iherbig

I'm not sure if you do, honestly. The point of the exercise is exactly the ambiguity that stood out to you.

Also, the question was very explicitly not asking if an ambulance in the park is "okay." The question is asking is it a rule violation.

It's an excellent analogy, in my opinion, because what it's trying to be analogous to is the general ambiguity of language that makes content moderation difficult. It's hardly even an analogy because it is about precisely an identical concept: determining whether behavior is violating a rule.

You and antihero are talking about two different kinds of "good listening," though.

"Being a good listener" has both a practical and a social component. You are referring to the social component ("in Japanese culture..."). The tenets of social interactions in Japanese culture which have been ingrained in speakers of the language to one extent or another. The performance aspect of the act of listening.

antihero is talking about the practical form of "good listening" when they say "that makes you a terrible listener though." That is, what is the function of "listening" in a social interaction? I would hazard a guess that they believe the function of listening is to understand what another person is saying.

And by that benchmark, an individual who is not actually reaching any sort of understanding is a "bad listener" irrespective of how successful they are at performing the cultural/social component of the act of listening.

There's the additional implication that because signaling you are understanding when you are not leads to misunderstanding (which is the antithesis of the intended function of listening), it makes the listener an even worse quality listener than if they were not performing.

OP was not suggesting that search engines cannot be used as a tool in the process of taking the test. Rather, that your test should not be something which a candidate can Google a pre-existing solution to and submit as their own.

While I agree with both sentiments, I find the juxtaposition between the two interesting as it implies a relationship between them but they don't seem to be related at all.

...he should seriously consider putting more effort into the documentation and distribution side.

In addition to what other people have said, Blow is explicitly working on documentation over time and closed beta users have access to a fair number of documents detailing both language features and the philosophy behind the language.

One huge reason why the language IS still in closed beta is because Blow believes heavily in not releasing half-assed work. Documentation is a part of that.

It is no longer in the language. Much of this document is extremely out of date.

"This version of the sentiment which you did not express is totally reasonable, therefore it seems nuts to hate people for the sentiment that you DID express."

I would imagine it's because WSL is a terribly confusing name itself for a lot of people.

There are two ways to read "Windows Subsystem for Linux":

1. This is a subsystem that runs on Windows that enables Linux binaries.

2. This is a subsystem that runs on Linux that enables Windows binaries.

The confusion comes in the fact that when I write those two sentences, I naturally want to write "This is a subsystem FOR Windows..." or "This is a subsystem FOR Linux... ." I had to consciously avoid using "for" in that sentence to highlight the problem.

So when someone who doesn't know what the thing does reads "Windows Subsystem for Linux" they may walk away with the false impression that the subsystem allows Windows binaries to run on Linux. Likewise, what you're seeing now is that people are seeing "DOS Subsystem for Linux" and thinking that this enables you run DOS on Linux.

It seems like a lot of the discussion surrounding DOD that gets popular interest is centered on a small set of patterns that you can apply. And the implication that DOD is the application of these patterns usually follows.

Taking this article as an example, it frames DOD as an optimization technique and explicitly states that these patterns are the main concepts of DOD.

But while these patterns are interesting and often show up in data-oriented designs, they are not themselves foundational to data-oriented design.

This is interesting to me because it seems to obviously be missing something. If the article went through a list of the design patterns present in the GOF book and framed them as the main concepts of OOP, I would imagine people would be a little bit suspect, right?

That's because it's kind of the reverse, isn't it? The main concepts of OOP may result in certain common PATTERNS of code structure and layout -- which have usually been given names like "Strategy" and "Visitor" and "Singleton" -- but those patterns are not themselves the main concepts of OOP.

Likewise, data-oriented design might lead you to convert an array-of-structures into a structure-of-arrays or avoid branching on a hot path but those patterns are not themselves DOD.

If you look at the URL you'll see "commentisfree".

Not to be dismissive, but this post feels a bit like rambling without a clear thesis or main argument.

The post opens with:

This is more of a brain dump or an internal monologue. I don’t intend to prove any point or convince you to start your own thing. Neither do I want to reassure you that working for someone else is the best option for most people. My goal here is simply to get my thoughts out so I can think clearly again and rationalize this thing that’s been nagging me.

In case you're serious and unaware: it's a contraction of "would have," hence the apostrophe. It's not a single word spelled weirdly.

IBM's response to Google called "On 'Quantum Supremacy'" has this to say:

"Because the original meaning of the term “quantum supremacy,” as proposed by John Preskill in 2012, was to describe the point where quantum computers can do things that classical computers can’t, this threshold has not been met."

In other words, "quantum supremacy" is not being used as just a buzzword.

So yeah, IBM is casting doubt on Google's claims of "quantum supremacy" because "supremacy" doesn't just mean "better than everything else."

Not OP, but...the advent of cars over horse-drawn carriages involved a _lot_ of deaths before both pedestrians and drivers learned. There was also a lot of propaganda put out by car companies to change the popular conception of roadways from being a place where people walk and children play to being a place for cars. [1] So...it's actually pretty close to people needing to be told to look both ways.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797

I think that what you are saying here doesn't necessarily serve as a counterpoint to the GP's point. Rather, it's only an additional piece of evidence. Where GP referred to things like a parent being sick serving as a downward pressure in the effort to improve one's circumstances the point is one of externalities which are not typically accounted for.

And in this case, the externality you're bringing up is that oftentimes being raised poor means you're being raised in an anti-intellectual environment. And that externality is something that a lot of poor people have to deal with.

