I originally heard about BTC on/. when people had "faucets" which would just give you BTC now worth hundreds of dollars. At first they didn't even try to stop you from using it multiple times. These things were relatively common for a time.
Those messy strings of characters are primarily to be used as a fallback. QR codes do almost all the real work, usually. It's even fine to print one out and use it over and over again, but you lose the benefit of embedding the price, which is a nice feature.
The fact that MS lets you embed code into a Word document is the reason no company I have worked for wants to use Office or have any use for it.
Small companies look at that shit and hold their noses in disgust at the level of vendor lockin and necessary support to manage something like that.
The TCO of Office includes the cost of an IT expert who can navigate the inexplicably complicated mess of security, collaboration, licensing, etc MS has embedded into it. It's laughably not worth it for any company without a moderately sized tech department.
Going online to Office 365 just glaringly demonstrates that Google Docs - for most - is a comparable alternative.
If I write a new module for working with XML files, I don't need to demo it to the sales team, I need to demo it to the other developers. It sounds like you're just not targeting the correct end user for your demo.
Oftentimes that strong team will make a process work by ignoring or circumventing the process. Agile is sort-of the distillation of how that looks when it's successful.
In my experience, this is usually because of poor deadline communication. In agile, there are no deadlines. The idea isn't to create 2-3 week deadlines every "sprint", but to limit wasted time to 2-3 week chunks before pivoting at the next "sprint".
If you treat agile like weeks long mini projects, you likely won't have success. If you use it to help allocate resources for an ongoing project that is never done, never expected to be done, but will deliver features when they are done and only when they are done, then agile is very helpful.
I think coverage is key. Are the important areas of the code covered? Are all branches within those areas covered? Does all this information get generated automatically?
Every great software developer does those things, but plenty of "good" software developers are operating in environments that push or even compel them to abandon their own good sense.
It's also a bad message to send to kids to re-use a disposable bottle. The plastics are different and often don't hold up to washing. Some have been shown to shed alarming levels of carcinogens into the beverage.
I get paid to write open source software. It's not donations. I don't know why everyone seems to think it's hard to find an economic model for open source. The economic model never changed. The only thing that changed is the plethora of "app" developers who don't have the first clue how the economics of software work.
Computer science would be a great thing to teach kids. Boolean, propositional, first/second order logic, formalized proof, computational complexity; all good and valuable things to learn - tools that anyone can use to help understand the world in which they live (why do some ops in Excel take so long with big sets and others don't?)
Coding is fucking worthless. If you can't do all of the above, everyone's going to be wasting their time trying to teach you coding.
People keep making these grand predictions, but all they result in are Fisher-Price toys. Non-programmers think if only they could learn the language, they would become well-paid hackers. Programmers realize the languages are actually designed for concepts like logic, reason, formalism, and other things non-programmers will never grasp, regardless of the language or the interface.
Until computers can have an everyday conversation with an idiot trying to accomplish something they have no business accomplishing (in other words, until computers can do pretty much anything people can), "normal" people will never be able to program.
While it would be amazing from a socio-economic perspective to no longer spend time re-writing the same thing over again, it would be terrible for software developers, most of whom are writing that sort of derivative software.
Has anyone been harmed by it? The article you link to does not make the claim that they are at a dangerous level, only that it is elevated and has frightened hunters.
Natural wildfires perform vegetation clearing and so limit themselves. Manking comes in, clear cuts fire resistant forest, builds flammable housing next to the forest, then ensures decades of dead growth piles up on the forest floor, turning the whole thing into a tinderbox.
Wild fires are natural. But natural wild fires do not consume the type of acreage CA wild fires do.
Slashdot Mirror
I originally heard about BTC on /. when people had "faucets" which would just give you BTC now worth hundreds of dollars. At first they didn't even try to stop you from using it multiple times. These things were relatively common for a time.
Those messy strings of characters are primarily to be used as a fallback. QR codes do almost all the real work, usually. It's even fine to print one out and use it over and over again, but you lose the benefit of embedding the price, which is a nice feature.
