1,528 karma · joined May 2, 2012
Replicating the attack surface of the browser in JavaScript land in WebAssembly land goes against the whole design of it.
It's for the community to make nice libraries that expose the browser features to WebAssembly land in JavaScript. It's also the right place to deal with cross browser differences.
That is so healthy.
I don't believe you can both have an intellectually honest debate and judge at the same time.
I hope they don't share the actual quotes because that wasn't the argument. The argument was open debate is not possible anymore, because we get actively judged and harassed for opinions because the flesh mob (you, me, everyone) only allows for socially accepted top 40 opinions.
Freedom also means freedom from each other. Not just the state.
If you said something bad about a person you don't personally know in the last month, then my judgement on you (yeah hypocrisy) is that you are a horrible person and the world is better with you not consuming oxygen.
They have features not in chrome and Visa versa. But to blindly switch means taking a productivity penalty, at least temporarily.
We are here and where we are now was also deemed impossible. Slow and steady wins the race. People with excessive opinion and limited knowledge don't last decades. It's how change sneaks in.
It's called envy. They think they are saying something about Elon Musk but in reality they are telling what kind of monsters they themselves are.
In Dutch we have an expression: The inn keeper is as the inn keeper trusts his guests. As in: good people assume good intentions. Bad people assume bad intentions. Those who trust are trustworthy, those who do not are not.
Show me a temple, a Playboy mansion or a church. And I'll show you a place whose sole purpose is sexual abuse.
In Europe we've had to deconstruct organised religion not because it was so different from the Playboy Mansion, but because it was the same. A scam of power to enable sexual abuse.
When Bill Clinton had sex with a young intern the question some people had was 'why would he jepordize his career for sex with a young girl?'. Whereas the honest question would be the reverse: 'why would he have ambition to become president if he couldn't?'
The understanding of just how we are repressed by our own evolution is not making things worse -- just less hidden.
We no longer sell a 12 year to an adult for ownership/sexual-abuse/marriage in a legal contract overseen by the Church.
The world is actually a better place now. Not because everything is okidoki right now, but because the power structures of the past were not as glamorous or sinfree as you may seem to think. At the height of Christianity in the Roman empire having a little boy to abuse was the default.
Seriously, Hugh Heffner, although not very interesting isn't anywhere near the perversion of organized religion.
And it's intentional! They have a strategy of inventing new words that sound all scientific (like 'cognitive computing') but there is absolute no meaningfull research from them. Its like the whole company has become a parody.
Any companies that allows their employees to talk to IBM has the problem that afterwards their employees understand less of actual problem domain -- and the knowledge they think they gained from that interaction .. its all 'IBM and consultancy buzzwords' rather than the industry-standard terminology fueled by actual research and science.
I wasn't giving an opinion on whether any of this was a good (as in moral) idea or not. Although i understand there is an argument to prevent schools from becoming a political, cultural and racial mono-culture, even if a majority of the students would prefer to be at a school with 'just their kind of people'.
They are doing this (rather than just basing it on location alone) to spread the pain and more importantly give children born into this world the same chances irregardless of the social economic situation of their parents.
Locality still plays an important role, but we are talking high population density neighbourhood. Most will live near at least three schools in an radius of 30m walk (10min bike ride)
But it might impact supply and demand of applicants with a certain background (either educational or self-study). Companies can take responsibility for the demand, but not the supply of human capital. Solutions are more likely found within education, family and youth culture. The top tier companies (like Google) can't hide behind that fact, since they generally get first pick, but that would make it even harder for lower tier companies to uphold an effective diversity policy.
There may be a strong business opportunity to exclusively invest in and hire minorities. If you have (a lot of) money and believe minorities to be discriminated against due to culture, hiring policy or financial rewards, it logically follows that you should invest in minorities. You would get, on average, better people that are more competitive.
Nothing argues quicker than profit. And the end of the day, we live in a capitalistic society. The economic arguments are the only types of arguments that will change anything.
If the invisible hand of the free market has a bias where it does not properly allocate its resources for maximum profitability, go bet against it and get rich.
- VSCode is rendering in the DOM what you see, not what you scroll to.
- VSCode is using the correct datastructures, so an insert of a line at the top, doesn't require updating/relayouting all lines below it, but more likely something like log(n) lines.
