I'm leaning toward Hanlon's razor on that guy. He's off his rocker. His puzzlement over everyone's reaction, including GOP & Fox's thumbs-down, appears to be genuine.
I find it funny how Walmart is complaining about Amazon. Walmart came into town, under cut everyone and all the other chains folded up shop. Now Amazon is using the same tactics and Walmart cries fowl. Eat a dick Walmart
But we need competition. If Amazon is the only viable web store and Netflix is the only viable show provider and google is the only viable search engine; then things will get stagnant, expensive, and have lousy costumer service just like the big "neighborhood" telecoms (Comcast, AT&T, etc.). The fewer the competitors, the stupider companies will get.
They are all dicks, but at least lets have competitive dicks.
As I mentioned and illustrated elsewhere, profits can come from somewhat intangible things also. Focusing on here-and-now numbers is similar to judging coding productivity by lines of code. It is one factor to look at, but not the only.
Sig: Taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant. - L. Hand
It's about 6,500 years too late to complain about taxes. Unfortunately, your type missed the pre-civilization era.
But they felt they worked harder to win, but were not rewarded. It could result in less motivation in the future and lost profits and/or loss of top content creators. Buffett likes hard numbers before he concludes such things, but "soft" issues like this do matter. Just because you are right 80% of the time doesn't mean you are right 100%. Plus, if he tries the same thing at another company, they'll remember the lesson and not work as hard. He planted bad karma.
IBM tried to put short-term profits above customer satisfaction about a decade ago and screwed themselves because of it. Angry employees can be just as problematic to profits as angry customers.
And he still pays his warehouse workers [very low]
One can argue that stinginess (frugality) got him where he is today. Perhaps there's a Drake's Equation equivalent for mega-billionaires where the non-frugal are usually weeded out.
Warren Buffett is often known for frugality/stinginess also. When he purchased a newspaper in a two-paper town, a competitive well-publicized "paper war" gained steam*. After about a decade, the other paper folded, leaving Buffett a monopoly. The main reporters and editors thought they deserved a bonus for winning. But Buffet blew them off, paraphrased as: "The dominant paper in most two-paper towns has been gobbling up #2 systematically for decades. I spotted that pattern and it's why I bought the dominant paper. Death of #2 was inevitable, NOT because of your content."
While perhaps technically true, it's a slap to the face of the main content creators. In my opinion, such is poor for morale and could hurt profitability. They busted their butts trying to win a well-publicized market battle, finally won, and got NONE of the spoils of war; the General saying victory was "inevitable".
* The prior owners seemed happy with the status quo of 2/3 of the market; but Warren wanted it all.
Gates and Buffett have been giving away much of their fortune to charities. Thus, the raw amount may not be a fair comparison, as it "rewards" those who don't give to charities. Granted, Bezos may someday do the same in his elder years, but who knows the competition decades away? It's a silly contest anyhow, like asteroids comparing Jupiter to Saturn.
Architecture affects things like how quickly large programs can be built, how readily they can be modified and extended with large and complex new features.....When do you use these [patterns]? It depends on the requirements of the job at hand.
Yes, I fully realize that some structure is needed for non-trivial software. That's not news. But there is nothing close to clear-cut science about when to use architecture/pattern X over architecture/pattern Y; and equally important, why X is better than Y. The reasoning GOF-ers give often cherry-picks narrow future change scenarios. I can often think of many more possible future change scenarios that floods their narrow thinking into the gutter. And the reality of actual change is even more brutal than me as it unfolds. It's far more "scenario clever" than I can be, even though I can out-scenario the GOF fans/writers by about 4 to 1. I slap them twice, reality slaps them a dozen.
And it often depends on the domain, as you hint. If you don't know the domain, your crystal ball will fail too often. After you build 20 games, you probably have a good feel about how requirements change and how some stay similar over time. But at Game #1, you know shit about that. I can articulate my experience in a domain about what's likely to happen and not happen, but that's NOT real science: it's merely applying the lessons of experience. (Granted, it may be an early step in science, but that just means we are in the bronze age of software science.)
It lacks anything close to real science. It's Argument From Authority.
And I feel that many heavy GOF-ers are anti-database, and reinvent in code what should be in the database or queries. ER diagrams are easier to absorb and navigate than large tangled OOP pasta. If your particular mind doesn't like databases and feels weaving complex "noun webs" in code is better, that's your prerogative, but don't assume I or anybody else should enjoy what appears to be moldy pasta to us. Databases make it easier to query and study noun info from "different angles". We are not stuck with the nesting or code file structure of the original author. It's more "meta". Show me all green creatures with blue spaceships having a life-span of less than 200 years who came from planets without large moons.
Balderdash! The Earth is flat! I mean we didn't come from no smelly monkeys, I mean vaccines cause autism, I mean... dammit I forgot what was fake, but something is bogus about wet wire claims.
