Maybe joking maybe not. But this is why most people will never be real programmers. Real programmmers enjoy that shit.
I was just in a meeting where client said "no one likes to do hard problem " - and I said, " sorry, you have the wrong people"
Real programmers don't like hard problems which are hard because the solution is hard. Real programmers like hard problems which are hard because the problem is hard.
All that object-oriented boilerplate does not write itself, as much as we try with our wizards and our generators and our domain engineering. For the most part, it just gets in the way.
STL is not object oriented. I think that object orientedness is almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence. I have yet to see an interesting piece of code that comes from these OO people. In a sense, I am unfair to AI: I learned a lot of stuff from the MIT AI Lab crowd, they have done some really fundamental work: Bill Gosper's Hakmem is one of the best things for a programmer to read. AI might not have had a serious foundation, but it produced Gosper and Stallman (Emacs), Moses (Macsyma) and Sussman (Scheme, together with Guy Steele). I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you need multisorted algebras - families of interfaces that span multiple types. I find OOP philosophically unsound. It claims that everything is an object. Even if it is true it is not very interesting - saying that everything is an object is saying nothing at all. I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not start with axioms - you start with proofs. Only when you have found a bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms. You end with axioms. The same thing is true in programming: you have to start with interesting algorithms. Only when you understand them well, can you come up with an interface that will let them work. -- Alex Stepanov, A Real Programer
So when do they study misandry and start to treat that as seriously as misogyny?
I assume that by "they", you're not referring to these researchers in particular. I assume you mean researchers in general. So help me out here: How much research of your own did you do before you came to the conclusion that this is not a serious and active topic of research?
Having said all that, let me remind you what we're talking about here. I don't know if you've ever noticed, but women comprise some of (possibly most of) the worst policers of women's appearance/behaviour/whatever out there. If you don't think that's an important topic to study, I don't know what to tell you.
Haters gonna hate, but well-written JS performs better than most php software.
I doubt anyone would dispute that, but surely that's an abusrdly low bar.
I did some node.js for a while. The more I used it, the more I realised that what I really wanted was Erlang. All of the advantages of asynchronous events, plus real concurrency, real thread isolation, real stack backtraces...
As far as outside the US-speaking world goes, wasn't Kierkegaard pretty emphatic on faith in God without reasons?
Oooh, oooh, I'm an existentialist, so I know the answer to this one. And the answer is no, or rather, not exactly.
He drew the comparison between religious faith and falling in love. He pointed out (and I'm going to use modern terminology here) that romantic love fails any rational cost-benefit analysis. Any benefits gained from a relationship are not worth the emotional investment that you put in, not to mention the emotional risk of possibly breaking up.
We all know examples from our own lives where good things can be ruined by over-analysis or over-explanation. There's a famous Asimov short story about out how humour fails a rational analysis (spoiler: it turns out that it's an alien social experiment). I'm also reminded of the scene from Gödel, Escher, Bach where one of the characters puts records on his wall so he can admire Bach's beautiful groove patterns.
There isn't really a central tenet of existentialism, but one key point is that the universe of concrete human experience is fundamentally non-rational, meaningless, and absurd. We have the freedom to imbue whatever meaning we need to or want to, but more to the point, we have to in order to function as living human beings.
For the religious existentialist, faith is one of those things.
Not really; a lot of men are forced (under penalty of no sex) to watch their wife's shows, while men don't play the same game.
If you're saying that (some) men are in crappy relationships and choose to act out in the form of online reviews, I would say that that still counts as "men sabotaging online reviews of TV shows aimed at women".
"Faith" has been used to mean "belief without evidence" by quite a few people, and it seems to be a pretty accepted definition. Many theists have faith in one or more gods, and don't have evidence. I think that particular linguistic point has been lost.
Maybe in the US, where fundamentalists have taken over public discourse. In the rest of the English-speaking world we still speak of relationships being "faithful" and people acting "in good faith".
If my child were the executed, I would ask why it is that I have to suffer for having given birth to a person who inherited genes for a sociopathic schizophrenia.
You could always not go. But from the perspective of the family of the victim, if they want someone to be killed, I don't see why they should be shielded from the consequences. Trying to cover up brutality by making it seem clinical just makes it more insidious.
Saudi Arabia-style public beheadings are honest compared to what the United States does.
Just so we're on the same page, I agree with you about "faith", but not about "belief", and I guess that's my point. "Faith" means "trust", "confidence", or "loyalty". (Before you object... no, it does not mean "belief without evidence" and never has. Don't believe it when your friendly neighbourhood fundamentalist claims otherwise.)
I believe that Prince Philip exists, and I fully concede that, for any reasonable definition of the word "god", he is a god of the Kastom people. I do not have faith in him because I do not adhere to that particular religion.
By any reasonable definition of the word "god", Prince Philip is undeniably a god to (at least some of) the Kastom people. By any scientific test you care to name, Prince Philip undeniably exists. Therefore, at least one god undeniably exists. So any reasonable definition of the word "atheist" must not be entirely about the existence or non-existence of gods, but about specific claims or specific beliefs about those gods. At least in some cases, detail must matter.
