If even a tiny fraction of the people who bitch about their mistakes actually acted then things would be much better and you would have to find something else to complain about.
I do do something about it. You don't see this kind of leak nonsense from any product I've ever worked on. I expect developers elsewhere to be equally professional. User credential data (and personal info) is important, and development processes need to be more careful around it.
otherwise trying to justify yourself when I call your behaviour dangerous
I give approximately 0 fucks about your opinion on my driving. But of course our anecdotes are different, as presumably we live in different places. Why you have trouble accepting that the culture and behavior of drivers in different places around the world might be different, I'm not sure. Watch some traffic camera videos or dashcam videos from various places on Youtube some time (and what a boring place Earth would be if we were all the same).
No, the question is still, "WTF is a civil suit being investigated and prosecuted by the FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT!?!?!"
It's basic public safety in this case. No sane person would want to watch "Expendables 3" in the first place. Evidence leading to 2 million people who are clearly dangers to themselves and others. I can see the federal police following that up. Much like that social experiment "Transformers 4" to catalog people who will watch any goddamned thing in the world as long at there are quickly moving CGI images and explosions (planned to replace Selective Service registration to get a list of names for the draft).
But even mad science experiments can't explain recent Adam Sandler movies (Though when you see a $100 M budget for a film that probably cost $3 M to make, and was widely regarded as worst film of all time, well, someone saw The Producers).
Cars don't magically change lanes for no reason because there's a gap.
Your opinion diverges from the data. I've seen people switch to an obviously slower lane just to fill a gap, because the habit is just that ingrained. Nature's a whore with a vacuum, or something like that.
If driving 70mph, or slowing to 69mph to open a small gap in front of you is the difference between you getting rear ended then I recommend taking the getting rear ended approach
Again, the data does not support your position. Slowing to leave a gap in front of you fails to achieve that goal. The space you create will be filled as fast as you create it, unless you drive significantly slower than the flow of traffic (since people will then leave space in front of you to tailgate 2 inches off the back bumper of the next car - I swear, it's like some guys want to ride in my trunk!).
Fun fact about Bay Area freeways: the right lane is reliably faster in heavy traffic. Everyone crams the "fast" lane, and everyone is oblivious to the reality that it's not faster. Moving as far to the left as possible despite objective evidence that it's harmful - bet you never saw that coming in California.
To maintain the same distance in front of you, you are driving the same speed as the car in front of you. How is that the wrong speed?
You leave some space in front of you. Someone pulls in. Now what? Do you slow down and leave some space in front, or accept your fate? If you slow down a bit, get some space, then someone new pulls in front. Keep trying to leave space, and you're now going slower than traffic. Get it?
I like it because it's infinitely extensible. Who polices the police police police? Police police police police police police police police police, of course.
Well, if you steadfastly refuse to explain your use of your pet phrase "formal specification language", you'll continue to fail to communicate. Whatever point you're trying to make, no one here outside your head is getting it.
That's pretty much it. I don't have much faith in the future of chemical-battery-powered cars, but regardless it will eventually be something that starts with electricity. Meanwhile, gradually moving off of coal power seems a no-brainer. Rushing to do so would be foolish, causing needless economic disruption, but over decades as existing power stations hit normal replacement cycles? Coal needs to go.
Wow, way to go Slashcode! OK, here's the same post hopefully without the mangling:
And the "dirty coal" argument is a load of horseshit. Come out from behind your cloak of cowardly anonymity & we'll debate.
Not the AC, but here's an argument for you. If you care whether a car is green* in the first place, you're probably a hipster, and thus should die in a fire. Despite sensational news stories, you're probably less likely to die in a fire in a Tesla than a gas powered car. Therefore, the Tesla is not really a green car.
*I miss cars that are the actual color green. It's really hard to find luxury cars these days in anything but neutral colors (when times are tough, people choose attention-diverting instead of attention-getting colors for expensive stuff). That's a shame, I love colorful cars. The Model S has a great red available though - good for Tesla!
And the "dirty coal" argument is a load of horseshit. Come out from behind your cloak of cowardly anonymity & we'll debate.
