My biggest confusion with the "clean code" concept is, what does clean mean? Such a vague concept seems to invite arbitrary bikeshedding over how many lines a function should have, whether comments are good, etc.
In a kitchen, clean is a pretty objective concept: no dirt or grime, objects put away with similar objects. Not sure what it means in code, but it seems many people have strong, conflicting, subjective opinions about it. Doesn't seem like a good recipe for productivity or alignment.
I feel like it would be wiser to limit the concept of clean to the eradication of obviously "dirty" or "cluttered" things, like inconsistent style, or naming a module in a way that is misleading about its contents or functionality. Just as all different kinds of buildings can be clean, a code of "cleanliness" should not be so comprehensively prescriptive about architecture and organization. Use more appropriate names for those dimensions of code quality, rather than "clean" as the single stand-in for every good thing.
It's been over two years since this was first identified... since this apparently affected many makes and models of SSDs, it would be nice to know if my laptop could be affected and if there's anything I could do about it.
> But the point about new tech being risky, is entirely fair. If something's still exciting, it's probably a good idea for the risk-averse to avoid it.
Seems like you're saying a person who bought a thousand euro phone and couldn't get it repaired under warranty after a month of mild use is "risk-averse" if they dislike that experience.
Would a truly non-risk-averse person be overjoyed by this experience or see no problem with it? Would they accept it as the price they pay for being an early adopter and see no reason to complain? I'm confused.
It's not that thinking more is bad, it's just not always the best thing to be doing. You could also make a decision tentatively and revisit when more information is available. The costs of this could be much less than you fear or assume.
Gebru's brand of Twitter woke-scoldery is taken for granted these days. Par for the course. We all know the tired rhetoric that will be trotted out to defend it, so much so that we could write it ourselves.
A member of the corporate elite criticizing, let alone firing, a black woman for race baiting is now beyond the pale. So they got rid of her indirectly, by making her working conditions unappealing enough to induce her to quit. Too bad some Director Karen of Whatever lost her nerve and ended it on her terms rather than Gebru's. No finesse!
According to a seemingly credible account from a former employee, Timnit terrorized a Google Brain manuscript discussion forum with unfounded accusations of racist disregard for her contributions https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/com...
The thread is filled with agreeing comments from many people who seem to be ex-Google and who had access to the relevant thread.
In a kitchen, clean is a pretty objective concept: no dirt or grime, objects put away with similar objects. Not sure what it means in code, but it seems many people have strong, conflicting, subjective opinions about it. Doesn't seem like a good recipe for productivity or alignment.
I feel like it would be wiser to limit the concept of clean to the eradication of obviously "dirty" or "cluttered" things, like inconsistent style, or naming a module in a way that is misleading about its contents or functionality. Just as all different kinds of buildings can be clean, a code of "cleanliness" should not be so comprehensively prescriptive about architecture and organization. Use more appropriate names for those dimensions of code quality, rather than "clean" as the single stand-in for every good thing.