmatched as soon as you wander "too soon" to an area.

My gaming preference is to go to an area as per game design, so the fact that I would be outmatched does not bother me and would prefer it that way. I do, however, understand why the game designers chose level scaling for what they wanted to achieve.

Thank you for the link. Chess is very much also a psychological game and that he resorts to such low blows is really petty.

Just came to say this as well. Happens in Europe too (well, obviously :) ).

Can you explain where this comes from? I mean, that's not even close to what the norm is in Europe. Though, to be fair, we don't normally count fuel into TCO and the reasoning is: if you want to go distances then you are always paying for them. Whether it's public transport or taxis or whatever. Is fuel the major contributor in the number?

I think it now has a slightly different lens. The DropBox argument was that anyone can build this in five minutes, so why use this? Now, with LLMs, the argument is that anyone can build its own.

I have to say I find it pretty funny.

I remember reading an article in National Geographic of how crow's brains are much more interconnected than is the norm in mammals, i.e. IIRC they have a higher density of synapses between neurons. From that article, it seems that the usual brain weight vs. body weight to determine intelligence, which seems can be used to approximate intelligence in different species of mammals, cannot be used for birds (or at least crows, which the article was focusing on).

In other words, they seem to achieve better results with smaller brains than we thought. And yes, crows (in EU) do exhibit some pretty intelligent behavior.

Right. Just use the LLM to generate it for you /s

You mean the middle management? I have been in environments where they were almost literally made up of pencil pushers. Wouldn't be too sad to see them go. Only half joking, but it is written in jest.

Indeed, there were plenty of people doing just that. I imagine they get the most out of vibe coding. However, when it became a problem, an engineer was still required to fix it.

It might have been you, a couple of months later, or someone else. I have dealt with slop produced by unknowing programmers most of my career. With this vibe coding I think my job is still safe. The amount, though, is increasing exponentially.

Indeed. I have to say, I hate this. Suppose you are in a meeting, you update something and you see the result, but the rest of the team does not. Ok, a couple of hundred ms does not play into this but if the update does not make it through? And yes, it happens.

Depends on how far back you go.

But... software engineering was never about the boiler plate. Or adding the extra parameter.

It was about knowing how to fit the new use case into an existing code base, respecting the architecture, and sometimes rearchiteting the solution. How easy the latter was is really dependent on whether the code/arcitecture respected the low coupling, high cohesion principle.

Now, some of this can be coerced into LLMs but it takes work and careful study of the changes. Sometimes they get it right, many times they do not. So, you have to go back and forth with them. If you know what they should have produced.

SWE is far from dead. We just let too much slop into the codebase because we're overwhelmed by it and not incentivized by leadership to care. Code quality will likely drop to the point where even the leadership will notice and it will normalize again. There's nothing like a high profile customer calling out a problem that was vibe coded. It has started already and will be happening more and more.

Don't worry, the hype will be over in some time.

I tend to agree. I was describing how I think it could work and how I suppose it worked before. Nowadays, when contact with many people outside of the group is ubiquitous, I think it's next to impossible, but maybe there's people out there that make it work. Good for them, if they found a way.

In a poly I would guess people need to feel attached to a group not a single individual, in a sense loving all people in the group almost equally. Mostly, we are not raised that way and culturally it would be unconventional, to say the least.

Other posters have said something similar, but I wanted to be more direct: nobody should ever seek validation from outside of themselves (not that I don't have problems with this, I am just saying how it should be).

It's inevitable in childhood, but the parents' role is to create an independent individual. This often not the case, so we see ourselves in need of validation from our spouses, bosses, etc. and it can cause people to stay in bad working or personal relationships.

The trick is to be proud of yourself in an all-encompassing form, admit where you are not good at and improve, if you want to. Advice is welcome but critique should not lessen how you feel about yourself.

Just my 2c and what my experience in life taught me.

I think it is important to learn how to implement it because it gives the student an opportunity to learn precisely because it's been done countless times and debated over to death. There are many analyses and if one doesn't click, maybe another one will. A student can learn how to analyze the algorithms and try out different implementations to assess differences in performance.

Of course, if a student just breezes through it then I would agree. That would make no sense.

We know not to equate the governments' policies with people. Of any country. Don't worry about it.

I am pretty sure there would have to be a court order, i.e. a severe violation would have to have good ground to be suspected.

You mean, you have not created a meet with the relative who could only join remotely and did not transcribe it for the relatives who could not attend? I am shocked /j

Average programmer too /j

Frankly, though, I think lispy community has benefited from being smaller. For example, even though the now ancient Design Patterns already warned programmers to prefer composition over inheritance, the OO programmers still created 15 levels deep hierarchies.

Well, unfortunately, it's not such common knowledge that it would be considered sarcastic by default. I have learned to be explicit by appending "/s" or "/j" so it's clearer.

I believe they meant on average.

I've known this to differ between professors as well as exams. Lower levels and higher volume ones were almost always marked by assistants. The oral exam was always done by professors, though.

Indeed, evaluating an exam does not take that much time that it would be considered expensive.

That said, in my country (in EU), it's not indefinite tries. The fourth and later attempts (up to 8, I think) have oral exams in front of a panel of professors so that they can evaluate if there is actual lack of knowledge or if there is some sort of problem between the student and the professor. The student must by then pay for the attempt to pass the exam. It's not expensive, though, it's just another incentive to make the student really be sure to be prepared.