not trolling. just a totally different mindset and life-style. I also meant within the same codebase -- different tasks, different techniques. Others can learn to read better. my code has no dependencies, so it doesn't matter where I put it. That's a big part of no IDE, no existing libraries, and others learning to read. All ym code is totally movable.
Actually, and here's where you're in the real world, O(2n + 1) == O(n) is true, but O(2n + 1) === O(n) is very much false.
Unlike the first O class, the second points out something very important. That "2" and that "+1" can require huge amounts of code, advanced mathematical principles, and enough computational resources that it make all real-world sorting efforts incredibly slow. So sure, it may be just as fast on lists of a billion elements, but it's still way slower on lists of a million elements.
Think about it. My first pass would only be assessing each element once, but it can take a minute per element to deduce what I need to deduce.
And that's not even my world. In my world, the amount of time that it'll take me, as the developer, to figure, write, and test that code might take a week. All the time saved by that algorithm over a simple quicksort might me one hour of sorting per day. So it'll take five months before my time was worth the computer's time. And in the end, paying me for a week isn't as good as spending that money on a little more computer to handle this sorting alone.
So it's not worth it in practice. No matter how theorhetically sound it is.
Yeah, I don't require the list to already be sorted. I just require it to be of quantifiable values -- you know, like just about all of business precision. It's not scientific precision at all.
Although, O(2n+1) would allow me to handle scientific precision, but it would require some pretty eroticly illegible code to do it. Oh yeah, and a reason for doing so.
The article never says that discipline is required for success.
And I never said that my sorting routine isn't general purpose. It covers all of the purposes that I've ever encountered in twenty years of business.
It doesn't cover the needs of the curiosity rover on jupiter. But, interestingly enough, that's never been a requirement of any of my clients.
I solve the problems that my clients have. I specifically do not solve the problems that my clients do not have. Welcome to optimization -- of my life.
Enjoy your academic exercise. You'll find that's all it is.
1. never be consistent. every task is totally different. 2. name things in a way that makes sense to you in relation to the other things around. No one cares if it's proper. 3. put the code where you want it. that's where it belongs. 4. never write comments. learn to read code. english isn't any easier to read. 5. never use existing libraries when you can write your own. 7. don't use an IDE at all. write a platform that doesn't require debugging at all. 6. never test your algorithms. write self-testing algorithms instead. 8. there are no guidelines outside of school. and school just makes them up for grading purposes. 9. open source is terrible for the world. but it's a great way for a programmer to take working code and re-write it for themselves.
You won't find any such list. I've made a career out of shunning all such "popular" attitudes. The more consistent the attitude, the more obvious the benefits to breaking away from it.
Way back in university, in CS, the prof spent a day teaching sorting algorithms, as all CS profs do. The conclusion was that you can't sort any faster than O(n,log n). Which made it all the more confusing when I asked him what I was doing wrong because my home-grown sorting algorithm runs in O(n).
Guess what. My puny zero-experience had written a sorting algorithm that really is O(n), and simply isn't taught in school. It's not taught as a standard sorting method purely because it depends high memory requirements and known a data range.
Put together your list. Get everyone to follow/teach/learn it. I'll make a living out of defying it when clients get frustrated that the industry seems to prioritize it's own principles over the actual business needs their clients.
I don't test. I don't allow database transactions. I refuse version control. I don't document. I don't write specs. I don't do garbage collection nor control. No complexity analysis, nor XML, nor functional programming nor object oriented programming. I type with a keyboard, but not with my variables. And, as we said before, my sorting algorithm is faster than quicksort.
Make your list. Then find out how many businesses consider such lists to be purely academic. Your "master programmer" teaches programming. He doesn't run a business.
That's almost my complaint. It's not that I won't notice the errors. It's that I won't notice the errors when they are spoken. I'll notice the errors when I get bitten by a tiger after reading a sign that says "beware of cat".
It's important for miscommunication to be identified during the communication protocol.
They do a great job of improving the precision of what used to be mediocre. And then, as a direct result, they not only make the errors worse, they make the errors undetectable.
CAT: small, furry, pet. BIG CAT: big, furry, pet.
Um. Both are orange. One's a tabby. One's a tiger.
It's not good enough that your translation system has a 99% accuracy whereas the old one has a 90% accuracy. What matters is that the old one's 10% error rate sounded like an error (e.g. tiger becomes monster), whereas your new one's 1% passes the turing test and can't be discerned by an intelligent listener (e.g. tiger becomes tabby).
