goldenkek's comments

walmart has a 2 day delivery program similar to prime for 40 dollars a year. they need to advertise better..no one knows (you didnt did you?)

blocking. blocking. blocking. blocking. rtfm

This is a false equivalence. As long as the progress is set correctly via messaging (queue) to an alternate UI thread, the time lost will be under a millsecond. The naive print loop you provide is obviously IO bound and print is a blocking IO call. Use an async print IO and youll have much better performance. Narf!!

Hah.

Newer means different. Older means different. Different CPU meet differently optimized code meet different cocoa framework. Narf!

Why overengineer something as simple as a blog?

Testers are like McDonalds cashiers. They will eventually assimilate with the self checkout. Now, they may be able to get a job servicing the soda machine if they count their blessings.

exact tests on implementation at the "db was updated properly" category are usually classified as integration tests. theres nothing wrong with those. but one shouldnt test specificity of internal method code for small units.

checking for an insert into the database in the most general fashion is okay. checking for the exact dynamic data?? you are basically copying your code.

A stub on the iterator interface would do it..but like I said..terrible use of testing

He means you test pure functions and mutations. You dont stub data sources that your implementations use to see if they were called. tests need to be about enforcement of correct interface exposure. not exact implementations. its one of the most facepalm types of useless testing that ive seen littered around Amazon's Seattle teams due to these Indian managers wanting to make sure the data sources called in every method actually got called and that there is 100% coverage. serves no purpose except to basically make two copies of the code..the test as a doppleganger of the actual code but using stubs.

Because tests should not be more verbose than code. Refactoring the sumArray method to use map instead of a for loop shouldnt break tests. it is terrible terrible practice to take internal implementations and then stub their callees to make sure that the code that was written got executed. I saw this a lot at Amazon. Its a fundamental type of moronic testing and is absoltely useless. All it serves is to make any kind of refactoring or changes twice as burdensome.

Testers to programmers is like cashiers to cooks at Mickie Dees. I think you are resentful that your job can be automated and thus, the value of what you do is quite low.

Deprived of happiness is terribly conspicuous. For optimists, this fact plays no part in their existential computations. For pessimists, however, it is axiomatic.

Whether a pessimist urges us to live “heroically” with a knife in our gut or denounces life as not worth living is immaterial. What matters is that he makes no bones about hurt being the Great Problem it is incumbent on philosophy to observe. But this problem can be solved only by establishing an imbalance between hurt and happiness that would enable us in principle to say which is more desirable—existence or nonexistence. While no airtight case has ever been made regarding the undesirability of human life, pessimists still run themselves ragged trying to make one. Optimists have no comparable mission. When they do argue for the desirability of human life it is only in reaction to pessimists arguing the opposite, even though no airtight case has ever been made regarding that desirability. Optimism has always been an undeclared policy of human culture—one that grew out of our animal instincts to survive and reproduce—rather than an articulated body of thought. It is the default condition of our blood and cannot be effectively questioned by our minds or put in grave doubt by our pains. This would explain why at any given time there are more cannibals than philosophical pessimists.

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2696709-the-conspiracy...

Dont forget that a computer program exists in the physical world. It is not unlikely for AI that understands self, to also want to preserve self.

You mean like a virus?

Fortunately, evolution selected for intellect even though it might have initially have been past a minimum fitness/energy valley. Id encourage you to rethink this simplistic view that ignores the general tool that developed in order to handle more random and abstract specific solutions to threats.

Some questions:

We act like stimuli are exact things but the brain is all about abstraction. In fact, a certain amount of entropy/information enters your beain every day from vision, smell, touch, etc. Its not stored in full fidelity. There arent enough nuerons or energy for that. So what is lost? Well...whatever isnt abstractable, right? You celebrate your birthday. You remember blowing out the cake in pristine vision. But how much of that 'movie reel' inside your head is actually a superposition of abstracted reality vs actual observed reality?

All Im asking is, is it even worth it to think of a human being in terms of absolute information when their memories are so sparse from reality. We remember whats important. And the things that are important, weve remembered to remember. But ultimately, the actual holding power of the brain is quite small. The brain is a master of deep abstraction from sparsity.

Is it like a quantum system? Where the superposition values of one subcortical system are flattened by another? So that a whole brain belief/memory is a function of the fuzzyness of each subsystem being exacted/wave function flattened by the heuristic correlation/connection between all the shitty data? I think we need to start thinking about sparsity. The universe is sparse when it comes to using 3d space. Holographic principle says physics is so symmetrical that we sparsely use 3d space. Such that our entire universe could take place on 2d space. Max Tegmark gave a talk about how deep learning works so well because of the sparsity of faces or music or voices, the overwhelming symmetry/redundance in physics and nature. And transitively, humans.

This article is absolute humdrum. Functions are not the atoms of programs. We now have classes, lambdas, generators, events, streams, etc.

There are ways to organize code without sticking every little one time used code into a function.

Poor article by a pseudo computer scientist. Let him keep 'hacking.'

Haters gonna hate ;-)