The value of moving dirt is that someone paid for a hole. They don't care how it was made.
The value of written communication is in whether people decide to read it. There is nothing controversial about readers rejecting content they perceive is low-effort.
Lots of programmers match the right language to the right job, I think the zen of C++ is embracing the ugly as a feature; there are so many subsets of that language you never have to leave it.
Exactly, you can code like C devs (Petzold used the C subset in his famous Win32 book), go to the extreme of GUI, ORMs, Web frameworks in 1990's, inspired from Smalltalk before Java and .NET took over that role, go crazy with Haskell style programming, or chose somewhere in between.
> there are so many subsets of that language you never have to leave it.
I wouldn't call it "subsets" as much as support for "Multiple Paradigms" in the same language. They can all be used together to express powerful abstractions. James Coplien wrote "Multi-Paradigm Design for C++" in 1998 (before C++11!). Then people figured out Template metaprogramming etc. and the design space became even more wider.
Today with all the available language features and library additions you never have to leave the language at all whatever be the platform(cpu-arch+OS) you are working on. Add-in trivial interop with C and there is nothing out of bounds.
I have to say the messaging around passkeys is bad. So many providers show modals with big friendly lock logos superimposed on a smartphone to announce the change without offering any explanation about why the change is happening, why the change is happening now, or how the technology works.
I don't know when it started, I don't know who is to blame, but we've definitely arrived at a conceptualization of "the user" that is passive, uncurious, and incapable of being talked to like an adult.
I see this style of framing a lot and it always seems like turtles all the way down to me:
- Smart people recognize that some people are stupid
- No, real smart people recognize that behaviors are stupid, not people
- No, real smart people don't label others, including calling themselves smart, based on a small sample of observed behaviors. They leave the dichotomy behind.
- Wait, you still called yourself smart...?
- You are all wrong, all labels are generally meaningless and unhelpful in describing dynamic people in a dynamic world, though let's not be dogmatic about it, sometimes a dolt is a dolt and a genius is a genius
Adam Omary is a research scholar for the libertarian-leaning Cato institute [0].
While centering individual responsibility and calling out the weird dynamic where people unnecessarily embrace a personal narrative previously associated with debilitating conditions to feel a sense of belonging is refreshing, this is a heavy lift.
Cost is the exception to how LLM learning curves have dropped off and in some ways rewarded late adopters. (e.g. prompt engineering is hardly worth the bother when the models now think so hard about user intent)
It continues to be an uphill battle to help people at $DAYJOB understand that the relationship between turns and cost is nonlinear. And many still don't understand the idea of a system prompt, that they can control how chatty all responses are.
I agree, but I'm curious if anyone has thoughts on why. Like, why is good collaboration in an open-source office software so unrealistic when way more complicated-seeming state synchronization happens in open source and indie games all the time?
I've used dwm for years and recently switched to niri and really, really like it.
I'm with you, that tiling vertically is not useful. Niri aligns better with my innate mental model: just keep adding new panes to the right offscreen that I can scroll through, then I can swipe up and down for more lanes to do collections of different tasks.
I feel much more productive doing read/write tasks, like viewing tickets + code or PDFs + tickets and so-on
This is one of my favorite quotes and I'm glad to see it discussed here.
My favorite interpretation is focusing on the beauty of how even such a mundane thing as a sandwich is a unique experience. Someone made it by-hand, the ingredients have their own backstory in arriving in the present moment, and the taste is greater than the sum of its parts because of all the competing and complementary flavors.
Sandwiches hide in plain sight and even when they aren't great they are unique and will underscore how good your next great one is.
The value of written communication is in whether people decide to read it. There is nothing controversial about readers rejecting content they perceive is low-effort.
reply