Seriously. All that crap is why no one I know wants to use Office, and only a few are left who are forced to do so by some aging Fortune 500 company.
The fact that MS lets you embed code into a Word document is the reason no company I have worked for wants to use Office or have any use for it.
Small companies look at that shit and hold their noses in disgust at the level of vendor lockin and necessary support to manage something like that.
The TCO of Office includes the cost of an IT expert who can navigate the inexplicably complicated mess of security, collaboration, licensing, etc MS has embedded into it. It's laughably not worth it for any company without a moderately sized tech department.
Going online to Office 365 just glaringly demonstrates that Google Docs - for most - is a comparable alternative.
During the netbooks era at least, Windows was free for small, low-powered devices.
You can't really replace a phone with a laptop though. And few want to lug both, so the phone is sort of the primary device, so demands higher prices.
Do you get all your Google news from people in tin foil hats?
If I write a new module for working with XML files, I don't need to demo it to the sales team, I need to demo it to the other developers. It sounds like you're just not targeting the correct end user for your demo.
General rule of thumb is unit tests should be written. 100% code coverage of peer reviewed code is a sufficient "demo".
Oftentimes that strong team will make a process work by ignoring or circumventing the process. Agile is sort-of the distillation of how that looks when it's successful.
In my experience, this is usually because of poor deadline communication. In agile, there are no deadlines. The idea isn't to create 2-3 week deadlines every "sprint", but to limit wasted time to 2-3 week chunks before pivoting at the next "sprint".
If you treat agile like weeks long mini projects, you likely won't have success. If you use it to help allocate resources for an ongoing project that is never done, never expected to be done, but will deliver features when they are done and only when they are done, then agile is very helpful.
I think coverage is key. Are the important areas of the code covered? Are all branches within those areas covered? Does all this information get generated automatically?
Every great software developer does those things, but plenty of "good" software developers are operating in environments that push or even compel them to abandon their own good sense.
It's also a bad message to send to kids to re-use a disposable bottle. The plastics are different and often don't hold up to washing. Some have been shown to shed alarming levels of carcinogens into the beverage.
I make a living writing MIT licensed software. You don't know what you're talking about.
I get paid to write open source software. It's not donations. I don't know why everyone seems to think it's hard to find an economic model for open source. The economic model never changed. The only thing that changed is the plethora of "app" developers who don't have the first clue how the economics of software work.
Computer science would be a great thing to teach kids. Boolean, propositional, first/second order logic, formalized proof, computational complexity; all good and valuable things to learn - tools that anyone can use to help understand the world in which they live (why do some ops in Excel take so long with big sets and others don't?)
Coding is fucking worthless. If you can't do all of the above, everyone's going to be wasting their time trying to teach you coding.
People keep making these grand predictions, but all they result in are Fisher-Price toys. Non-programmers think if only they could learn the language, they would become well-paid hackers. Programmers realize the languages are actually designed for concepts like logic, reason, formalism, and other things non-programmers will never grasp, regardless of the language or the interface.
Until computers can have an everyday conversation with an idiot trying to accomplish something they have no business accomplishing (in other words, until computers can do pretty much anything people can), "normal" people will never be able to program.
No need for a new license, just better educated developers: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
While it would be amazing from a socio-economic perspective to no longer spend time re-writing the same thing over again, it would be terrible for software developers, most of whom are writing that sort of derivative software.
MIT devs believe they are developing solutions to problems. GPL devs think they are developing products. Only one of these groups has an issue.
I spend 90% of my time getting paid to write MIT licensed software. The economics work fine.
Has anyone been harmed by it? The article you link to does not make the claim that they are at a dangerous level, only that it is elevated and has frightened hunters.
Natural wildfires perform vegetation clearing and so limit themselves. Manking comes in, clear cuts fire resistant forest, builds flammable housing next to the forest, then ensures decades of dead growth piles up on the forest floor, turning the whole thing into a tinderbox.
Wild fires are natural. But natural wild fires do not consume the type of acreage CA wild fires do.
Citation needed.
You can procedurally generate details far beyond Doom or even most modern graphics and still avoid the need for a TiB of textures.