Pretty much all languages require verbs. If one is a newbie at Swahili, at least make sure your attempted Swahili sentence has a verb, or something resembling a verb. (I suppose one could mistake a non-verb for a verb.)
Strangely, most of it made sense even with the mistakes. Joe has a "gift" of some kind. Perhaps he's an expert at getting past spam filters by omitting or doctoring key words. Is the Nigerian Prince hiring?
What's it being compared to? Closed-source orgs usually don't reveal details and problems. We only hear about them when enough people get screwed that it can't be kept from the public. For every closed-source breach you hear about, there may be dozens or even hundreds that go unreported.
The world is full of bright but under-employed coders who have thousands of spare hours to dig for holes. Third-world standards of living and wages make the rewards for evil hacking large from their perspective. Thus, there's a lot of incentive among a lot of people to bust into things.
The labor and incentives for prevention are simply too small compared to that for hacking.
decades of experience which gave rise to design patterns actually means something.
If you mean Gang-of-Four-style (GOF) patterns, it mostly fizzed because, first, it was not clear when to use which pattern. Second, often incorrect assumptions were made about how requirements change in the future. GOF had a shitty crystal ball, time finally revealed. Nobody road-tested that fad long enough, and fanboys dived in face first.
"This why self driving cars will lot's of testing and laws." - Trump University chairman
"Our bot cars have the most and best testing in the world, believe me! Nobody tests harder; not Jiiina, not Elton John, and not even that Samsonite gorilla. Love that guy, high energy, I know his lawyer. Make Testing Great Again!"
The subject line itself appears to be missing "is".
No big deal, I'm just joking around. I bleep up grammar all the time myself, and slashdot offers no direct way to correct it. I suggest they at least allow a footnote-like correction section. Use a line (HR) or different font to delineate it.
Some of my best knowledge comes from making mistakes. If everyone who makes a mistake is "removed", then nobody will have realistic experience.
The Soviet Union kept removing generals for every failed battle at the beginning of WW2. But frequent replacement didn't work either. Eventually they ran out of sufficiently qualified new generals, so the existing ones began applying lessons from their prior failures. Their successes grew.
I see no evidence management explicitly condoned such; it's more a matter of being inattentive to inspection quality procedures.
Do they come with the original American backdoors, or do they have their own Chinese version?
What if both end up in there and the chip gets stuck in a loop trying to eavesdrop on each other? Reminds me of the Space Balls scene when the baffled Commander accidentally spies on himself.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm leaning toward Hanlon's razor on that guy. He's off his rocker. His puzzlement over everyone's reaction, including GOP & Fox's thumbs-down, appears to be genuine.
But we need competition. If Amazon is the only viable web store and Netflix is the only viable show provider and google is the only viable search engine; then things will get stagnant, expensive, and have lousy costumer service just like the big "neighborhood" telecoms (Comcast, AT&T, etc.). The fewer the competitors, the stupider companies will get.
They are all dicks, but at least lets have competitive dicks.
As I mentioned and illustrated elsewhere, profits can come from somewhat intangible things also. Focusing on here-and-now numbers is similar to judging coding productivity by lines of code. It is one factor to look at, but not the only.
It's about 6,500 years too late to complain about taxes. Unfortunately, your type missed the pre-civilization era.
"Are we there yet?"
"No!"
"Are we there yet?"
"No!"
"Are we there yet?"
"No!" .....
If the collision time can be predicted, I hope they send a probe to catch the Big Smash close up.
Addendum: they were white-collar employees such that in general they had more alternative choices than Amazon warehouse workers probably do.
But they felt they worked harder to win, but were not rewarded. It could result in less motivation in the future and lost profits and/or loss of top content creators. Buffett likes hard numbers before he concludes such things, but "soft" issues like this do matter. Just because you are right 80% of the time doesn't mean you are right 100%. Plus, if he tries the same thing at another company, they'll remember the lesson and not work as hard. He planted bad karma.
IBM tried to put short-term profits above customer satisfaction about a decade ago and screwed themselves because of it. Angry employees can be just as problematic to profits as angry customers.
One can argue that stinginess (frugality) got him where he is today. Perhaps there's a Drake's Equation equivalent for mega-billionaires where the non-frugal are usually weeded out.
Warren Buffett is often known for frugality/stinginess also. When he purchased a newspaper in a two-paper town, a competitive well-publicized "paper war" gained steam*. After about a decade, the other paper folded, leaving Buffett a monopoly. The main reporters and editors thought they deserved a bonus for winning. But Buffet blew them off, paraphrased as: "The dominant paper in most two-paper towns has been gobbling up #2 systematically for decades. I spotted that pattern and it's why I bought the dominant paper. Death of #2 was inevitable, NOT because of your content."
While perhaps technically true, it's a slap to the face of the main content creators. In my opinion, such is poor for morale and could hurt profitability. They busted their butts trying to win a well-publicized market battle, finally won, and got NONE of the spoils of war; the General saying victory was "inevitable".
