... skyscrapers, bridges, or rockets without Lego.
Yes, you need Lego. But yes you also need to move on.
Python is for kids and scientists. Doesn't mean it's bad and doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. And doesn't mean it's not useful in a limited arena.
But dude, you have to grow up a little some time. That, or get a Nobel prize.
And that's the thing with Python -- it's for people feeling their way.. either feeling their way through their chosen profession or feeling their way through their chosen physical universe (and heading toward a Nobel prize). If what you want is to be awesome in your chosen profession, then you either need to be an astrophysicist or need to move past Python.
Except that Space ex has done jack shit towards progress. They can't even fuel there piece of shit death trap without it blowing up. Their rockets have major design flaws due to cutting corners to them cheap.
For the Merlin 1C, the only difference with the vacuum (second stage) version is the nozzle - a much larger expansion ratio. Other than the nozzle, they're the same engine.
The Merlin 1D variant is more deeply throttleable on the second stage, but it's unclear whether this is just a configuration setting or substantive hardware differences. I would imagine the former as much as possible.
But in any event, we concur -- lots of useful things to do with engines on their last flight.
Even if they can't recover the second stage, if they can get reliable recovery/refurbishing/reuse of the first stage that'll completely change the economic equation. Say you can reduce the second stage cost by $1m by increasing the first stage cost by $1.2 million, today you won't do that because it's a net $200k loss. If you can reuse the first stage once for neglible fuel costs it becomes a (2*$1m - $1.2m)/2 = $400k profit per launch. If they can do it five or ten times, it's even more profitable. So I think there's a lot of potential improvements just redesigning to take maximum advantage of first stage reuse by making the second stage do less and cost less.
Also worth pointing out that those first-stage engines will have a limited number of flights they're good for. So on it's last flight, you stick the engine in a second stage. After all, you've got to get rid of your expired engines somewhere, so they may as well go in a second stage as a junkyard somewhere.
Each "time's up minus one" first stage yields nine expendable second stage engines, sorta kinda for free.
Sorry dude, but you're wrong about this. At some point you'll realise it and be horrified. Don't feel bad, we all grab things by the wrong end sometimes.
If I follow your logic, your hang-up is on the fact that "annual" implies 1 year, and raising something to the power of 1 is not raising it at all, and thus non exponential. But you're wrong. Lemme give you an example: e=mc^2. ARGH: Einstein was wrong! If you measure c in "light years per year", then c becomes 1 and 1^2 is still 1 therefore the formula is misleading! Nonsense, right? Unfortunately, so is your argument.
You're confusing something which is exponential across a number of time periods, versus the size of each time period when measured in years. Stop getting so outraged that t=1 because it doesn't. T is the number of intervals. 1 is the size of the interval when measured in years.
This is a man standing too close to the forest to see the trees. He's right, but also completely wrong.
What is being taught is "computational thinking", not coding. Coding is just the conduit.
I've seen the stark difference in my work with primary and junior high kids (Scratch, Python, Javascript), where some kids learn sufficient language to enable them to do a bunch of neat things, but *still can't do it*. They're not making the neural connections between "here's a bunch of capabilities I have at my fingertips", and "here's how I put my capabilities together into a structure of my own creation to achieve my goal".
It's a skill that has application far beyond the keyboard. It's not about learning the syntax of a for-loop, it's about the epiphany that follows. Seeing a kids face when they (all too rarely) get it that they've become wizards and the sky is the limit, is priceless. They are visibly empowered and their view of their relationship with the world around them alters.
Agreed the verboseness argument is bogus, otherwise the whole debate would consist of COBOL people on one side, and APL people on the other. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum of verboseness, and both languages largely suck, but for different reasons.
+1 to parent. Strong typing raises compile-time errors that otherwise would end up as pernicious run-time bugs. That means less time debugging and more reliable software. It's the total opposite of the sort of hippie "oh man, just grow the data structure however you feel at the time" approach of Python.
After a few back and fourth texts.... the F&I guy would come to my house
Mmmm... couple of things here: 1) learn how to spell; it will do wonders for your credibility, especially if you live by text, and 2) learn not to finance things unless you have an ethical imperative for financing companies to profit at your expense. Yes, I know everyone does it, but everyone are stoopid.
Scratch is awesome, and I've worked with many dozens of kids on it.