Not the ACless likely to die in a fire in a Tesla than a gas powered car. Therefore, the Tesla is not really a green car.
*I miss cars that are the actual color green. It's really hard to find luxury cars these days in anything but neutral colors (when times are tough, people choose attention-diverting instead of attention-getting colors for expensive stuff). That's a shame, I love colorful cars. The Model S has a great red available though - good for Tesla!
BMW is only marginally a luxury car. You get less luxury at a given price than most other car companies, as their focus is on performance and that means reducing weight.
If the commodities exchanges aren't "free markets", the term is meaningless. "Free market" does not mean unregulated - never has except in strawmen - it means the government isn't mucking with pricing, nor giving preference to some buyers or sellers.
"Capitalism" only means that you can aquire the means of production by spending money, instead of by political influence, military adventure, or the like.
Understanding implies the ability to explain ones position, not merely assert it. You come off like those clowns who go on about proofs of program correctness, but perhaps that's a mistaken impression
Can you give an example of a formal language spec? Are you talking about an actual set of formal transforms to object code or somesuch?
BTW, set-ups like a C compiler written in C are very much in line with Godel statements. There certainly exists source code for which the question "does this compiler compile this source code correctly" cannot have a useful answer as a formal proof (and the examples easiest to contrive would include the compiler itself in said source code).
Try keeping that distance without driving significantly slower than the flow of traffic - unless people pulling in front of you is rare, you can't. Driving at the wrong speed, especially in "bumper to bumper at 70 MPH" traffic creates a significant traffic hazard.
People are a horrendous judge of risk vs reward, especially on the road.
No joke. The primary reason for traffic slowdowns on these highways was rear-end collisions blocking traffic. I'm quite sure that net average travel time was longer because of traffic moving too fast, when you average in the accident delays.
Pave enough lanes and all these problems go away, but people have even worse judgment when it comes to building infrastructure for some reason.
Ah, you don't get it - I'm guessing you drive someplace more sane. You cannot leave a safe following distance ahead under some traffic conditions. You could try, but there will be a continuous stream of cars pulling into the space you're trying to leave in front of you, and if you slow by too much to try to maintain that space, now you've become a hazard to navigation, endangering everyone else.
. Lane following is simple in that it uses two painted lines to figure out where the lane is and steers to stay between the lines.
My car does much better than that. I've been surprised at how little visual information it needs to determine where the lane is. I does sometimes get confused by zebra crossings, however. It doesn't brake for curves, but it does look ahead and understand curves - if the car "ahead" of me is actually in a different lane, for example, it figures that out and doesn't panic (the first gen system from 10 years ago had problems with that).
Say you approaching a narrow bridge. The bridge has to be identified. How can you identify a bridge if all the information you have is the position of the left side of the lane, the position of the right side of the lane and the distance to the vehicle in front of you?
My car has a variety of sensors, including a camera built into the rearview mirror assembly (so, better visibility than my eyes). It lacks the software to deal with e.g. sharp curves ahead, but the raw data is already available.
These systems are actually quite good at some of your list - you might surprised. What they can't do at all is predict the insanity of other drivers. Like the guy waiting to turn left who will just sit there until you get dangerously close, and then cross in front of you (why do so many people do that?). It's early days yet, but I fully expect software to pass average human driving skill in my lifetime.
Where I drive, you simply can't leave any more distance when traffic is heavy: if you leave reasonable space between you and the car in front of you, someone will pull in. It's a bit nuts.
But the great thing about this tech is that, unlike me, it has the reflexes to always react safely and the ability to maintain that focus indefinitely. I rely on "looking upstream" to predict changes in traffic flow, and that works well enough, but it doesn't help with drivers who are just crazy, lose a tire, or other such unpredictable events. Now, I'm not sure what scope of events the car can react to, as it's early days yet for self-driving, but in principle it's great.
How close you drive to the car in front of you is a matter of reaction time. I expect we'll no longer be bound by the limits of the human nervous system, soon enough.
There hasn't been anything new in CS since the 80s.
No really.
