On the other hand, I find most frameworks don't allow for DRY. The typical case is making a 40 char DB field, and then having to code a check in the payload to ensure field is 40 chars. I've wondered if any system has achieved such enlightenment.
I'll claim the only universal truth in programming as in anything is: "moderation", and it's corollary, "there is no silver bullet". They are all rules of thumb, and knowing when to apply them is the most important aspect of rules.
In this case, unit tests are a very reasonable place to "repeat yourself", so you don't have to figure out what it's actually doing. Seeing the code all in place makes life easier.
I don't think they did real world testing on the "improved" ones. I'd say it's obvious the number thirty could use a degree sign after it, but making it smaller and putting a box around it instead of in water, makes zero sense to me.
Always upvote articles that imply Agile can be lacking. Really, meta-processes are the way to go, and can be defined by checklists. E.g. For this effort, will documentation be helpful? check yes/no. Then you aren't blindly just doing stuff because it is or is not part of the process. The process itself is configurable.
I think consciousness probably requires pleasure/pain, and no, just setting negative/positive values in training does not mean pleasure/pain is involved.
The best a neural network could is pretend it is conscious (I'd have no trouble turning it off). Would artificial consciousness be useful outside of some kind of companionship app (eg. replace my dog)?
My quick take on "gifted" programs.
* These are really supposed to be for kids that learn differently, not necessarily "smarter".
* The percentage of kids in these programs is higher than should be expected.
* The number of kids that happen to have teacher parents or some possible inside track seems high.
I think people hear "gifted" and think they are being left out, but that's not supposed to be the case. Sort of the difference between classroom and home school, sometimes one works better for a kid than the other, not that one is necessarily better than the other.
Interesting. I guess it gets back to "first cause" argument. If life is organizational, does it require an organized process to form.
Isn't metaphysics the only thing we have to figure out how we got here? Provable or not? Even science agrees that there are true statements that are not provable.
I've wondered why we don't just assume the arrow of time was reversed in the past? We know that in the past the universe was more organized (had less entropy), so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch from believing entropy started out that way. Wouldn't that make it easier things like life to form, etc. and simpler than reaching for alien life / multiverse theories? Or does it make it just as difficult? Just a lazy armchair physicist here, but maybe evening TO morning was the first day?
I think Go and Angular should have died, and would already be footnotes in programming history if they had not been introduced by Google. Let's make procedural programming great again? I get it, you can compile it and it has concurrency, but there's better alternatives in my mind, unfortunately not as popular.
Why do we organize by shape, and not by function in our monoliths? We put all our controllers in a package, all our DB accessors in another package, all our "data objects" in another package. Even in OO languages like Java where we have package accessors that never get used because we layout our code such that package scope can never be used. We instead layout the code according to "shape".
When figuring out what to spin-off as a microservice, we do this by functionality. Why not just make it easier in the monolith and organize by functionality instead? Let's act like 4yr olds, not 3yr olds: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12090481/