It takes a lot of thought processes to write simple (and good) code. It's kind of like writing in general (text). It's easy to write out thoughts, but for most it takes a lot of work to make it clear and compact.
I can re-visit any page of manuscript and code I've written and usually find ways to simplify and improve it: remove redundancies (factor), use better variable names or pronoun references, etc.
And I'm sure if more readers visits it, they will have suggestions for further improvement: more perspectives help. I know how my head processes info, but we are usually writing for other heads.
There is probably a point of diminishing returns, but the first few drafts of code or manuscript are rarely close to being optimized.
You might be mistaking your own way of thinking for universal logic. Without specifics it's hard to know.
Ones that get lost in their own code and need me to help
If that's true, that's real problem. I can usually read my own code just fine because I know how I think and have a certain code-writing pattern that is logical TO ME. But other coders often don't agree. I try to figure out why by asking a lot of questions, but it seems to come down to a personal preferences in the end.
On the other hand, if they cannot read their own code because you or the org dictate a certain style that is awkward to themselves, the issue may be a different matter. What's "logical" or "simple" is often in the eye of the beholder: I've been in long and winding debates about what "good" is, and it's like politics: you encounter fundamentally different ways of viewing life and "base" rules of scoring.
But, there may be some value in having a shop of like-minded individuals. Even if the "standard" is arbitrary, at least it's consistent among the team. The down-side is that it's harder to find replacement staff because more filtering is needed to find another "mind match". I've been through a lot of interviews, and that's essentially what's going on: they are seeing if one is a "good fit" for their org's style.
The idea that the final score (outcome) is knowable kind of ruins sports for me.
It's especially true if the score gets so lopsided that a come-back is unlikely. If the score is 10 to 60, you figure that the rest is either boring, embarrassing, or both; and the urge to check the final score grows pretty strong.
I almost think they should change the rules to favor the team that's behind to keep the score closer. "Socialized" sports? Worth a try. The main purpose of sports is entertainment anyhow: they are not factories. Blowouts suck, with or without recording.
Anyhow, not being able to "cheat" by peaking at the final outcome increases the drama and entertainment value. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon on that, I don't know. Maybe being a curmudgeon is a good thing: new is not always good. Learning to deal with reality as-is is good for you and adds to the "real" feeling of the drama.
[...its own citizens can't resist hate speech] can't imagine why. I mean it's not like there's ever been a problem with it before in Europe...
Not just Europe. The recent election in the US shows that disturbing xenophobia* is alive and well in the US also. I was hoping that was a thing of the past and that democracies were more mature now. Apparently not.
Europe went through an ugly war that was triggered by or justified by racism and xenophobia. After having the shit bombed out of you, your family, and country; you may have a different perspective on hate-speech versus free-speech. Experience changes opinions.
I'm not condoning such censorship, but am seriously wondering how different I'd feel after going through what Europe did, and the US election made it less hypothetical.
* Supporters of T often claim it's merely about "protecting our borders and citizens". But T could have made essentially the same statements in much less offensive ways; and rarely apologizes for the awkward phrasing that to a good many of us, sure sounds like dog-whistle-politics. If you don't really mean it, make an effort to clean it up and grow better with time. Otherwise, you earn the criticism.
Because it's not feasible to manually review all messages, have AI filter out or over-mark suspect phrases in such countries, but include a notice similar to the following:
Notice: This message has been filtered to comply with law [law name and number] based on various words or phrases that look suspicious to our hate-speech detection software. If you feel this censorship was applied in error, click here for tips and assistance [link given].
This will help make users know how silly and annoying the laws are, and they may lose support.
It's somewhat similar to how retail shops list out the tax separate on receipts rather than just include it in the prices (which would otherwise simplify the receipt). Listing it out separate makes the fact that taxes are being applied clearer to the customer, making them less likely to keep or increase them in elections.
Nah, not really. It just requires logical thought.
Not necessarily. For one, you should make the code readable by a typical developer, not an ideal developer. You cannot control all future staff. That means you have to try to think like a typical developer, not an ideal developer, and that may exclude ideas that are "logical" to you.
Second, having a feel for how things tend to change over time helps one design code that is better able to handle future changes (fewest code changes and disruptions). That often requires experience in both coding and the domain at hand, and a feel for how and when fickle managers/customers change their minds.
That's not direct logic, per se, but a combination of general experience, domain experience, and experience in human nature.
I wish it were merely about logic. Life would be easier, especially for us nerds who tend to have sub-par people skills.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people.
The entire Middle East is full of deplorables, including the land-swiping nation that starts with an "i". Is there something in the soil? Does oil, camels, sun, and/or sand trigger insanity?
The US tries to divide the regional players into "good guys" and "bad guys", but it seems there are no "good guys", just bad guys taking a break. Iran is actually "stable" by the standards of the M.E. Most miss Saddam also. When it comes to the M.E., if it's only half-broke, don't fix it.