The huge conundrum has always been where to go "after Scratch". Python isn't it, because you can't easily share graphical games unless the recipient also has pyGame installed. Javascript hasn't been it for a lack of appropriate on-ramp.
But there's now a free online tutorial system aimed at "Scratch kids" who want to take the next step. http://s2js.com/ It tutors them through the bits of Javascript they need to know in order to write graphical games that'll run on their smartdevices. It's tutorial, simple development tool, private image storage, and deployment facility.
Doesn't matter much which one, just learn to so some even trivial things in assembler. Then understand *this* is reality, and everything else is an abstraction.
For bonus points, then do it in hex without the benefit of an assembler to translate mnemonics into opcodes and calculate your relative addresses.
I think you're right: jealously. Musk has runs on the board - multiple runs in multiple arenas. He should be every geek's action hero, but instead people are calling him a con-man, a fake, a wannabe. It's absurd in light of the observable facts, and the only explanation that fits is that a collection of true wannabe's are sitting at home chucking sour grapes.
Yes, it's Scratch-like in construction -- but it excludes concepts like loops and branching. This tutorial is really not much more than configuring a couple of parameters in a pre-built flappy-bird game.
I'm a big fan of Scratch, of code.org, and of teaching kids how to code. But sad to say this offering misses the point entirely.
Temperature doesn't have the absurd issue of units that the other measurements have. If Faremheit included features like "12 degrees to a larksvomit, 3 larksvomits to a thrumblehorn", so a 75 degree day would actually be expressed as "3 thromblehorns and a larksvomit", then it would have the same issue.
The problem isn't the magnitude of these things, the problem is the absurd units and multiples involved.
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that since the Mendenhall Order of 1893, US customary units such as feet and pounds are actually defined in terms of metric ?
... skyscrapers, bridges, or rockets without Lego.
Yes, you need Lego. But yes you also need to move on.
Python is for kids and scientists. Doesn't mean it's bad and doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. And doesn't mean it's not useful in a limited arena.
But dude, you have to grow up a little some time. That, or get a Nobel prize.
And that's the thing with Python -- it's for people feeling their way.. either feeling their way through their chosen profession or feeling their way through their chosen physical universe (and heading toward a Nobel prize). If what you want is to be awesome in your chosen profession, then you either need to be an astrophysicist or need to move past Python.
Except that Space ex has done jack shit towards progress. They can't even fuel there piece of shit death trap without it blowing up. Their rockets have major design flaws due to cutting corners to them cheap.
But they *can* spell
For the Merlin 1C, the only difference with the vacuum (second stage) version is the nozzle - a much larger expansion ratio. Other than the nozzle, they're the same engine.
The Merlin 1D variant is more deeply throttleable on the second stage, but it's unclear whether this is just a configuration setting or substantive hardware differences. I would imagine the former as much as possible.
But in any event, we concur -- lots of useful things to do with engines on their last flight.
Even if they can't recover the second stage, if they can get reliable recovery/refurbishing/reuse of the first stage that'll completely change the economic equation. Say you can reduce the second stage cost by $1m by increasing the first stage cost by $1.2 million, today you won't do that because it's a net $200k loss. If you can reuse the first stage once for neglible fuel costs it becomes a (2*$1m - $1.2m)/2 = $400k profit per launch. If they can do it five or ten times, it's even more profitable. So I think there's a lot of potential improvements just redesigning to take maximum advantage of first stage reuse by making the second stage do less and cost less.
Also worth pointing out that those first-stage engines will have a limited number of flights they're good for. So on it's last flight, you stick the engine in a second stage. After all, you've got to get rid of your expired engines somewhere, so they may as well go in a second stage as a junkyard somewhere.
Each "time's up minus one" first stage yields nine expendable second stage engines, sorta kinda for free.
Ok, you see that you're wrong and trying to distract.
Hubris, dude. Hubris.
Everyone is mistaken from time to time; it's what you do when you realise it that characterises you.
Uh, pretty sure he would.
Sorry dude, but you're wrong about this. At some point you'll realise it and be horrified. Don't feel bad, we all grab things by the wrong end sometimes.
If I follow your logic, your hang-up is on the fact that "annual" implies 1 year, and raising something to the power of 1 is not raising it at all, and thus non exponential. But you're wrong. Lemme give you an example: e=mc^2. ARGH: Einstein was wrong! If you measure c in "light years per year", then c becomes 1 and 1^2 is still 1 therefore the formula is misleading! Nonsense, right? Unfortunately, so is your argument.
