sidlls

It wouldn't surprise me. This city is corrupt as hell.

I must not be human. For factual information of this sort I just prefer the information. The story is irrelevant and usually too mundane to be bothered with

I always thought this was for two reasons: one as you say is to show the plumbing works, the other is because not passing the meconium (combination of stuff ingested while in the uterus) indicates other more serious conditions might exist

I’ve been in cat 1 and cat 2 storms. They’re awesome in their power for destruction. I’ve evacuated from a category 4 storm, which did a huge amount of damage in the city when it hit.

A category 5 storm is essentially going to destroy everything in its path already. What good would adding a 6th category do?

EM’s vector fields formulation is fairly straightforward: it’s all curls and divergence. Any 3rd (-ish) semester undergrad multivariate calculus course is likely to cover it in sufficient depth. “Mathematical Methods for Physicists” covers it in sufficient depth, for example, provided you already have a thorough understanding of the prerequisite material. Most undergrad physics degree curriculums should have E&M courses whose texts (e.g. Introduction to Electricity and Magnetism, Griffiths) cover enough of the details. If you want to pursue it further than an undergraduate level study, you’ll also want a good text on differential equations that has or is supplemented by material covering, e.g., spherical harmonics and Bessel functions (among other things). I wish I could remember what I used, but it was…more years ago than I care to say when I was an grad student.

I'm American. I've been in two economic classes: dirt poor (as in, more or less homeless, when I was a child, for a bit) and now on the low end of rich (net worth in the mid 7 figure range). I've seen both sides of this inequality, in America, personally. And new social circles that have opened up have given me something of a first-hand view of the "truly" rich as well.

I can list numerous ways that it's a problem, if you like. Here's one to start: "as long as people can move geographically" isn't applicable to those on the lower end of the economic scale. Your comment represents something generalizable about the rich, too: they are completely oblivious to just how hard and draining (physically, mentally, and emotionally) it is to be impoverished. I shudder to think what it's like for the poor in poorer countries.

This is ridiculous. Set aside the (incredibly optimistic, to be charitable) thinking that is going into the acceleration of these probes. The astronavigation itself is hugely questionable, especially with probes that aren't big enough to hold the kinds of equipment necessary to detect bodies that would perturb the trajectory, let alone make adjustments after encountering these.

I don't think people realize how mind-bogglingly, incomprehensibly HUGE space is. It's BIG. Like think of the biggest thing you can comprehend, and it's not even the size of an atom in comparison to even "short" distances in space.

At 0.25c the probes would blast through the centauri system in minutes. Hardly enough time to collect data more useful than what we already can sitting here practically stationary, even if absurdly far away.

It does not have 0 performance impact, it's not rare, and in applications that are in the hot path, error handling is also in the hot path.

That "detail of implementation" is what is used by user code, e.g., `myError.As(...)` uses reflection, implicitly.

https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.21.6:src/...

I really appreciate the lack of magic in go's error handling. I do not appreciate the specific implementation of errors in go. It's inefficient (`reflect` is all over the place) and prone to obscuring the actual "error path". In applications of non-trivial size, it also becomes an obstacle to implementing structured logging and other components of observability. This makes debugging/triage of, say, a production incident harder than it needs to be.

Some tech is. Meanwhile large tech companies that are actually innovating (FAANG, near-FAANG, and FAANG-adjacent companies) are not. My comp has never been higher, and we're hiring. In the bay area.

It does take a long time, and also "real life" immersion, to learn a language deeply. It's the immersion part that Duolingo doesn't do well if at all. So it has to artificially slow down those things it does do in order to keep subscribers.

I think the argument is generally that most applications' "complex interactions" are artificial contrivances and are unnecessary. I certainly think so.

How is SPA a simpler starting point? It requires more code and more abstractions in the client from the onset. One might argue that that complexity would just exist in the backend in an MPA, but that's not true: there is some additional backend complexity, but not nearly as much as required to support the multitude of clients that exist for the baseline in an MPA.

It will come out in the NTSB report, if it's true. Though that will take quite a bit of time.

Please stop moving the goalposts. Iterating on the past is different from thieving entire designs, and you know it.

Because it demonstrates a theft of tech and design, which puts their credibility and integrity in question. Is the derivative safe (actually safe, not government-of-China wanting a feather in its cap rubber-stamp safe)? Is the derivative actually comparable (i.e. is the marketing a lie)? Aside from that, do we want to reward companies that steal other companies' ideas?

We have yet to see if AI can produce good, new content the way humans can. I'd consider it a problem if mass-produced AI stuff makes it even harder to surface that content.

That really depends on what you mean by "machine learning system." For a business, implementing some researched algorithm and essentially using a template? Sure, it's possible. The research that goes into producing the algorithm in the first place? Probably not.

There may be some classes of scientific programming which have simple enough models for a software engineer to implement. Scientific programming that relies on deep understanding of the domain and mathematical models employed to study it don't fit in that category.

I've been to a few countries outside of Europe and the US. Obesity and lesser but unhealthy fatness may not be as widespread yet there, but they're not that far behind. Also, what some cultures consider "not fat" isn't actually "not fat." Plenty consider "chubby" to be perfectly normal (and even attractive).

Rust and Go both provide features to implement code in an OO-ish way: traits and interfaces. I just code in Rust as a hobby but I code in go professionally. The go codebases I work on at work are bloated messes of abstractions and duck typing, often meant to enforce some absurd standard of unit-testing. They can easily be as bad as any "enterprise Java" stereotype you wish to invoke.

If your point is that the physicist should partner with someone who is a "professional programmer" ("carpenter") to do the coding, I couldn't disagree more, speaking as a former research physicist who wrote many programs while I was in academia. A "rough sketch" is not enough for a "carpenter" to go off of for the programs a physicist using computational techniques is writing. They'd need to have a sophisticated understanding of the physics and the mathematical model involved: which almost no "carpenters" have.

No, you don’t, unless you’re of the opinion that actual data structures with test data should not be used in a unit test.

Eh, not really. Go’s philosophy around abstractions is quite poor. Duck typing begs engineers to create poor abstractions that simply reading a codebase does not necessarily lead to understanding. The bolted-on generics implementation actually makes this worse.

What you describe are relatively niche or uncommon uses of these algorithms and data structures. Further, the specific implementation details of a given algorithm become relevant in these contexts. Different implementations of a hashtable can lead to substantially different operational performance, and no textbook understanding (including the toy implementations performed as part of a CS curriculum, for example) of what a hashtable is will lead to the kind of understanding you discuss.

Yes, as they’re literally life-and-death in many cases. Getting a pilot license requires one to demonstrate the ability to do certain “not common but not exactly uncommon either” recovery things from memory. And different bits of those “1000 things” play a role in different scenarios. If you’re lucky and at high enough altitude to have time to look up a checklist in the POH it’s great. When you have seconds because you just took off or something screws up on final you don’t have time to go through the POH or futz around with the checklists in your avionics (if they’re even there).

The pilots that don’t remember these things when they’re needed are dead.

Not really. There are two key traits one needs to memorize for general purpose programming: time and space complexity. Literally a “cheat sheet” with a list of order notations is sufficient to memorize.

Nope. If someone doesn’t reciprocate that’s an indication of their level of interest. This is true for friendships and romance. If the other party is always a passive recipient of attention, they aren’t interested in the relationship. It’s pointless to invest one’s time and emotions into such a relationship.