Yeah, I've changed my evaluation. The lists didn't do it for me, because they don't follow the usual rule-of-three, but the "genetic marker ... travels" line seems egregious. And the "not X, but Y".
> Every game engine has a sort of "grain" to it where it tends to produce games with a certain look and feel.
I think this is a bit of a myth. Unreal gets this criticism a lot, but it's usually because many studios choose to stick close to the rendering defaults, which does lead to a certain look.
To that point, it's probably a lot cheaper to configure Unreal or Unity into a unique "grain" than it is to develop your own engine. It's also possible to use custom physics instead of those built into the engine.
Remains to be seen, considering how much snake oil there is in the solar market (but to be fair, this makes more sense than solar roads). A news article summary of a press release isn't proof of much.
Uncle Bob does a bad job talking about trade-offs, but there's still value in stuff like SOLID. The problems start when people blindly obey or ignore design principles.
Saying SOLID makes bad code is as over-simplistic as saying SOLID makes good code.
Totally agree. I tried the JIT approach; I could never get it to work, and I've never seen anyone else do it either. The wisdom has always been to keep everything flowing and accept spoilage (or kludge it with lots of bots and then move on). This patch makes it a more feasible, I think.
I'd love to see splitter filtering by freshness (e.g. nutrients at >=80% freshness) but I don't think that's in the cards.
> If [the job applicant materials] didn't get you in the first time, they won't the next time
> we had one opening, but five or even ten excellent final candidates
Under my interpretation , these statements contradict each other. The former implies that a candidate's failure is always the result of their shortcomings. The latter implies that a qualified candidate can be edged out through little fault of their own. The parent poster complained of exactly this; they weren't sure whether they were ineligible or simply edged out.
This contradicts your earlier statement, "we had one opening, but five or even ten excellent final candidates," and ignores the criticism: "is it me or is is it you?"
Although I suppose you're saying that promising candidates are kept on file for later?
The poster was banned for "Irresponsible disclosure and threatening users privacy to advertise a startup." Unless the post was edited, is the moderator referring to their mention of HN?
> At the same time, anyone growing up today will be using LLMs for massive parts of the jobs they grow up to do. So they should learn about it.
There's not so much to learn they can't put it into a high school course. Adults currently in the workforce haven't been using AI since they were in elementary school, and they're adjusting fine.