It's another instance in which the game appears to be rigged against those from a poor background.

Software development does not have to be a stressful experience. I'm sorry that you believe it does as that implies that your experience has largely been stressful.

In my mind, that perspective is a huge red flag for me when I'm on the job hunt. If you are trying to stress me out in an interview rather than make me comfortable then I have to thank you for letting me know before I started working there that you would be exhausting both physically and emotionally.

Look upon the horrors and weep: https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/coroutines.html

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parkinsons-Law-Pursuit-Progress-Bus...

Actually, following French where male grammatical gender is used when the actual gender of the referent is unknown, fiancé is also the generic term.

I did not know this, thanks.

Words with semantic, but not grammatical, gender are not uncommon in English which lacks grammatical gender.

Are you referring to words like actor vs. actress?

The word fiancé/fiancée is gendered. It is one of the few gendered words in English, as the gender was not dropped in taking it from French. Fiancé refers to the male. Fiancée refers to the female. They are pronounced exactly the same, which is why you have never heard it.

I acknowledge that my original statement was implicitly asserting that to some degree the public consciousness is right-leaning.

I would like to point out that I was not making any statements as to the validity of either of those two statements. Rather, they are commonly-held beliefs irrespective of their truth values.

I think this is the right's perspective, but it's not an accurate portrayal of the left's. I therefore disagree with the assertion that this is a fair representation of the "public consciousness" on this issue.

I'm not saying it _is_ an accurate portrayal of _either_ side. The only assertion I'm making is that those are the beliefs the public consciousness holds as truisms, irrespective of their truth values.

Edit: To clarify further, I want to make explicit something implicit in what I said. You may notice that what I'm asserting is the "commonly held beliefs of the public consciousness" is rather right-leaning.

I acknowledge that that statement is also implicitly asserting that the public consciousness is, to some degree, right-leaning as well.

I'd like to point out that the only assertion I was making was that these are the common beliefs that the public consciousness holds as truisms, irrespective of reality.

It's a bit difficult to explain, but I'll try.

In the current political climate, the left and the right have been divided by the public consciousness into the following dichotomy:

The left is overly sensitive and looks for things to be offended by.

The right is concerned with maturity and personal responsibility and anti-political correctness, where those things are defined primarily in contrast to the left's perceived over-sensitivity.

Simultaneously, there have been a lot of trends in various communities (software and otherwise) to formalize rules of conduct and push out people who are more naturally aggressive in tone.

Through that lens, this behavior has been seen as "left-leaning." So in contrast, the right-leaning behavior would be letting everyone behave as they want with the "free market of ideas" being the primary driving force for change rather than any set of enforced community standard. (You can see the parallel with the typically "conservative" economic perspective.)

I hope you can see the general trend.

So what the grandparent is saying is that it's not REALLY about left vs. right, without explicitly contradicting the beliefs of the common social consciousness.

Edit: The comment above that says, "Different people have very different beliefs what is to be considered 'heated', 'hateful' and 'treating well' or not" would be considered "right-leaning" through the common lens because it's implicitly positing that there shouldn't be a common set of community standards (with the implicit supposition that you CAN'T set a common set of community standards because there will always be people who disagree). Not picking on anyone, just using an available example.

STL means "standard template library." It's perfectly reasonable to say "the standard template library."

Moreover, they make the point in one of the episodes (3x06, "Booby Trap", IIRC) that the ship's computer's intelligence is INTENTIONALLY limited. The reason that Data is unique isn't simply due to his status as a fully sapient being. It's because of his positronic brain.

You suggest it's an ethical decision rather than economic; that streamers deserve the support. But why?

I don't suggest any such thing. I think supporting a streamer or not is pretty amoral. It's all about whether or not you feel that you would like to contribute financially to a given streamer whose work you enjoy.

As for why they need support? I don't think many people would say that streamers universally "need" anything. It's about whether or not you personally would like to give money to a person who brings you entertainment. You admit that there are a few YouTubers who you support on Patreon. Many Twitch streamers (most that I've seen) are also YouTubers and produce content there based on their streaming.

At the end of the day, I think your misconception is that you think of "supporting the streamer" as a transaction in payment for content produced and that entertainment is not content (or in some other way not worth supporting in the same way that traditional "content" is).

The question is simple: Is the content entertaining to me? Do I want to show my appreciation for the entertainment? That's all.

Personally, I have not subscribed to any Twitch streamers and I don't intend to. I appreciate what they offer, but I do not feel compelled to subscribe. And I don't think there's any moral quandary there.

They don't pay to watch, they pay to support the streamer.

Most streamers have subscriber/donation/cheer notifications appear on-screen in some way. Making partner on Twitch (which enables subscriptions) requires the streamer to have a consistent number of viewers each time they stream, and they must stream fairly often.

It's not uncommon to see streamers with a fairly sizeable number of subscribers any given month.

I think you may have misunderstood me if you boiled down my point to an existential question.

My point was that directing to Google or documentation is a basic misunderstanding (or simple forgetfulness) of what it means to be a beginner in the field. It is that telling someone to "Google it" or "read the docs" fails to understand the fact that beginners often simply can't comprehend documentation and can't use Google effectively because they do not have the foundation necessary to understand the problem they are facing.

This isn't an existential question of "what is a programmer." It's the statement that if SO is exclusive to "beginners" then it is doing the field a disservice. And it's a statement that directing beginners to Google or documentation is elitist and inherently exclusionary in practice.