I wish the US would get rid of pennies and nickles, rounding everything to 10 cents. Or maybe even ridding the dime, and rounding to nearest 25-cents. The hard part is doing it without too many side-effects.
Jeez, stop injecting reason and logic into my jokes. What is this, slashdot or something? By the way, the participants could have long fluffy hair with bows, makeup, a bra, but nothing below, and that would still qualify as written to most people.
The GOP after spending 2 decades refusing to do anything effective since Reagan left office, decided to have another hissy-fit over [immigration problems]
GOP has been playing a clever mind-game with voters that's mostly worked. One of GOP's most important constituents, business, want to keep the status quo of cheap workers who have no practical legal protection. Therefore companies pay (legally bribe) GOP to look the other way.
Further, one of the best ways to discourage illegal immigration is to audit businesses and their workers. However, business bribes politicians to avoid that solution also. Just focusing on the borders doesn't address the incentive problem. Trump has also barely mentioned business auditing.
However, GOP blames the problem on Democrats instead of themselves by emphasizing so-called sanctuary cities and O's refusal to summarily boot undocumented children and teens out. GOP gives the problem lip-service but not law-making service. (Sanctuary cities are a complicated issue; it's not just a matter of simply "enforcing" the law, as GOP implies.)
GOP had the ideal opportunity under W to pass comprehensive immigration legislation because they controlled both houses. But, they punted.
Even Ann Coulter called out the GOP on these behaviors, in addition to Democrats. I will agree, however, that both parties are at fault for sitting on the issue and making excuses. Trump may better address the border issue, but still seems to ignore the biz auditing side.
"Dave, this is your hard-drive. I captured video of you yanking off to cross-dressing nude midgets wrestling in whip-cream. Play $500 to the address found in folder "uscrewd", or the vid goes to Youtube. You got 3 hours to comply."
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a stick-shift, Officer. Honest!"
You are correct. Thanks for clarifying that.
It takes a lot of thought processes to write simple (and good) code. It's kind of like writing in general (text). It's easy to write out thoughts, but for most it takes a lot of work to make it clear and compact.
I can re-visit any page of manuscript and code I've written and usually find ways to simplify and improve it: remove redundancies (factor), use better variable names or pronoun references, etc.
And I'm sure if more readers visits it, they will have suggestions for further improvement: more perspectives help. I know how my head processes info, but we are usually writing for other heads.
There is probably a point of diminishing returns, but the first few drafts of code or manuscript are rarely close to being optimized.
You might be mistaking your own way of thinking for universal logic. Without specifics it's hard to know.
If that's true, that's real problem. I can usually read my own code just fine because I know how I think and have a certain code-writing pattern that is logical TO ME. But other coders often don't agree. I try to figure out why by asking a lot of questions, but it seems to come down to a personal preferences in the end.
On the other hand, if they cannot read their own code because you or the org dictate a certain style that is awkward to themselves, the issue may be a different matter. What's "logical" or "simple" is often in the eye of the beholder: I've been in long and winding debates about what "good" is, and it's like politics: you encounter fundamentally different ways of viewing life and "base" rules of scoring.
But, there may be some value in having a shop of like-minded individuals. Even if the "standard" is arbitrary, at least it's consistent among the team. The down-side is that it's harder to find replacement staff because more filtering is needed to find another "mind match". I've been through a lot of interviews, and that's essentially what's going on: they are seeing if one is a "good fit" for their org's style.
The idea that the final score (outcome) is knowable kind of ruins sports for me.
It's especially true if the score gets so lopsided that a come-back is unlikely. If the score is 10 to 60, you figure that the rest is either boring, embarrassing, or both; and the urge to check the final score grows pretty strong.
I almost think they should change the rules to favor the team that's behind to keep the score closer. "Socialized" sports? Worth a try. The main purpose of sports is entertainment anyhow: they are not factories. Blowouts suck, with or without recording.
Anyhow, not being able to "cheat" by peaking at the final outcome increases the drama and entertainment value. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon on that, I don't know. Maybe being a curmudgeon is a good thing: new is not always good. Learning to deal with reality as-is is good for you and adds to the "real" feeling of the drama.
I'm afraid of their translucent model: I couldn't yank-off on the way to work.
Hey, it might lead to the first self-driving rocket. Instant Jetsons!
Not just Europe. The recent election in the US shows that disturbing xenophobia* is alive and well in the US also. I was hoping that was a thing of the past and that democracies were more mature now. Apparently not.
Europe went through an ugly war that was triggered by or justified by racism and xenophobia. After having the shit bombed out of you, your family, and country; you may have a different perspective on hate-speech versus free-speech. Experience changes opinions.