You're confusing something which is exponential across a number of time periods, versus the size of each time period when measured in years. Stop getting so outraged that t=1 because it doesn't. T is the number of intervals. 1 is the size of the interval when measured in years.
Primary school stuff.
This is a man standing too close to the forest to see the trees. He's right, but also completely wrong.
What is being taught is "computational thinking", not coding. Coding is just the conduit.
I've seen the stark difference in my work with primary and junior high kids (Scratch, Python, Javascript), where some kids learn sufficient language to enable them to do a bunch of neat things, but *still can't do it*. They're not making the neural connections between "here's a bunch of capabilities I have at my fingertips", and "here's how I put my capabilities together into a structure of my own creation to achieve my goal".
It's a skill that has application far beyond the keyboard. It's not about learning the syntax of a for-loop, it's about the epiphany that follows. Seeing a kids face when they (all too rarely) get it that they've become wizards and the sky is the limit, is priceless. They are visibly empowered and their view of their relationship with the world around them alters.
*That's* what it's about.
Agreed the verboseness argument is bogus, otherwise the whole debate would consist of COBOL people on one side, and APL people on the other. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum of verboseness, and both languages largely suck, but for different reasons.
+1 to parent. Strong typing raises compile-time errors that otherwise would end up as pernicious run-time bugs. That means less time debugging and more reliable software. It's the total opposite of the sort of hippie "oh man, just grow the data structure however you feel at the time" approach of Python.
Yeah, and it's also *tomorrow* :))
After a few back and fourth texts .... the F&I guy would come to my house
Mmmm... couple of things here: 1) learn how to spell; it will do wonders for your credibility, especially if you live by text, and 2) learn not to finance things unless you have an ethical imperative for financing companies to profit at your expense. Yes, I know everyone does it, but everyone are stoopid.
Scratch is awesome, and I've worked with many dozens of kids on it.
The huge conundrum has always been where to go "after Scratch". Python isn't it, because you can't easily share graphical games unless the recipient also has pyGame installed. Javascript hasn't been it for a lack of appropriate on-ramp.
But there's now a free online tutorial system aimed at "Scratch kids" who want to take the next step. http://s2js.com/ It tutors them through the bits of Javascript they need to know in order to write graphical games that'll run on their smartdevices. It's tutorial, simple development tool, private image storage, and deployment facility.
It's "Javascript as told to Scratchers".
Doesn't matter much which one, just learn to so some even trivial things in assembler. Then understand *this* is reality, and everything else is an abstraction.
For bonus points, then do it in hex without the benefit of an assembler to translate mnemonics into opcodes and calculate your relative addresses.
Passed what? A kidney stone? Another car?
Oh, you mean "died". I get it now.
also, start at 2m20s to watch the cows run away!
And at 4:20 as it lands, the cows run back again. Very suspicious.
Well, based on what I've seen in my time on this plant ...
You're living on a plant ??
My god, this place is bugged !!
Hey! Illegible, ill-informed and incorrect. Nice trifecta
I like the bit where it says ""It looks like you're writing a letter..."
... SpaceX hasn't managed to launch a single rocket without it having some mayor failure.
I think the correct tense form is *mayoral* failure.
Oh, unless you actually meant something else and just fucked up coz you were too distracted bootstrapping your own space launch business.
I think you're right: jealously. Musk has runs on the board - multiple runs in multiple arenas. He should be every geek's action hero, but instead people are calling him a con-man, a fake, a wannabe. It's absurd in light of the observable facts, and the only explanation that fits is that a collection of true wannabe's are sitting at home chucking sour grapes.
Knuth for how things work, Mythical man month for how things don't work. Everything else is left as an exercise for the reader.
Yes, it's Scratch-like in construction -- but it excludes concepts like loops and branching. This tutorial is really not much more than configuring a couple of parameters in a pre-built flappy-bird game.
I'm a big fan of Scratch, of code.org, and of teaching kids how to code. But sad to say this offering misses the point entirely.
Temperature doesn't have the absurd issue of units that the other measurements have. If Faremheit included features like "12 degrees to a larksvomit, 3 larksvomits to a thrumblehorn", so a 75 degree day would actually be expressed as "3 thromblehorns and a larksvomit", then it would have the same issue.
The problem isn't the magnitude of these things, the problem is the absurd units and multiples involved.