TL;DR: Different beliefs is not the same thing as disbelief.
Theism: belief in a god or gods. That's it. That's all of it. It's not just YWHA, it's not just Quetzalcoatl, it's not just Odin. A god or gods. Any one, or any combination. There you go.
Thanks for that. I'm just a guy on the Internet, but this explanation was enough to convince me that it's a non-crank proposal, even if it's being oversold.
No, it is not. A university degree is an achievement. Each university has its own policy, but it's basically unheard of for a university to rescind a degree for a reason other than the requirements of the programme not being met (e.g. academic misconduct, or misrepresentation on the application). If you have unmet financial obligations, universities generally doesn't rescind degrees, but instead prevent you from being able to prove it (e.g. withholding academic transcripts or certificates).
The above does not apply to honorary degrees. Honorary degrees are not achievements, they are honours, and honours can be rescinded at any time if the granting body believes that you are no longer worthy of being honoured. Robert Mugabe, Rolf Harris, and Bill Cosby (to pick but three) have been stripped of honorary degrees.
I used to very successfully know when my friends were stoned by their pupils.
Of course, there are plenty of medical conditions (e.g. Horner's syndrome) which would cause false positives on that kind of test. Hell, it would probably have caught David Bowie.
All my (computing) problems are either big or already solved.
I bet that if you think hard about it, you'll discover that this is not the case. Problems that you think are solved are usually not, in fact, solved. You're just too used to the current "solution" to see the problems with it.
Any system you choose to analyze and model can be described in this language...!
Now any modelling problem is simply reduced to expressing the desired system in this language...!
Remember the buzz around formal specifications in software engineering (Z, how I love thee) about 25 years ago? Ever wondered what happened to that? Well, it turned out that for the vast majority of non-toy problems, writing and debugging the formal specification was just as hard as writing and debugging the software.
Slashdot Mirror
So the little guy that has a valid patent but has no business training, no capital to fund production or pay employees is SOL?
The patents were bought from SAIC, so that's not relevant to this case.
I happen to enjoy OOP. But thanks.
I'm glad you do. Each to their own. But the risk is that you'll be stuck solving only easy problems for the rest of your career.
Maybe joking maybe not. But this is why most people will never be real programmers. Real programmmers enjoy that shit.
I was just in a meeting where client said "no one likes to do hard problem " - and I said, " sorry, you have the wrong people"
Real programmers don't like hard problems which are hard because the solution is hard. Real programmers like hard problems which are hard because the problem is hard.
All that object-oriented boilerplate does not write itself, as much as we try with our wizards and our generators and our domain engineering. For the most part, it just gets in the way.
STL is not object oriented. I think that object orientedness is almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence. I have yet to see an interesting piece of code that comes from these OO people. In a sense, I am unfair to AI: I learned a lot of stuff from the MIT AI Lab crowd, they have done some really fundamental work: Bill Gosper's Hakmem is one of the best things for a programmer to read. AI might not have had a serious foundation, but it produced Gosper and Stallman (Emacs), Moses (Macsyma) and Sussman (Scheme, together with Guy Steele). I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you need multisorted algebras - families of interfaces that span multiple types. I find OOP philosophically unsound. It claims that everything is an object. Even if it is true it is not very interesting - saying that everything is an object is saying nothing at all. I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not start with axioms - you start with proofs. Only when you have found a bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms. You end with axioms. The same thing is true in programming: you have to start with interesting algorithms. Only when you understand them well, can you come up with an interface that will let them work.
-- Alex Stepanov, A Real Programer
So when do they study misandry and start to treat that as seriously as misogyny?
I assume that by "they", you're not referring to these researchers in particular. I assume you mean researchers in general. So help me out here: How much research of your own did you do before you came to the conclusion that this is not a serious and active topic of research?
Having said all that, let me remind you what we're talking about here. I don't know if you've ever noticed, but women comprise some of (possibly most of) the worst policers of women's appearance/behaviour/whatever out there. If you don't think that's an important topic to study, I don't know what to tell you.
You jest, but Erlang actually delivers what node.js promises (pun intended).
Haters gonna hate, but well-written JS performs better than most php software.
I doubt anyone would dispute that, but surely that's an abusrdly low bar.
I did some node.js for a while. The more I used it, the more I realised that what I really wanted was Erlang. All of the advantages of asynchronous events, plus real concurrency, real thread isolation, real stack backtraces...
As far as outside the US-speaking world goes, wasn't Kierkegaard pretty emphatic on faith in God without reasons?
Oooh, oooh, I'm an existentialist, so I know the answer to this one. And the answer is no, or rather, not exactly.
He drew the comparison between religious faith and falling in love. He pointed out (and I'm going to use modern terminology here) that romantic love fails any rational cost-benefit analysis. Any benefits gained from a relationship are not worth the emotional investment that you put in, not to mention the emotional risk of possibly breaking up.