And these two reasons you can summarize as the difference between old skool engineers with proper training in datastructures, cache behavior and algorithmic complexity -vs- new skool "full-stack developers" that rely on a billion lines of code they haven't written (or understand) and who mainly script a bit in between. The (wrong) assumption in the recent decade was we don't need to train engineers to understand the algorithmic complexity of their code because 'computers will continue to become faster'. That was never true and never will be true, because an exponentially slow algorithm simply won't ever be fast enough regardless of the amount of transistors. And making something like a simple text editor (without syntax highlighting and all of that -- just being able to edit the code), is actually an easy test to distinguish between the two wildly different skillsets.
Compare to something like the ACE editor (an OSS editing component that you can plug into any website) which is lightning fast -- it only renders what you see though -- but the filesize is not at all relevant to the performance.
These are all techniques that people who ever wrote complex UI toolkits are incredible aware of. I don't think that describes anybody who worked on ATOM ever, which means they just have to relearn and re invent this stuff until they get it right.
Generally, these days a lot of developers get a lot of experience combining existing technologies. Proper engineering skills, or even being aware of the data structures you are using and their algorithmic complexity, how cache friendly it is -- all of this is prioritized much less now.
So Atom answers a simply question. Has hardware become significantly fast to not care about proper engineering? No, not really and it never will. If your datastructure is structured in a such a way that inserting a line all the way at the top requires a relayout of every line below that, for example, you will run into real limits.
As someone who does actually love all this stuff so much that work doesnt start and hobby doesnt really stop... We meet and work with people like you all the time. We like the diversity. There are many ways to contribute to the end result and any smart company hires both of us.
But your resentment is mean spirited. Get over yourself. We are not driving any one away. From operations to sales we are all needed to make the engine work. But if you come here arguing that those who love their job should be fired so there is place for you without you trying so hard, that just silly. Here is the thing: from all disciplines i know there are people who love and breathe their job. If thats not the case in engineering for you, then you likely want to find the field that does make you that happy.
That might just be a smarter plan than trying to convince yourself by convincing us that in a field dominated by people who love it, you can be competitive while considering it just a safe career path. You'll just end up miserable.
No, that wasn't at all what i was arguing. For politeness sake, i'll assume its a misunderstanding, although that is a bit hard to imagine at this point, since i'm being extremely explicit. I wasn't attacking the scientific field, but people using the phrase EQ in a conversion as if it in any way similar to IQ. It is you taking offense that suggests there may be overlap between these two groups, which is extremely worrying.
"Trying to produce scientific research" means actively applying the scientific method. I'm arguing that hasn't successfully happened with the phrase EQ. Do you have a counter example? And yes I'm arguing that falsifiable statements about celebrities' sexlives is closer to science than current pop culture notions about EQ, because at least the statements can be disproven.
HOW TO SCIENCE
Step 1: discard any statement that is not well defined enough that an experiment could dismiss it
Step 2: test the remaining statements by experiment, and dismiss them if they fail
Step 3: until new knowledge appears, the remaining statements are considered reliable scientific facts
Every statement i've ever read about EQ is discarded in step 1. Most statements in a gossip magazine are discarded in step 2. Hence, a gossip magazine is strictly more scientific than a book about EQ. As for if this an attack on researchers in this area: what the hell are you talking about? what research?
>Are you talking about researchers or someone else?
I'm referring to people who pretend EQ is established science. Those people would either be misinformed or intentionally fraudulent. I hope this group does not contain any actual researchers. That would be disturbing.
The phrase IQ is already very unfortunate, considering the common literal interpretation that it is the definite score of intelligence. To have any new research refer to EQ, to appropriate both the success -as-well-as the distorted nature of how IQ is interpreted by the general public, could be described anywhere from 'pseudo-science' to 'completely fraudulent'.
Things might be different if there was a single example of research establishing some EQ metric that was reproducible and i'm not the most up to date person. So, maybe you have an example of scientific research that backs up the notion that EQ could even exist by having some kind of reproducible metric? A single example would do. But without that example, the usage of the phrase EQ in ordinary conversation needs to be consistently corrected so nobody falsely assumes there are any reliable facts or any consensus even about what this term means, the way there are with the phrase 'IQ'. It it was called differently, this misconception wouldn't happen.
This is actually what made the OP on Quora so angry. The question raised suggested strong misconceptions in the general public. The watering down of the general trust of people in science because too much unproven soft science is appropriating the reputation of the hard science. EQ hasn't been proven to exist any more than it has been proven that water has memory (homeopathy) or that souls exists. Its quackery.
The reason for this is actually obvious: an IQ test will ask questions of which there is a strong consensus as to what the correct answer should be (like math questions). If you have different teams make different IQ tests with this rule, the rankings of test subjects will prove to be uniform. Different test, same test subjects: similar ranking. It is a reproducible metric. Although none of this proves it measures 'intelligence' as used in everyday conversation. The name is unfortunate, the metric is quite useful.