"My friend owns a monster." -- You friend owns what? I don't think you meant a monster. -- "eh, you know, a very big dangerous jungle cat" -- oh, like a lion -- "not a lion, it has stripes" -- oh, a tiger.
I'm confused. Name the last major disaster that forced people to follow large-scale national instructions where any significant number of those persons had access to twitter? Last I checked, cell towers are the first te become useless, and home internet is the second to fall apart.
So let me get this straight. We used to use air raid sirens, that everyone within 50km could hear, and it cost virtually nothing to have one siren per township. Then we went to air horns and mega phones where public announcements could be heard for blocks and again humans needed zero infrastructure to hear them..
Now what? Now aliens are attacking during a hurricane and I need a smartphone, a data package, a fully-charged battery, and how many bars of connectivity?
Patents, audits, communication carriers, and many other very finely invasive procedures are subject to incredibly strict laws.
Most things aren't. Those things are. Read your local laws. Discover that what is protected is actually very well protected. Those are the things that you want to use.
When it comes to corporate audits, that information is not only not publicized, it's not even internalized in any real capacity. Doing so is directly illegal, and can cause major economic turmoil on a national scale.
No one opens your mail. In my country, there's only one office permitted to open someone's mail. And the reasons for doing so are incredibly particular. And even then, what that person is actually allowed to do with the knowledge is virtually nothing.
Sure, when you deal with most things, those protections don't exist. But this isn't one of those most things. It's something that's very well protected. Make sure it stays that way -- by taking advantage of those protections. The more you use them, the more you entrust to them, the stronger they become.
Think more. It's easier than creating this law in the first place. It's also an enforcement issue more than a principle issue. And this law isn't set yet. Wait until next month.
Stop arguing the argument. Women do that. Try arguing the actual point being made. This isn't a debate club. If you want the value of a debate, elect a president who's as useless as the one before him. If you want to actually make a difference from one year to the next, argue the problem and its solution.
audits aren't actually revealing. you're talking about one of the most confidential processes in the world. You're also talking about a part of the world with some of the best privacy laws. You don't store your data outside of the EU to protect it. You store it inside. Most other places are much worse.
They are currently set up for their own profit. One of the only reasons that they go "multi-national" in the first place is to dodge tax laws.
But to your question specifically, you can easily have the heads of each country manage vacation schedules.
I don't think you realize that "outsourcing" means exporting a country's wealth. France is a particularly good example here, because it's very socialist in an amazingly family-friendly manner -- way beyond what you probably think is possible. Forget healthcare, hospitals will re-imburse you for your cabfare on-the-spot.
A society with that much wealth, literally paying its citizens with money and services leaps and bounds beyond just about anywhere else in the world, hasn't any hope in hell of competing when it comes to labour rates. So if you choose to live, work, or do business in a place that pays its citizens top-dollar, you can't be allowed to then stop paying anyone, take the country's money, and use it to pay peanuts to far-away peoples. If you are, you might as well just shut the country down now.
And that's the point. The people living there prefer the higher wages, and the better services. That's why they live there. No one's forced to live there. And no one's forced to work there. So this is all cool.
I like it. Yes enforcement would be tough, but that's a totally separate thing. This supports privacy but it does much more than that. It supports actually being able to make laws. It's less about "transfer" and more about transfering outside of the legal jurisdiction.
More importantly, it attributes real value to personal data. That makes sense today, since it's sold as a currency already.
I program. I also own a programming company. I prefer the longer hour days at both levels.
Sure I'm exhausted after a normal day. And sure the code quality drops precipitously with each additional hour. But the longer hours aren't about quality.
Few programming tasks around here take weeks of work. The most complicated ones take a day of planning, a day of developing, and a day of launching.
Those three days can easily turn into six. When any of those three facets needs one more hour, it pushes into the next day. Which then ruins the next facet's time. Things spiral out of control into 6 days, which means two business weeks for a project that should have take three business days.
The longer hours are to reach completion on the day's facet.
And besides, after the first 5 productive hours, the next 5 needn't be "productive" and "high quality". They just need to be labourious. Actually executing what was planned, finishing what was done, and click twice to actually test that it's done.
That's what works for me. And it works very well. I then take the remaining two business days of the week, and skip work.
