chikere232

작년discuss

It's certainly a skill to launch quickly at that scale. There are plenty of bureaucratically managed slowly launched duds too

I hate meta with a passion, but I don't deny they have some great infrastructure and engineers to enable the bad things they do to the world

chikere232

작년discuss

Last year's Advent of Code had a task that was NP complete and lacked good well known approximation algorithms. I almost gave up on it when I realised as that feels impossible

In practice the data was well behaved enough and small enough that it was very doable.

chikere232

작년discuss

It would be most fair to hash the names first, especially for this paper

chikere232

작년discuss

I imagine one reason people have a hard time with the monty hall problem is that they have learnt a rule that seems to fit but really doesn't. A person not trained at all in math might do better as they haven't learnt that rule.

There's probably a name for that cognitive bias, but I don't know it.

chikere232

작년discuss

"Probably beyond help" means they're not going to change their opinions no matter what, so trying to find phrasing that helps change their opinions is a waste of time.

Being a musk supporter in this day and age isn't a simple difference in opinion, unless you're a good person who's been living under a rock, in which case a mention of musk being pretty awful could actually help you.

chikere232

작년discuss

I think there are lots of sort of tuned out but generally nice people who might shy away from buying a tesla if the perfidity of Musk is mentioned whenever tesla is discussed.

The people who like Musk are probably beyond help

chikere232

작년discuss

It's pretty useful to remind people that buying a tesla is supporting Musk.

chikere232

작년discuss

Singletons are just globals for people who have learnt "globals are bad" but lack a deeper understanding

chikere232

작년discuss

With tesla, the bad apple is in charge

chikere232

작년discuss

Often some bits are automatable, or some manual steps are verifiable, and then suddenly it's a do something script

chikere232

작년discuss

When I do this I keep some persistent state so I can interrupt it, e.g. if the thing is a yearly task I run it like `./do-the-thing.sh 2025`, and make a 2025 dir where I keep state on how far I've gotten

So if you OK the first step, I can touch a 2025/first-step file. If the script crashes or is interrupted and rerun, it can check for that file and skip the first step

If something has changed so the automation doesn't work, it's nice to be able to crash out without losing state, fix the script and rerun.

I usually have the script tell me just the next manual step and then exit, because that frees the terminal up for me to do other things. I can use the command history to rerun the script easily

chikere232

작년discuss

I do this for some yearly tax stuff, as the big issue for me is that it was a year since I did it last and getting started with a complex and boring thing is hard

So I built a script that tells me what the first step is. When it's done I run the script again and it tells me what to do next. Often the first few steps are "download this CSV from the bank" so the script can detect I've done than and go directly to the next step when I rerun the script

The reason I have a script I rerun rather than a "press enter to continue" is because it then only keeps persistent state, and I can easily do a bit every day until done

A common pattern is

    if ! [[ -e checked-all-the-receipts ]]; then
         echo "check that the receipts match the list of expenses, then"
         echo "  touch checked-all-the-receipts"
         exit 0
    fi

Then over time, I have automated some parts and added some checks. E.g. when I have downloaded a CSV I can check that the format looks right before considering the step done. I've added some autogeneration of documents I need, built a python script to add up transactions and check the that the totals match etc

chikere232

작년discuss

It just means it's in the best shape of any of the languages in it's domain

chikere232

작년discuss

wow, that's an amazingly impossible standard no software lives up to.

Or much technology at all. If you use anything that is 1000 years old, it's probably been maintained or cared for a lot during those 1000 years

chikere232

작년discuss

Because security is hard and there are people constantly working on finding new issues.

It's a bit like asking why the army needs tanks when horses worked well the previous war

chikere232

작년discuss

> Also, why do I have to install new software in every couple of months to access my bank account, secure chat, flight booking system, etc., etc., without any noticable difference in operation and functionality. A lot of things unreasonably becoming incompatible with 'old' (we are talking about months for f's sake!!) versions. That's a nuisance and erosion of trust.

Are you talking about security updates?

chikere232

작년discuss

I haven't seen that as much. The horde of people chasing the hype curve left C behind long ago. When they leave rust, rust will be better off

chikere232

작년discuss

You can't rely on an authority to step in every time some disagrees. People need to resolve their own conflicts rather than yell until bailed out

chikere232

작년discuss

It would be a silly strategy compared to saying that mixing languages is a bad idea and rely on inertia.

Also, letting rust in doesn't seem to stop the personal attacks, case in point

chikere232

작년discuss

If you're gonna lead a group of people effectively, you kinda have to listen to them. leading by decree works occasionally, but you can't afford to do it often.

If there's a lot of people sceptical to rust, doing a limited experiment is one way to figure out if it's going to work. Rust people working in the kernel should act accordingly. Drama like this is not helpful

comments