Nothiing.
AJAX was new. Used to be the terminal and back-end would only exchange data when you hit the xmit key, and of course the web re-invented this pattern adding nothing new, but then it actually went a step beyond. Of course, it's mostly abused in horrible ways to punish the user for the crime of being a customer, but then, what tool isn't?
Other than that, yup, mostly re-inventing of the wheel by people young enough not to be there for the last trip round.
Re:The problem mirrors that of big word processors
on
Getting Back To Coding
·
· Score: 2
But to say "you should not code features that are not immediately needed in the current sprint" will lead, in most cases, to significant rework in the future. Rework is money and time.
When at last you grok the Tao of Programming in fullness, you will no longer have this problem. Seriously, one good reason to have a senior engineer on the team is to help guide you in doing just what you need immediately without significant throw-away work, or not-used-today cruft.
A key part of the work of a smart project lead, whether that lead is an active developer or not, is to anticipate the product direction. The lead has to be able to say, "Sure, we're only going to write this subset of functionality *now*, but it is a near certainty that users will want this expansion of it in just a couple of years. We might as well have the basic framework for that in place, even it's only stubs."
A couple of years? Writing dead code and cruft on purpose? No, that's nuts in this day and age. Write code properly such that it's easily refactored, and don't do anything to block anticipated features, but if you can't see ways to do just the immediate work and still keep it cheap to add someday-maybe features later, what have you been doing these 30 years?
And there are many people like you who have difficulty reading text that's not annotated, explained or highlighted by something else.
I used to program using butterflies, but of late that doesn't seem manly enough. Now I'm programming by arranging cocoons such that weeks hence when the butterflies fly away, the desired atmospheric disturbance will result in the code on my HDD. Took years to get to where I could intuit the changing weather well enough, but now I feel like a real programmer again - let's see em make an Emacs macro for that.
Slashdot Mirror
If even a tiny fraction of the people who bitch about their mistakes actually acted then things would be much better and you would have to find something else to complain about.
I do do something about it. You don't see this kind of leak nonsense from any product I've ever worked on. I expect developers elsewhere to be equally professional. User credential data (and personal info) is important, and development processes need to be more careful around it.
otherwise trying to justify yourself when I call your behaviour dangerous
I give approximately 0 fucks about your opinion on my driving. But of course our anecdotes are different, as presumably we live in different places. Why you have trouble accepting that the culture and behavior of drivers in different places around the world might be different, I'm not sure. Watch some traffic camera videos or dashcam videos from various places on Youtube some time (and what a boring place Earth would be if we were all the same).
No, the question is still, "WTF is a civil suit being investigated and prosecuted by the FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT!?!?!"
It's basic public safety in this case. No sane person would want to watch "Expendables 3" in the first place. Evidence leading to 2 million people who are clearly dangers to themselves and others. I can see the federal police following that up. Much like that social experiment "Transformers 4" to catalog people who will watch any goddamned thing in the world as long at there are quickly moving CGI images and explosions (planned to replace Selective Service registration to get a list of names for the draft).
But even mad science experiments can't explain recent Adam Sandler movies (Though when you see a $100 M budget for a film that probably cost $3 M to make, and was widely regarded as worst film of all time, well, someone saw The Producers).
Cars don't magically change lanes for no reason because there's a gap.
Your opinion diverges from the data. I've seen people switch to an obviously slower lane just to fill a gap, because the habit is just that ingrained. Nature's a whore with a vacuum, or something like that.
If driving 70mph, or slowing to 69mph to open a small gap in front of you is the difference between you getting rear ended then I recommend taking the getting rear ended approach
Again, the data does not support your position. Slowing to leave a gap in front of you fails to achieve that goal. The space you create will be filled as fast as you create it, unless you drive significantly slower than the flow of traffic (since people will then leave space in front of you to tailgate 2 inches off the back bumper of the next car - I swear, it's like some guys want to ride in my trunk!).
Fun fact about Bay Area freeways: the right lane is reliably faster in heavy traffic. Everyone crams the "fast" lane, and everyone is oblivious to the reality that it's not faster. Moving as far to the left as possible despite objective evidence that it's harmful - bet you never saw that coming in California.
