sblom

Yep. Probably the confusing name change threw him off the scent.

What would have been ".NET Core 5" is just ".NET 5", and that's when the bulk of the desktop framework compat came online.

Outlook(.com) has "Focused Inbox" which does the same kind of tricks watching which types of content you interact with regularly and only surfacing those until you want to go read your "All Messages" tab. (my recollection of the tab names may only be approximate)

> Most of the really innovative interactive design stuff found its first expressions in the Windows-based versions of Visual Basic, and here’s where I started becoming nervous about where Windows programming was headed. Not only could you move a button onto your form, and interactively position and size it just the way you wanted, but if you clicked on the button, Visual Basic would generate an event handler for you and let you type in the code.

At this point in the essay, we find ourselves arm-pit deep in get-off-my-lawn. He goes on to make the argument that a disjoint pile of event handlers attached to UI elements do not make a coherent program.

Even while conceding that this claim is 100% true, there most definitely exist cases where all you need is a hand-drawn UI with disjoint event handlers to breathe a little bit of life into the experience. Frankly, most simple web pages find themselves DELIGHTFULLY in this category.

His IntelliSense-enforces-bottom-up-programming rant couldn't be more wrong these days.

IntelliSense (plus refactoring suggestions) is perfectly happy for you to speculatively make a method call that doesn't exist and then to infer (and auto-implement) its definition based on the types of the parameters passed in the example call.

I find meet-in-the-middle works quite well, starting with a top down outline of what I'm trying to accomplish combined with implementations of the design-critical algorithms that I know I need at the bottom, and having all of that come together in the middle. I find that the bridge rarely fails to join up correctly in the middle of the lake.

Totally possible that an FBI agent would be using the intelligence community sense of "open source" meaning "publicly available", rather than the sense of "open source" that's the mode around here.

Because they want something from the audience.

What browser prompts for permission to follow a redirect? OAuth flows don't require cross-domain interaction in any of the ways that browsers have fought to reduce.

Why not?

M-W's lexicographers openly discuss their process of descriptively documenting language as it's observed in real use. If usage of the word "cromulent" continues to grow to the point that it reaches the threshold for inclusion, it, by definition, belongs in the (descriptive) dictionary.

I took conradev to mean "the model of distributing the same content to everyone via traditional (passive) CDN".

Movie theater watermarking is done during playback, but if Netflix was going to do watermarking, it would have to be done prior to delivery of streamed bits or it would be susceptible to the same "it's just software" attacks as any other local software-only approach to DRM.

There's room for both extreme concentration and extreme communication, and most teams need some of each.

I actually snorted at the essay's idea that communication and concentration can't mix. I'm not sure what he thinks email and detailed specs are if not communication. I think the key is that they're batch-mode communication.

I can see value in several hours a day of concentration unbroken by communication, but insisting on a full week straight of unbroken concentration is impractical and possibly counterproductive.

My experience at Microsoft in the late 90s and early 00s jives with his descriptions, mostly. But the essay went out of its way to be cynical and reductive.

He's not making things up, but I don't think his takeaways are worth, well, taking any further.

This essay is rooted in nostalgia and reads as a post facto justification for "I like the old way better".

"I've never done waterfall" or "we specified everything (on paper! millennials don't read amirite) before we built it", which is it?

There's a whole lot of generalizing from personal experience to "universal truths" that simply aren't universal. or even truths? For instance, there are certainly some teams that get value out of code reviews.

But today's announcement would have been Windows 10X if it hadn't been canceled...

It's not really about Rule 30 specifically. It's more about Rule 30 being a particularly simple example, probably, of Wolfram's Principle of Computational Irreducibility.

From what I can tell, he'd love to drop that "probably", or move on from Rule 30 to the next simplest system that could possibly work.

And that was all about proving that Rule 110 was capable of universal computation. (They first found a way to map Rule 110 to the tag system put forth in that prize.)

This zoo of 3-predecessor cellular automata is an impressive lot.

Is "commute" the right word for that? I'm not a mathematician, but it doesn't match any usage in my poorly trained math-lang semantic net.

I doubt that "learn how to speak C++" is why anyone _does_ read the standard. The standard is used for things like ensuring broad compatibility among compiler implementations.

CLARIFICATION: I suppose that might have been your point--that not much hindering of understanding is going on among the broad C++ community due to standards (un-)availability.

There's no requirement for the over-the-air television networks to air Presidential addresses. They usually do, but there have been some notable cases where they have declined. I think FOX (not Fox News, FOX the broadcast channel) skipped out on at least one George W. Bush address and one Obama address.

It has always fascinated me that Smalltalk nearly universally comes with a window system and self-editing run-time.

I remember Sun's "Lively Kernel" project. It looks like this has some of that DNA in it. I can't claim to have ever bent my brain to quite grok Smalltalk-and-attendant-tools, but I definitely appreciate its contribution to our software heritage and see traces of it all around, especially in the NeXT/Apple ecosystem.

>A recount provides absolutely no evidence in either direction on what I'm alleging.

Georgia electronic votes were all backed by voter verifiable auditable paper ballots. That's independent of whether the software is competent at arithmetic. A hand recount does, in fact, protect against fake totals.

Unfortunately, there are a handful of states that don't mandate paper backups. The solution for machines of that sort isn't open source—it's adding auditable paper.

Cliff Stoll has appeared on the Numberphile YouTube channel dozens of times, and they're all informative and hilarious:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLt5AfwLFPxWJeBhzCJ_JX...

Baader-Meinhof Dunning-Kruger?

Cough. Python 3. Cough.

(I don't dispute the majority of your point, but I don't think all 10 year, backwards-incompatible upgrades are created equal.)

Of _any_ dynamic language? That's a pretty bold claim.

The final puzzle in Synacor was BRUTAL, but overall, such a fun experience.

An oldie but a goodie. Unbelievably good playground for playing with functional languages. I had so much fun doing a bad job solving the optimization challenges.

Isn't that (EF6, I mean) only on Windows, though?

Isn't it a-b instead of a%b?

Still probably not related to amount of transactions.

Or at least where many different voices are published. :)