And the robots and AI won't only be able to, they'll also be better, faster, and cheaper than humans? They'll also require less infrastructure? They'll suddenly be able to build farms in the middle of no where out of nothing with no water, no power, and no roads? And it won't take everyone of us to manage this growing fleet of just-out-of-school autonomous tools? And we'll have the resources to power these things? Good luck with that. Oh, and it's going to be considered murder to destroy a robot?
a) I am one of those who interupts constantly. There's a good reason for doing so. b) it's not the results, look you said time, money and etc. etc is effort. welcome to the demand side of economics. c) again, and this was my first point, this technique is only successful because it isn't popular. it'll be worse than the current norm once it becomes the norm. that's what makes it a bad deal. nothing else.
Doesn't make any different to the value calculation. If I'm alone in a room, it's not fun. I'm not willing to pay for not fun. I can learn in a library all by myself at any time. It's worth the same dollar-fifty that it always was. I don't want to ask questions three days later. I want to ask questions when the question presents itself. You expect me to keep a list of questions for tomorrow's class? And then what, run through them one-by-one? And then, re-watch the video again?
Value isn't determined by results. That's what most people don't understand. Value is determined by the ease with which the results are attainable. That's very different.
Again, it works better BECAUSE it's not common. It falls apart when it becomes common. It's like left-handed athletes -- the dominant minority effect.
I don't care how much work they are doing to create the videos. If they aren't around when I'm working with it, then they aren't the one teaching me. It's that simple.
I don't need to pay whatever tuition (plus general taxes), to learn from a recording. The value in those funds is to have the human being there so I can interupt at any moment. Otherwise, I'm comparing the value of the recordings to the value of me just learning alone in a library. When it's me alone, I'm not willing to pay nearly as much. And that's the case here. I simply don't value learning alone. It's not fun. I pay for fun.
All that is under the heading of "while in use" or "while I'm a customer" or "while using the road". It doesn't apply to times when I'm out of the country, or my car is being repaired, or it's in my garage, or I'm on some other road.
Slashdot Mirror
not trolling. just a totally different mindset and life-style. I also meant within the same codebase -- different tasks, different techniques. Others can learn to read better. my code has no dependencies, so it doesn't matter where I put it. That's a big part of no IDE, no existing libraries, and others learning to read. All ym code is totally movable.
Actually, and here's where you're in the real world, O(2n + 1) == O(n) is true, but O(2n + 1) === O(n) is very much false.
Unlike the first O class, the second points out something very important. That "2" and that "+1" can require huge amounts of code, advanced mathematical principles, and enough computational resources that it make all real-world sorting efforts incredibly slow. So sure, it may be just as fast on lists of a billion elements, but it's still way slower on lists of a million elements.
Think about it. My first pass would only be assessing each element once, but it can take a minute per element to deduce what I need to deduce.
And that's not even my world. In my world, the amount of time that it'll take me, as the developer, to figure, write, and test that code might take a week. All the time saved by that algorithm over a simple quicksort might me one hour of sorting per day. So it'll take five months before my time was worth the computer's time. And in the end, paying me for a week isn't as good as spending that money on a little more computer to handle this sorting alone.
So it's not worth it in practice. No matter how theorhetically sound it is.
Welcome to academic exercises.
Yeah, I don't require the list to already be sorted. I just require it to be of quantifiable values -- you know, like just about all of business precision. It's not scientific precision at all.
Although, O(2n+1) would allow me to handle scientific precision, but it would require some pretty eroticly illegible code to do it. Oh yeah, and a reason for doing so.
The article never says that discipline is required for success.
And I never said that my sorting routine isn't general purpose. It covers all of the purposes that I've ever encountered in twenty years of business.
It doesn't cover the needs of the curiosity rover on jupiter. But, interestingly enough, that's never been a requirement of any of my clients.
I solve the problems that my clients have. I specifically do not solve the problems that my clients do not have. Welcome to optimization -- of my life.
Enjoy your academic exercise. You'll find that's all it is.
1. never be consistent. every task is totally different.
2. name things in a way that makes sense to you in relation to the other things around. No one cares if it's proper.
3. put the code where you want it. that's where it belongs.
4. never write comments. learn to read code. english isn't any easier to read.
5. never use existing libraries when you can write your own.
7. don't use an IDE at all. write a platform that doesn't require debugging at all.
6. never test your algorithms. write self-testing algorithms instead.
8. there are no guidelines outside of school. and school just makes them up for grading purposes.
9. open source is terrible for the world. but it's a great way for a programmer to take working code and re-write it for themselves.