To maintain the same distance in front of you, you are driving the same speed as the car in front of you. How is that the wrong speed?
You leave some space in front of you. Someone pulls in. Now what? Do you slow down and leave some space in front, or accept your fate? If you slow down a bit, get some space, then someone new pulls in front. Keep trying to leave space, and you're now going slower than traffic. Get it?
Gah, extra police slipped in - must have been undercover!
I like it because it's infinitely extensible. Who polices the police police police? Police police police police police police police police police, of course.
Well, if you steadfastly refuse to explain your use of your pet phrase "formal specification language", you'll continue to fail to communicate. Whatever point you're trying to make, no one here outside your head is getting it.
That's pretty much it. I don't have much faith in the future of chemical-battery-powered cars, but regardless it will eventually be something that starts with electricity. Meanwhile, gradually moving off of coal power seems a no-brainer. Rushing to do so would be foolish, causing needless economic disruption, but over decades as existing power stations hit normal replacement cycles? Coal needs to go.
Wow, way to go Slashcode! OK, here's the same post hopefully without the mangling:
And the "dirty coal" argument is a load of horseshit. Come out from behind your cloak of cowardly anonymity & we'll debate.
Not the AC, but here's an argument for you. If you care whether a car is green* in the first place, you're probably a hipster, and thus should die in a fire. Despite sensational news stories, you're probably less likely to die in a fire in a Tesla than a gas powered car. Therefore, the Tesla is not really a green car.
*I miss cars that are the actual color green. It's really hard to find luxury cars these days in anything but neutral colors (when times are tough, people choose attention-diverting instead of attention-getting colors for expensive stuff). That's a shame, I love colorful cars. The Model S has a great red available though - good for Tesla!
And the "dirty coal" argument is a load of horseshit. Come out from behind your cloak of cowardly anonymity & we'll debate.
Not the ACless likely to die in a fire in a Tesla than a gas powered car. Therefore, the Tesla is not really a green car.
*I miss cars that are the actual color green. It's really hard to find luxury cars these days in anything but neutral colors (when times are tough, people choose attention-diverting instead of attention-getting colors for expensive stuff). That's a shame, I love colorful cars. The Model S has a great red available though - good for Tesla!
BMW is only marginally a luxury car. You get less luxury at a given price than most other car companies, as their focus is on performance and that means reducing weight.
If the commodities exchanges aren't "free markets", the term is meaningless. "Free market" does not mean unregulated - never has except in strawmen - it means the government isn't mucking with pricing, nor giving preference to some buyers or sellers.
"Capitalism" only means that you can aquire the means of production by spending money, instead of by political influence, military adventure, or the like.
Understanding implies the ability to explain ones position, not merely assert it. You come off like those clowns who go on about proofs of program correctness, but perhaps that's a mistaken impression
Can you give an example of a formal language spec? Are you talking about an actual set of formal transforms to object code or somesuch?
BTW, set-ups like a C compiler written in C are very much in line with Godel statements. There certainly exists source code for which the question "does this compiler compile this source code correctly" cannot have a useful answer as a formal proof (and the examples easiest to contrive would include the compiler itself in said source code).
Try keeping that distance without driving significantly slower than the flow of traffic - unless people pulling in front of you is rare, you can't. Driving at the wrong speed, especially in "bumper to bumper at 70 MPH" traffic creates a significant traffic hazard.
People are a horrendous judge of risk vs reward, especially on the road.
No joke. The primary reason for traffic slowdowns on these highways was rear-end collisions blocking traffic. I'm quite sure that net average travel time was longer because of traffic moving too fast, when you average in the accident delays.
Pave enough lanes and all these problems go away, but people have even worse judgment when it comes to building infrastructure for some reason.
Ah, you don't get it - I'm guessing you drive someplace more sane. You cannot leave a safe following distance ahead under some traffic conditions. You could try, but there will be a continuous stream of cars pulling into the space you're trying to leave in front of you, and if you slow by too much to try to maintain that space, now you've become a hazard to navigation, endangering everyone else.