* The prior owners seemed happy with the status quo of 2/3 of the market; but Warren wanted it all.
Gates and Buffett have been giving away much of their fortune to charities. Thus, the raw amount may not be a fair comparison, as it "rewards" those who don't give to charities. Granted, Bezos may someday do the same in his elder years, but who knows the competition decades away? It's a silly contest anyhow, like asteroids comparing Jupiter to Saturn.
Yes, I fully realize that some structure is needed for non-trivial software. That's not news. But there is nothing close to clear-cut science about when to use architecture/pattern X over architecture/pattern Y; and equally important, why X is better than Y. The reasoning GOF-ers give often cherry-picks narrow future change scenarios. I can often think of many more possible future change scenarios that floods their narrow thinking into the gutter. And the reality of actual change is even more brutal than me as it unfolds. It's far more "scenario clever" than I can be, even though I can out-scenario the GOF fans/writers by about 4 to 1. I slap them twice, reality slaps them a dozen.
And it often depends on the domain, as you hint. If you don't know the domain, your crystal ball will fail too often. After you build 20 games, you probably have a good feel about how requirements change and how some stay similar over time. But at Game #1, you know shit about that. I can articulate my experience in a domain about what's likely to happen and not happen, but that's NOT real science: it's merely applying the lessons of experience. (Granted, it may be an early step in science, but that just means we are in the bronze age of software science.)
It lacks anything close to real science. It's Argument From Authority.
And I feel that many heavy GOF-ers are anti-database, and reinvent in code what should be in the database or queries. ER diagrams are easier to absorb and navigate than large tangled OOP pasta. If your particular mind doesn't like databases and feels weaving complex "noun webs" in code is better, that's your prerogative, but don't assume I or anybody else should enjoy what appears to be moldy pasta to us. Databases make it easier to query and study noun info from "different angles". We are not stuck with the nesting or code file structure of the original author. It's more "meta". Show me all green creatures with blue spaceships having a life-span of less than 200 years who came from planets without large moons.
Balderdash! The Earth is flat! I mean we didn't come from no smelly monkeys, I mean vaccines cause autism, I mean ... dammit I forgot what was fake, but something is bogus about wet wire claims.
Pretty much all languages require verbs. If one is a newbie at Swahili, at least make sure your attempted Swahili sentence has a verb, or something resembling a verb. (I suppose one could mistake a non-verb for a verb.)
Well, I guess I "don't understand architecture" (despite building hundreds of successful applications.)
So where do I go or what do I read to "get" GOF in an unambiguous way?
Strangely, most of it made sense even with the mistakes. Joe has a "gift" of some kind. Perhaps he's an expert at getting past spam filters by omitting or doctoring key words. Is the Nigerian Prince hiring?
What's it being compared to? Closed-source orgs usually don't reveal details and problems. We only hear about them when enough people get screwed that it can't be kept from the public. For every closed-source breach you hear about, there may be dozens or even hundreds that go unreported.
The world is full of bright but under-employed coders who have thousands of spare hours to dig for holes. Third-world standards of living and wages make the rewards for evil hacking large from their perspective. Thus, there's a lot of incentive among a lot of people to bust into things.
The labor and incentives for prevention are simply too small compared to that for hacking.
If you mean Gang-of-Four-style (GOF) patterns, it mostly fizzed because, first, it was not clear when to use which pattern. Second, often incorrect assumptions were made about how requirements change in the future. GOF had a shitty crystal ball, time finally revealed. Nobody road-tested that fad long enough, and fanboys dived in face first.
Moorinux's Law: Linux's source code size doubles every two years.
Tablizer's Law: More OSS eyeballs means more interest in product, meaning more source code, meaning more bugs such that bug rate still breaks even.
"Our bot cars have the most and best testing in the world, believe me! Nobody tests harder; not Jiiina, not Elton John, and not even that Samsonite gorilla. Love that guy, high energy, I know his lawyer. Make Testing Great Again!"
FTFY
Modnays.
The subject line itself appears to be missing "is".
No big deal, I'm just joking around. I bleep up grammar all the time myself, and slashdot offers no direct way to correct it. I suggest they at least allow a footnote-like correction section. Use a line (HR) or different font to delineate it.
Some of my best knowledge comes from making mistakes. If everyone who makes a mistake is "removed", then nobody will have realistic experience.
The Soviet Union kept removing generals for every failed battle at the beginning of WW2. But frequent replacement didn't work either. Eventually they ran out of sufficiently qualified new generals, so the existing ones began applying lessons from their prior failures. Their successes grew.
I see no evidence management explicitly condoned such; it's more a matter of being inattentive to inspection quality procedures.
Please clarify.
Testing and peer review may also grammar problems :-)
The poor will get snooped on while the rich don't.
What if both end up in there and the chip gets stuck in a loop trying to eavesdrop on each other? Reminds me of the Space Balls scene when the baffled Commander accidentally spies on himself.