You won't find any such list. I've made a career out of shunning all such "popular" attitudes. The more consistent the attitude, the more obvious the benefits to breaking away from it.
Way back in university, in CS, the prof spent a day teaching sorting algorithms, as all CS profs do. The conclusion was that you can't sort any faster than O(n,log n). Which made it all the more confusing when I asked him what I was doing wrong because my home-grown sorting algorithm runs in O(n).
Guess what. My puny zero-experience had written a sorting algorithm that really is O(n), and simply isn't taught in school. It's not taught as a standard sorting method purely because it depends high memory requirements and known a data range.
Put together your list. Get everyone to follow/teach/learn it. I'll make a living out of defying it when clients get frustrated that the industry seems to prioritize it's own principles over the actual business needs their clients.
I don't test. I don't allow database transactions. I refuse version control. I don't document. I don't write specs. I don't do garbage collection nor control. No complexity analysis, nor XML, nor functional programming nor object oriented programming. I type with a keyboard, but not with my variables. And, as we said before, my sorting algorithm is faster than quicksort.
Make your list. Then find out how many businesses consider such lists to be purely academic. Your "master programmer" teaches programming. He doesn't run a business.
That's almost my complaint. It's not that I won't notice the errors. It's that I won't notice the errors when they are spoken. I'll notice the errors when I get bitten by a tiger after reading a sign that says "beware of cat".
It's important for miscommunication to be identified during the communication protocol.
Pay for it with my tax dollars. Give it to anyone who wants it, above the age of 14.
They do a great job of improving the precision of what used to be mediocre. And then, as a direct result, they not only make the errors worse, they make the errors undetectable.
CAT: small, furry, pet.
BIG CAT: big, furry, pet.
Um. Both are orange. One's a tabby. One's a tiger.
It's not good enough that your translation system has a 99% accuracy whereas the old one has a 90% accuracy. What matters is that the old one's 10% error rate sounded like an error (e.g. tiger becomes monster), whereas your new one's 1% passes the turing test and can't be discerned by an intelligent listener (e.g. tiger becomes tabby).
"My friend owns a monster." -- You friend owns what? I don't think you meant a monster. -- "eh, you know, a very big dangerous jungle cat" -- oh, like a lion -- "not a lion, it has stripes" -- oh, a tiger.
"My friend owns a tabby." -- Ok.
I'm confused. Name the last major disaster that forced people to follow large-scale national instructions where any significant number of those persons had access to twitter? Last I checked, cell towers are the first te become useless, and home internet is the second to fall apart.
So let me get this straight. We used to use air raid sirens, that everyone within 50km could hear, and it cost virtually nothing to have one siren per township. Then we went to air horns and mega phones where public announcements could be heard for blocks and again humans needed zero infrastructure to hear them..
Now what? Now aliens are attacking during a hurricane and I need a smartphone, a data package, a fully-charged battery, and how many bars of connectivity?
You're funny. You're complaining that they don't spend a lot of money enforcing it, and then you're calling the acquisition of funds a detail.
This will be the very money that makes enforcing it worth while!
Patents, audits, communication carriers, and many other very finely invasive procedures are subject to incredibly strict laws.
Most things aren't. Those things are. Read your local laws. Discover that what is protected is actually very well protected. Those are the things that you want to use.
When it comes to corporate audits, that information is not only not publicized, it's not even internalized in any real capacity. Doing so is directly illegal, and can cause major economic turmoil on a national scale.
No one opens your mail. In my country, there's only one office permitted to open someone's mail. And the reasons for doing so are incredibly particular. And even then, what that person is actually allowed to do with the knowledge is virtually nothing.
Sure, when you deal with most things, those protections don't exist. But this isn't one of those most things. It's something that's very well protected. Make sure it stays that way -- by taking advantage of those protections. The more you use them, the more you entrust to them, the stronger they become.
Think more. It's easier than creating this law in the first place. It's also an enforcement issue more than a principle issue. And this law isn't set yet. Wait until next month.
Stop arguing the argument. Women do that. Try arguing the actual point being made. This isn't a debate club. If you want the value of a debate, elect a president who's as useless as the one before him. If you want to actually make a difference from one year to the next, argue the problem and its solution.
That's an enforcement detail that easily changed in the future. Come on.
audits aren't actually revealing. you're talking about one of the most confidential processes in the world. You're also talking about a part of the world with some of the best privacy laws. You don't store your data outside of the EU to protect it. You store it inside. Most other places are much worse.
