Psyladine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites

Externalities and cost savings.

Neither can a toddler nor an animal. The level of ability is irrelevant for evaluating its foundation.

Its foundation of rational logical thought that can't process basic math? Even a toddler understands 2 is more than 1.

The history of programming is devs frustrated at arbitrary limitations of syntax or modelling and forming new ones, with their own arbitrary limitations of syntax or modelling.

When your only tool is a FOR loop hammer, every set based operation frustratingly looks less like a nail than a screw.

joy at exposing the hypocrisy of others is a red flag of the ego.

You're asking those whose object problem model is a FOR loop not finding set based operations intuitive, efficient or ever necessary?

Chicken and egg, perhaps? OOO lives and breathes state, so complexity (defined as an excess of state consideration) seems a natural pairing, yet the overhead and complexity is increased by each in response to the necessity of the other? That is, when complexity of the problem shifts, there is a parallel increase in the complexity of the OOO solution.

The general anxiety of the movement towards functional or procedural programming in general might also be a feature of age: a young programmer eager to impress that they can juggle 8 balls effortlessly, but called upon to do the same 15 years later might admit 3 balls sufficed to begin with, and is closer to an attainable sustainable solution.

And dismissing the old is one way that youth make themselves feel they know better.

I asked Spector about his 'immersive simulations' comment some years back:

"I just prefer games that are less puzzle oriented or "single-solution" oriented and games that offer deeper simulations. Simulations allow players to explore not just a space but a "possibility space." They can make their own fun... tell their own stories... solve problems the way they want and see the consequences of their choices."

Maybe precursors to todays sandbox game environments then.

Not just for military:

https://mcdreeamiemusings.com/blog/2019/4/13/gsux1h6bnt8lqjd...

Turns out trying to contain a complex system within a simple system of abstractions is a trendline towards disaster for any enterprise.

Storing it without availability is the same as it not existing.

Hedonic adaptation's a b, but it did get us out of the caves.

People bought into the seductive lie of fairness is what happened, even when the sentiment was the opposite.

Compare "blood is thicker than water", which was rooted in the opposite conclusion, that the blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb, i.e. your relationships and social bonds outcompete genetic ties.

The failing of meritocracy is that it is tautological; those who succeed did so because they must have been successful. It can't bear scrutiny because, as it turns out, we can have neither fair nor equal grounds for competition (if we're measuring results as comparative, which is the case here), but people secretly desire unfairness as long as there's a chance they will benefit, even if they are not the beneficiary of a given instance or result. See monarchies, lotteries, CEO pay discrepancies, etc... what matters is there was an arbitrary chance you're dealt out at the top.

* The IT community, despite the majority being some form of an intellectual

That's your first error. Any trade can encompass a swath of subjects and nuances from history to technology, niche technique and even underlying mathematics thousands of years old, including those that built the floor your chair is on right now, but you'd probably drive by a construction site thinking the mouth breathers are right where big brother market sorted their 'intellect' to.

Surprised this wasn't posted, as it mirrors most of the findings (closed vs open mind; how to optimize creative/unstressed thought, methodologies for maximizing output), John Cleese's talk on Creativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g

Here's a free method that's twice as much work but produces great results:

immediately after composing, for each step and nested step, write a line or two of what its place in the code is for. Write it as though the code is broken and you're following the imaginary line threading through, explained as if to your rubber duck.

Then, having written out the business logic map, look at each written step and see if they're just a description of the logic "iterates through file, passes hits onto nextFunc" and you can safely delete those. They're just glue, really, holding processes together.

What you'll have left is skeletal comments that are restricted to "we did this because this stackoverflow post gave the solution" as well as those mental maps of the solution in your head, which is really what comments are for, future programmers to grok your state of mind and thus better implement their code changes.

That should likewise account for variations in rate of learning, since you can't predict what prior knowledge they possess of the subject matter.

If the rate is consistent, there must be more than existing knowledge bases, or there would be clear staggered tiers or leapfrogging reflecting different accumulative advantage.

Read Blue Ocean by Kim & Mauborgne. What is "really good" is that what shortens the distance between the problem of the consumer and the solution.

As an example, audiophiles might sneer at consumers buying "cheap" "digital" "crap" instead of having the good sense to appreciate what a high end speaker or vinyl system is capable of, but those consumers aren't upstream, they're trying to solve the issue of needing a sound system. People in the industry are for the most part audiophiles, so they're going to have an appreciation for things their consumer base is basically illiterate in. Still, the business is run on solving problems, and the problems of most are not the problems of the high-end user.

we're solving problems, or solving really hard problems, but either way can't deceive ourselves if we're just trying to solve the problem of making ourselves money, or actually of providing value to a variable population of problem-havers.

Seriously. Where are you thinking of going, comrade?

What do you use bookmarks for?

Mostly to keep up a digital backlog to rival the stack of books next to my desk.

Occasionally for reference in searching as they're sorted by topic and google search has steadily become wrestling with the algorithm for relevant results.

At the end of the day everyone's really a pragmatist. Exceptions tend to shake the world, and not really for the better.

If the program knew the intention of the programming we wouldn't need programmers to begin with. Undefined behavior may be obvious to the architect but not to the architecture.

Successful people often attribute breakthroughs or revelations with banal origins: the archetypal shower thought, musings during a commute, taking a walk, or even taking a bath. These all represent the mind churning away in down-time; why should dreams be any different a medium?

Perhaps people were more thoughtful when the demands and inefficiencies of quill penmanship necessitated measured words and deliberate prose. We could all stand from time to time to step back, take a deep breath and count to 10 before speaking words we later regret, yet our endeavours are ceaselessly moving forward to shorten the distance between inception and delivery of information, from postal letter to dms. If we are constantly striving to shrink this distance, isn't there an implicit argument against development of ideas as an urge? Maybe a philosophy of "fail fast" as the tech industry adage?

Careful there, you might burst the libertarian-leaning conceit behind the "difference" between libraries & unregulated e-books: if libraries didn't already exist today with centuries of tradition in their foundations, the very suggestion of an institution like them would be met with howls of the inevitable destruction of the written word and bankrupting of our already starved wordsmiths.

Pump & dumping any investment is often very fun, at whose expense is a matter for the courts.

Petzold just released 2nd edition of Code, with additional work on CPU architecture.

I'm not engaging in philosophy here.

Then engage in dialogue, which requires a shared understanding. It very much matters the definition of free market if you intend to disprove (or more charitably, propose improvements towards) its existence between state actors in the current world stage.

Nevermind compilers, the possibility of updating architectures & code bases by automation. A true feasible attack on tech debt and legacy code.

I and most people on this site probably prefer the compact list of text titles, since the information is easier to parse.

When the topics are as diverse & nuanced as hn feed, sure. When searching for lawnmower or car, 300 text listings of vehicles not so much.

Any tool is a weapon proportional to its power & utility. Beyond that, there's nothing nefarious inherent in weaponry, the DARPA initiatives that birthed the internet were based in defense, against nuclear annihilation. Seems like a win-win, politics non-withstanding.