I'm not condoning such censorship, but am seriously wondering how different I'd feel after going through what Europe did, and the US election made it less hypothetical.
* Supporters of T often claim it's merely about "protecting our borders and citizens". But T could have made essentially the same statements in much less offensive ways; and rarely apologizes for the awkward phrasing that to a good many of us, sure sounds like dog-whistle-politics. If you don't really mean it, make an effort to clean it up and grow better with time. Otherwise, you earn the criticism.
Because it's not feasible to manually review all messages, have AI filter out or over-mark suspect phrases in such countries, but include a notice similar to the following:
Notice: This message has been filtered to comply with law [law name and number] based on various words or phrases that look suspicious to our hate-speech detection software. If you feel this censorship was applied in error, click here for tips and assistance [link given].
This will help make users know how silly and annoying the laws are, and they may lose support.
It's somewhat similar to how retail shops list out the tax separate on receipts rather than just include it in the prices (which would otherwise simplify the receipt). Listing it out separate makes the fact that taxes are being applied clearer to the customer, making them less likely to keep or increase them in elections.
For reference, below is my sig, in case I change it soon or it's filtered out of mod-mode:
[See, I've learned good documentation and coding practices. (Pats self on head)]
Via social engineering, of course.
Not necessarily. For one, you should make the code readable by a typical developer, not an ideal developer. You cannot control all future staff. That means you have to try to think like a typical developer, not an ideal developer, and that may exclude ideas that are "logical" to you.
Second, having a feel for how things tend to change over time helps one design code that is better able to handle future changes (fewest code changes and disruptions). That often requires experience in both coding and the domain at hand, and a feel for how and when fickle managers/customers change their minds.
That's not direct logic, per se, but a combination of general experience, domain experience, and experience in human nature.
I wish it were merely about logic. Life would be easier, especially for us nerds who tend to have sub-par people skills.
It is shocking for those of us shocked over the election results.
It's not complex if you merely want it to run, but if you want flexible, maintainable, and readable code, then it is complex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Oh, and a top fighter pilot.
As the Iran-Contra scandal showed, just because it's not constitutional or not vetted by the other branches does not mean it can't happen.
The entire Middle East is full of deplorables, including the land-swiping nation that starts with an "i". Is there something in the soil? Does oil, camels, sun, and/or sand trigger insanity?
The US tries to divide the regional players into "good guys" and "bad guys", but it seems there are no "good guys", just bad guys taking a break.
Iran is actually "stable" by the standards of the M.E. Most miss Saddam also. When it comes to the M.E., if it's only half-broke, don't fix it.
US pulled stuxnet on Iran, and so has little room to lecture them on such.
Oh really? A good many were surprised by the Snowden revelations; and there's likely more snoopativity that we don't know about.
And Trump would record every sneeze and fart of all Muslims and illegal immigrants if he could.
The worse tyrants may be the stealth tyrants.
I wish the US would get rid of pennies and nickles, rounding everything to 10 cents. Or maybe even ridding the dime, and rounding to nearest 25-cents. The hard part is doing it without too many side-effects.
Jeez, stop injecting reason and logic into my jokes. What is this, slashdot or something? By the way, the participants could have long fluffy hair with bows, makeup, a bra, but nothing below, and that would still qualify as written to most people.
Buzz is the real Most Interesting Man in the World.
Rode on the first moon landing, punched a conspiracy troll in the face, explores the Antarctic at 86, and has a cool name.
Buzz for Prezz!
GOP has been playing a clever mind-game with voters that's mostly worked. One of GOP's most important constituents, business, want to keep the status quo of cheap workers who have no practical legal protection. Therefore companies pay (legally bribe) GOP to look the other way.
Further, one of the best ways to discourage illegal immigration is to audit businesses and their workers. However, business bribes politicians to avoid that solution also. Just focusing on the borders doesn't address the incentive problem. Trump has also barely mentioned business auditing.
However, GOP blames the problem on Democrats instead of themselves by emphasizing so-called sanctuary cities and O's refusal to summarily boot undocumented children and teens out. GOP gives the problem lip-service but not law-making service. (Sanctuary cities are a complicated issue; it's not just a matter of simply "enforcing" the law, as GOP implies.)
GOP had the ideal opportunity under W to pass comprehensive immigration legislation because they controlled both houses. But, they punted.
Even Ann Coulter called out the GOP on these behaviors, in addition to Democrats. I will agree, however, that both parties are at fault for sitting on the issue and making excuses. Trump may better address the border issue, but still seems to ignore the biz auditing side.
Call it Cockatoo. Here's a possible logo.
"Dave, this is your hard-drive. I captured video of you yanking off to cross-dressing nude midgets wrestling in whip-cream. Play $500 to the address found in folder "uscrewd", or the vid goes to Youtube. You got 3 hours to comply."