But again, audits are divulging.
They are currently set up for their own profit. One of the only reasons that they go "multi-national" in the first place is to dodge tax laws.
But to your question specifically, you can easily have the heads of each country manage vacation schedules.
I don't think you realize that "outsourcing" means exporting a country's wealth. France is a particularly good example here, because it's very socialist in an amazingly family-friendly manner -- way beyond what you probably think is possible. Forget healthcare, hospitals will re-imburse you for your cabfare on-the-spot.
A society with that much wealth, literally paying its citizens with money and services leaps and bounds beyond just about anywhere else in the world, hasn't any hope in hell of competing when it comes to labour rates. So if you choose to live, work, or do business in a place that pays its citizens top-dollar, you can't be allowed to then stop paying anyone, take the country's money, and use it to pay peanuts to far-away peoples. If you are, you might as well just shut the country down now.
And that's the point. The people living there prefer the higher wages, and the better services. That's why they live there. No one's forced to live there. And no one's forced to work there. So this is all cool.
I like it. Yes enforcement would be tough, but that's a totally separate thing. This supports privacy but it does much more than that. It supports actually being able to make laws. It's less about "transfer" and more about transfering outside of the legal jurisdiction.
More importantly, it attributes real value to personal data. That makes sense today, since it's sold as a currency already.
I program. I also own a programming company. I prefer the longer hour days at both levels.
Sure I'm exhausted after a normal day. And sure the code quality drops precipitously with each additional hour. But the longer hours aren't about quality.
Few programming tasks around here take weeks of work. The most complicated ones take a day of planning, a day of developing, and a day of launching.
Those three days can easily turn into six. When any of those three facets needs one more hour, it pushes into the next day. Which then ruins the next facet's time. Things spiral out of control into 6 days, which means two business weeks for a project that should have take three business days.
The longer hours are to reach completion on the day's facet.
And besides, after the first 5 productive hours, the next 5 needn't be "productive" and "high quality". They just need to be labourious. Actually executing what was planned, finishing what was done, and click twice to actually test that it's done.
That's what works for me. And it works very well. I then take the remaining two business days of the week, and skip work.
Being a bright bulb who read ahead to discover that the current lesson is a lie is a good one.
And the robots and AI won't only be able to, they'll also be better, faster, and cheaper than humans? They'll also require less infrastructure? They'll suddenly be able to build farms in the middle of no where out of nothing with no water, no power, and no roads? And it won't take everyone of us to manage this growing fleet of just-out-of-school autonomous tools? And we'll have the resources to power these things? Good luck with that. Oh, and it's going to be considered murder to destroy a robot?
a) I am one of those who interupts constantly. There's a good reason for doing so.
b) it's not the results, look you said time, money and etc. etc is effort. welcome to the demand side of economics.
c) again, and this was my first point, this technique is only successful because it isn't popular. it'll be worse than the current norm once it becomes the norm. that's what makes it a bad deal. nothing else.
Doesn't make any different to the value calculation. If I'm alone in a room, it's not fun. I'm not willing to pay for not fun. I can learn in a library all by myself at any time. It's worth the same dollar-fifty that it always was. I don't want to ask questions three days later. I want to ask questions when the question presents itself. You expect me to keep a list of questions for tomorrow's class? And then what, run through them one-by-one? And then, re-watch the video again?
Value isn't determined by results. That's what most people don't understand. Value is determined by the ease with which the results are attainable. That's very different.
Again, it works better BECAUSE it's not common. It falls apart when it becomes common. It's like left-handed athletes -- the dominant minority effect.
I don't care how much work they are doing to create the videos. If they aren't around when I'm working with it, then they aren't the one teaching me. It's that simple.
I don't need to pay whatever tuition (plus general taxes), to learn from a recording. The value in those funds is to have the human being there so I can interupt at any moment. Otherwise, I'm comparing the value of the recordings to the value of me just learning alone in a library. When it's me alone, I'm not willing to pay nearly as much. And that's the case here. I simply don't value learning alone. It's not fun. I pay for fun.
All that is under the heading of "while in use" or "while I'm a customer" or "while using the road". It doesn't apply to times when I'm out of the country, or my car is being repaired, or it's in my garage, or I'm on some other road.
...I keep my device in a part of the car that can't be read. and I take it out only when I get onto the toll road.