HN user

asguy

699 karma
Posts1
Comments316
View on HN

There have been some great responses that cover the gist of it, but to add a couple more mundane specifics:

- Build up the thinnest abstraction that lets you express a solution in the problem domain.

- Allow the API user to express their intent, and not be focused on mechanics they don't need to understand to get the job done.

- Focus on getting the interfaces right before the implementation is perfect.

- A clean interface will allow you to make drastic changes to the implementation without the API consumer becoming aware.

Programming Forth caused the most massive change in my programming mindset (the LSD of programming languages). Even more so than Lisp. Thinking of the rapid rise of the base language to the problem domain (i.e. it's a DSL construction kit) opened my eyes to how to design useful and extensible APIs.

https://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net is worth reading, even if you have no desire to ever program any Forth.

X is a better experience for me now, than it was before Elon's takeover. If I don't want to see something, I don't look at. If I don't want to allow someone to interact with me, I block them. If I believe something is bullshit/a lie, I participate in the community notes.

I don't need a nanny to pre-chew my information for me.

Yes. It's there to keep things unspecified. If you leave the job, you're not paid out unused vacation. If you use too much, you run afoul of an unspoken rule

The Sokal Hoax 3 years ago

"We published what we thought was a valid paper on a fat man in red that lives on the north pole and gives presents to children at the end of December. Unfortunately we didn't realize that the aeronautical data on his flying reindeer was falsified. This was clearly data fraud, and has no impact on us being a trustworthy peer-reviewed journal." lol

The Sokal Hoax 3 years ago

They found 7 gullible journals that accepted their papers. 4 of which got published before the project was discovered.

The Sokal Hoax 3 years ago

Focusing on "fabricating observational data" is a cope for the fact that Boghossian et al made the targets of their papers look like absolute fools. The problem with the paper "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" wasn't that the data was wrong.

Sokal and Boghossian's work intended (and succeeded?) to accomplish the same thing: they demonstrated the fact that these academic disciplines are full of bullshit producers and consumers.

I wouldn't say that. It's got more of a "STFU, you whiners.. start focusing on more important things inside the locus of your own control, rather than complaining about what other people are doing" vibe.