People have not succeeded in making a reproducible metric of emotional intelligence -- it is currently not even well defined. Unlike the statements in a gossip magazine, which although may not always be factual, they are at least well qualified and defined statements.
"Celebrity X slept with celebrity Y". There is no ambiguity about what that statement means and what would be considered supporting evidence to convince you that the statement is true. Therefore, the gossip magazine is closer to science than the pop-literature about EQ.
What confuses me, is that to take offense to this, one has to be or know a scientist that has or is trying to get funding or work published that hinges on the EQ pop culture buzz, which would be unfortunate, but not damning. One can do real research and move it away from the magical world of speculation and anecdotes. But to explain to a person in that position the value of and importance of the scientific method, is like explaining to a catholic priest that children shouldn't be raped according to the bible. How is this perspective on science at all surprising to you? Is this how far academica has deformed itself? That the core values of science are vague historic details in a mist of career planning?
You really consider their feelings more important than protecting actual scientific facts from something akin to trademark infringement?
The public perception right now is that IQ and EQ are similar in the level of scientific backing. In world where people stop vaccinating their kids, ignore global warming, etc. i really don't consider the feelings of any particular group of people in any field important enough to not, every chance i get, fight for clarity on just what are reliable scientific facts and what are not, because it is scientific method itself that is under attack.
And if these 'serious people working on areas such as this' are not full of shit, working in service of science, i expect them to have the exact same priority as me.
- the research is well defined enough that you can do an experiment to disprove it
- most of the research has not been successfully disproved, even though many tried
Now, whether that means that IQ exists and what it means for things to exist is a different discussion. It terms of philosophy of science, it is the distinction between relativistic empiricists and absolutistic empiricists. Just because you found a correlation, does that also inform you about the true nature of things? If formula's pretending the world is made out of strings correctly predict what would happen to some extend, does that mean the world is made out of strings?
In the case of EQ, it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory. For that, it would need to be formalized to such an extent that it would make a objectively measurable prediction. Which we can then all try to disprove by measurement. If we don't even have the chance to disprove it, it's not a scientific theory in the first place.
The article wasnt stating that people dont have more or less or different social skills. But that they currently arent measurable in a scientific way (and likely never will be).
The phrase EQ is therefor completely and intentionally fraudulent. Like the word "scientology".
So for the developers responsible for the uptime it could matter a lot if they are more comfortable with one of codebase or language they use.
Off course if you are more like a consumer app type of startup, just put all energy on UX and stuff and hope for the best. But lets hope every bank that uses this sort of stuff has a developer on call that can actually dive into the codebase.
Ill sell you a car for 1 cent if you also take the car care service where we email you a magazine for 60k. Tax avoided.
And companies within the country that would have to pay tax couldnt compete with that. So soon everybody in the country would be unemployed.
Not to blame you - i too would trust a professional. Also, in Holland, accountancy is a protected profession. You can report them, because at the end of the day he/she took a risk that you would likely personally not have taken if you were aware of it.
None of this is fishy.. it works like this between all Western nations and all other modern economies. And if you find a country that is an exception that that would be a huge bussiness opportunity for every one just moving profits that way.
There was actually a way to do this. Cheat your way out of VAT. But its a complicated trick only companies like Apple and IKEA use and that trick is under full attack by both the US and EU government.
Example: a dutch company sells a product to dutch consumers. They have to pay VAT. However what if they setup a company in another country that first buys the products for 0.001 cents and then sells the products back for full price to the consumer.
Most, if not all, countries do not apply VAT on exports.
In the end it doesnt matter where it was produced. Its taxed based on where it was consumed.
When an economic union such as the EU refer to an internal market they mean stuff like this. But as a result all VAT in the EU are now almost identical (or else your own producers would be tempted to move the profit to another EU country)
I can imagine some one staying away from certain ecosystems because they are too nice to inconpetence. For example, say, how pythons standard JSON library intentionally and likely well intended, breaks the the standard and causes hours of debugging nightmare.
In a less friendly world this wouldnt fly and if i need something that actually works ill have a strong bias for the products of the "mean people"
I have seen hundreds Ubuntu desktops the last couple of years. Seeing unity was the exception.
Why do you think Canonical moved away from Unity? After the effort and money they invested? Its because such a large group of users was actively avoiding it (myself included - although i like many of its design elements in isolation the execution, the thing being a compiz plugin and the user iteraction design was just unbalanced).
