HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

thisisbrians

no profile record

コメント

thisisbrians
·4 か月前·議論
It is and will always be about: 1) properly defining the spec 2) ensuring the implementation satisfies said spec
thisisbrians
·6 か月前·議論
Location: Austin, Texas, USA

Remote: yes

Willing to relocate: no

Technologies: best at infra, data infra (including IoT), database (postgres), fan of: Ruby on Rails and "boring technology", Swift UI, developing hardware

Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u-PnhWu9V_YcTJtaOQem2iSEwD4...

Email: thisisbrians at g mail dot com

Former, exited founder looking for IC roles, but don't mind some leadership duties.
thisisbrians
·7 か月前·議論
Location: Austin, Texas, USA

Remote: yes

Willing to relocate: no

Technologies: former founder. best at infra, data infra, database (postgres) (including IoT), fan of: Ruby on Rails and "boring technology", Swift UI, developing hardware

Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u-PnhWu9V_YcTJtaOQem2iSEwD4...

Email: thisisbrians at g mail dot com
thisisbrians
·7 か月前·議論
Are these roles on-site only?
thisisbrians
·8 か月前·議論
I'll probably get downvoted for this, but recent (last ~100 years) evidence and phenomena suggest that consciousness might be fundamental to reality, and thus there could be some other information transfer we would currently consider "woo" going on here. This is hard (if not impossible) to prove, of course, but quantum mechanics has totally bewildered many aspects of the materialist ("reductionist") model of the universe. There is a large and increasing number of physicists and other reputed scientists/researchers who are adopting some variation of the consciousness-as-fundamental stance.
thisisbrians
·8 か月前·議論
Yes, it's easy to cherry-pick an obviously absurd position that could be articulately argued. But the point is that you are definitely wrong about some things and should generally keep an open mind. Even intelligent people are wrong about certain things, and in fact their propensity for rationalization can lead them into some absurd positions. But some of those positions turn out to be right, like the Earth orbiting the Sun, for example.
thisisbrians
·8 か月前·議論
the semantics aren't very important to my argument, which is basically: our instruments can't perceive all of reality, thus we can't test theories around the unknown phenomena therein.
thisisbrians
·8 か月前·議論
I can chime in to say: the scientific method, so far, cannot explain consciousness, and that the whole materialistic basis for physics is facing a crisis in the face of quantum mechanics, etc. Most of us have utmost confidence in a method that so far has nothing to say whatsoever about the most important quality of our existence: that we are aware.
thisisbrians
·6 年前·議論
To be able to write code, you must first be able to read code. This means you must be able to 'simulate' what the computer is doing when it executes a program — or at least the bit of it you're working on — in your own head before you can write it. Tools can and do help with this, but they cannot think for you.

Competence in engineering and architecture come from expanding the capabilities of your mind to simulate more complex programs and to think in abstractions.
thisisbrians
·7 年前·議論
This, 100%.

  hard == difficult && unlikely