We all know examples from our own lives where good things can be ruined by over-analysis or over-explanation. There's a famous Asimov short story about out how humour fails a rational analysis (spoiler: it turns out that it's an alien social experiment). I'm also reminded of the scene from Gödel, Escher, Bach where one of the characters puts records on his wall so he can admire Bach's beautiful groove patterns.
There isn't really a central tenet of existentialism, but one key point is that the universe of concrete human experience is fundamentally non-rational, meaningless, and absurd. We have the freedom to imbue whatever meaning we need to or want to, but more to the point, we have to in order to function as living human beings.
For the religious existentialist, faith is one of those things.
I view it as men voicing their opinion on something they're forced to endure under duress.
Assuming that's true, it just goes to show that women do not have a monopoly on passive-aggression.
Not really; a lot of men are forced (under penalty of no sex) to watch their wife's shows, while men don't play the same game.
If you're saying that (some) men are in crappy relationships and choose to act out in the form of online reviews, I would say that that still counts as "men sabotaging online reviews of TV shows aimed at women".
"Faith" has been used to mean "belief without evidence" by quite a few people, and it seems to be a pretty accepted definition. Many theists have faith in one or more gods, and don't have evidence. I think that particular linguistic point has been lost.
Maybe in the US, where fundamentalists have taken over public discourse. In the rest of the English-speaking world we still speak of relationships being "faithful" and people acting "in good faith".
Semper fidelis.
If my child were the executed, I would ask why it is that I have to suffer for having given birth to a person who inherited genes for a sociopathic schizophrenia.
You could always not go. But from the perspective of the family of the victim, if they want someone to be killed, I don't see why they should be shielded from the consequences. Trying to cover up brutality by making it seem clinical just makes it more insidious.
Saudi Arabia-style public beheadings are honest compared to what the United States does.
Just belief; faith.
Just so we're on the same page, I agree with you about "faith", but not about "belief", and I guess that's my point. "Faith" means "trust", "confidence", or "loyalty". (Before you object... no, it does not mean "belief without evidence" and never has. Don't believe it when your friendly neighbourhood fundamentalist claims otherwise.)
I believe that Prince Philip exists, and I fully concede that, for any reasonable definition of the word "god", he is a god of the Kastom people. I do not have faith in him because I do not adhere to that particular religion.
It raises an important issue, though.
By any reasonable definition of the word "god", Prince Philip is undeniably a god to (at least some of) the Kastom people. By any scientific test you care to name, Prince Philip undeniably exists. Therefore, at least one god undeniably exists. So any reasonable definition of the word "atheist" must not be entirely about the existence or non-existence of gods, but about specific claims or specific beliefs about those gods. At least in some cases, detail must matter.
TL;DR: Different beliefs is not the same thing as disbelief.
Theism: belief in a god or gods. That's it. That's all of it. It's not just YWHA, it's not just Quetzalcoatl, it's not just Odin. A god or gods. Any one, or any combination. There you go.
Thanks for clearing that up. That means I'm not an atheist, because I believe in the existence of Prince Philip.
You know, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I'm hard pressed to think of any post-apocalyptic utopia fiction.
All of Star Trek is technically post-apocalyptic. See First Contact for details.
Babe: Pig in the City was a better Mad Max movie than Thunderdome.
That's why George Miller got to be the token male.
If you're going to claim tokenism, at least make it credible. Maybe he was the token Australian?
I think of it as a stealth attempt to get Michael Bay viewers to watch something decent for once.
Thanks for that. I'm just a guy on the Internet, but this explanation was enough to convince me that it's a non-crank proposal, even if it's being oversold.
No, it is not. A university degree is an achievement. Each university has its own policy, but it's basically unheard of for a university to rescind a degree for a reason other than the requirements of the programme not being met (e.g. academic misconduct, or misrepresentation on the application). If you have unmet financial obligations, universities generally doesn't rescind degrees, but instead prevent you from being able to prove it (e.g. withholding academic transcripts or certificates).
The above does not apply to honorary degrees. Honorary degrees are not achievements, they are honours, and honours can be rescinded at any time if the granting body believes that you are no longer worthy of being honoured. Robert Mugabe, Rolf Harris, and Bill Cosby (to pick but three) have been stripped of honorary degrees.
The "U" in UML means "unified", not "universal". And that's not what this is anyway.
I used to very successfully know when my friends were stoned by their pupils.
Of course, there are plenty of medical conditions (e.g. Horner's syndrome) which would cause false positives on that kind of test. Hell, it would probably have caught David Bowie.
All my (computing) problems are either big or already solved.
I bet that if you think hard about it, you'll discover that this is not the case. Problems that you think are solved are usually not, in fact, solved. You're just too used to the current "solution" to see the problems with it.
Obligatory Bret Victor.
Can entropy ever be reversed?
Let me put it this way...
Now any modelling problem is simply reduced to expressing the desired system in this language...!
Remember the buzz around formal specifications in software engineering (Z, how I love thee) about 25 years ago? Ever wondered what happened to that? Well, it turned out that for the vast majority of non-toy problems, writing and debugging the formal specification was just as hard as writing and debugging the software.