. Lane following is simple in that it uses two painted lines to figure out where the lane is and steers to stay between the lines.
My car does much better than that. I've been surprised at how little visual information it needs to determine where the lane is. I does sometimes get confused by zebra crossings, however. It doesn't brake for curves, but it does look ahead and understand curves - if the car "ahead" of me is actually in a different lane, for example, it figures that out and doesn't panic (the first gen system from 10 years ago had problems with that).
Say you approaching a narrow bridge. The bridge has to be identified. How can you identify a bridge if all the information you have is the position of the left side of the lane, the position of the right side of the lane and the distance to the vehicle in front of you?
My car has a variety of sensors, including a camera built into the rearview mirror assembly (so, better visibility than my eyes). It lacks the software to deal with e.g. sharp curves ahead, but the raw data is already available.
These systems are actually quite good at some of your list - you might surprised. What they can't do at all is predict the insanity of other drivers. Like the guy waiting to turn left who will just sit there until you get dangerously close, and then cross in front of you (why do so many people do that?). It's early days yet, but I fully expect software to pass average human driving skill in my lifetime.
Where I drive, you simply can't leave any more distance when traffic is heavy: if you leave reasonable space between you and the car in front of you, someone will pull in. It's a bit nuts.
But the great thing about this tech is that, unlike me, it has the reflexes to always react safely and the ability to maintain that focus indefinitely. I rely on "looking upstream" to predict changes in traffic flow, and that works well enough, but it doesn't help with drivers who are just crazy, lose a tire, or other such unpredictable events. Now, I'm not sure what scope of events the car can react to, as it's early days yet for self-driving, but in principle it's great.
How close you drive to the car in front of you is a matter of reaction time. I expect we'll no longer be bound by the limits of the human nervous system, soon enough.
There hasn't been anything new in CS since the 80s.
No really.
Nothiing.
AJAX was new. Used to be the terminal and back-end would only exchange data when you hit the xmit key, and of course the web re-invented this pattern adding nothing new, but then it actually went a step beyond. Of course, it's mostly abused in horrible ways to punish the user for the crime of being a customer, but then, what tool isn't?
Other than that, yup, mostly re-inventing of the wheel by people young enough not to be there for the last trip round.
But to say "you should not code features that are not immediately needed in the current sprint" will lead, in most cases, to significant rework in the future. Rework is money and time.
When at last you grok the Tao of Programming in fullness, you will no longer have this problem. Seriously, one good reason to have a senior engineer on the team is to help guide you in doing just what you need immediately without significant throw-away work, or not-used-today cruft.
A key part of the work of a smart project lead, whether that lead is an active developer or not, is to anticipate the product direction. The lead has to be able to say, "Sure, we're only going to write this subset of functionality *now*, but it is a near certainty that users will want this expansion of it in just a couple of years. We might as well have the basic framework for that in place, even it's only stubs."
A couple of years? Writing dead code and cruft on purpose? No, that's nuts in this day and age. Write code properly such that it's easily refactored, and don't do anything to block anticipated features, but if you can't see ways to do just the immediate work and still keep it cheap to add someday-maybe features later, what have you been doing these 30 years?
And there are many people like you who have difficulty reading text that's not annotated, explained or highlighted by something else.
I used to program using butterflies, but of late that doesn't seem manly enough. Now I'm programming by arranging cocoons such that weeks hence when the butterflies fly away, the desired atmospheric disturbance will result in the code on my HDD. Took years to get to where I could intuit the changing weather well enough, but now I feel like a real programmer again - let's see em make an Emacs macro for that.
Oh, believe me, with Visual Studio they'll come - when you least expect them!
A formal specification is a specification done in a formal specification language. There is no other meaning of that term.
What, there are language specs that don't have an EBNF or similar for valid statements in the language? Seems odd.
theory, you could check a formal specification for soundness using an automated theorem prover
Ooh, sounds magical. Let me know when you find a theorem prover that is (even "in theory") complete and consistent (and runs in finite time).