It actually has this Vista like quality where the trade off between power users and casual users ended up worse for both. The unity desktop wasnt the best choice for any group of users, although it may have been the best compromise.
If Canonical has any sense, they just focus all their energy on being the best desktop for developers and monetize from that perspective. The years they wasted trying to compete for a market (desktop consumer) that was going to be eaten from every direction.
Well hindsight is easy i guess
I don't think you misjudges the differences in complexity here at all. But wouldn't that have more to do with the different approaches to memory management?
>aforementioned cognitive load without giving up those sweet sweet compile time checks
I would argue the cognitive load comes mostly from nominal typing and lack of type inference. A counter example would be the Crystal language which has a very strong type system, but is exposing barely any of it as 'added cognitive load'.
This correlation between 'cognitive load' and 'expressiveness of a typesystem' seems unfair. Having to keep track of all the patterns that are valid but not supported by the type system is also a type of added (hidden) complexity.
Even the poster-feature of Rust has a (IMO) much easier cousin with the same (and more) advantages called 'the Clean programming language' in the shape of 'uniqueness types'. And most of the complexity in Rust is the result of the type system not being expressive enough for how they are attempting to use it, rather than the opposite.
The lack of generics in Go simply means that you will for common algorithms and functions end up with either of these scenario's:
1. You were forced to duplicate code under a different name with a different type signature (even though the body would be identical)
2. You are forced to use the 'empty interface' which negates the advantages of static type-checking (and seriously: why isn't it the default when you open an accolade?)
Not having generics in a statically typed language means you combine the disadvantage of static typing ('having to specify types and doubling the cognitive complexity of the language with a special type syntax') with ('not having the compiler be able to check the validity and risk run-time type errors, ie. things like cast exceptions').
>If the former, why do you think your preferences generalize?
Generics is not a platonic ideal such as 'object oriented programming'. Type systems are as solid as math itself. And just like Math there are multiple systems with different trade-offs in how expressive they are. This expressivity is not subjective! One type system can be strictly more expressive than another type system. Consider this pseudo-code without any type annotations:
def example(a,n)
return a.something(n)
The challenge: It barfs during run-time and we want it to barf during compile-time.
Now imagine all the possible usages of this method in a dynamically typed language that would be provable correct. All the potential combinations of a's and n's that would not make it barf. How many of them are legal Java, Haskell, C# or Go programs? (some, most, some, few)? The goal of a static system is to barf during compile-time. Not to exclude valid, legal programs just because the language author thinks type systems are hard to implement.
Whenever you can write provable correct code, that a type-system is complaining about: how is that not a bug?
>If the latter, how do you explain the large number of successful Go projects?
1. The projects are successful because of the people who make them
Well for starters by not assuming that people who program in Go are completely incompetent drooling idiots who are only able to deliver working code because Go is so great. As if the same developers wouldn't have successful projects right now, if Go didn't exist.
2. Any language released by a famous language author at Google will get a large minimum cult following by default
Much like with Angular who releases something has a strong impact on the adoption, regardless of the actual quality of the product, language design or implementation. I'm convinced the same set of programmers would be more productive in other languages. I'm also not surprised they themselves aren't aware of it.
3. Go has nice competitive features, the type system just isn't one of them.
Finally, Go isn't all shitty, for example, it has a very nice IO and concurrency model and ever since it finally got a precise garbage collector, one could finally use it long-running processes.
4. Your logic has clear type errors that a strong type system would help you catch
The existence of successful Go projects isn't an indication of _anything_. With the same logic you could argue VHS is superior to Betamax or that that Kanye is a talented musician. It's like the Silicon Valley variant of religious logic of 'moral people don't get sick'. Sometimes people, projects or products are not successful because they did everything the right way! Sometimes they just get lucky. Sometimes they just plain conspire against civilisation and cheat. Sometimes the things they did correctly ended up being more important the the things they did wrong. Sometimes they just get to announce on a bigger stage than somebody else.
> Are we all stuck in the 1980s? And if so, what does that even mean?
It means that there has been a large research initiative since the 1980's in software verification but because science is hard and thinking is hard and we are all getting paid anyway, we rather prefer to cargo-cult, bike-shed and gloat about our own ignorance. Because what you haven't learned yet is hard and what you already know is easy, even if it's all wrong.
It doesn't help that most of the academic researchers don't care enough about engineering to turn their research into actual production tools (with a few exceptions).
But i'm starting to warm up to the common notion that all progress in programming language design comes not from people learning, but from generations of developers eventually dying of old age. There is just too much money to go around for developers to not act like spoiled ignorant little children, and as a result most technology is just fundamentally broken and for no good reason.