ud_0's comments

Since I'm also working on my own projects, I don't usually work a full time equivalent or anything like that. Pricing might be different if I had to fill all my time with work.

Let's say I can fill 10 days per month with freelancing, that's 50% occupancy. After taxes and costs that boils down to about 3k per month of income - roughly equivalent to a mid-tier job in Germany. Again, if you're just starting out, your calculation might look very different.

But if there is one piece of advice I can give: gravitate towards higher-paying clients, even if the work is not as interesting or more demanding. Higher-paying clients in general tend to be more appreciative and more competent, on top of the immediate advantages for your wallet. Only take on jobs where all parties can feel satisfied afterwards.

I am an all-rounder programmer with decades of experience in many areas, available for freelance work. I'm up for:

  - game development 
    (I would love to help out with weird custom engines and games)
  - server-side code
  - scientific applications
  - core languages: C, C++, PHP, Javascript, some C# and Lua
  - experience with: OpenGL/WebGL/HLSL, Cuda, SIMD
  - performance optimization of existing code
  - working in custom codebases
  - researching solutions to algorithmic challenges
  - web stuff: Websocket brokers, server-side rendering, vanilla JavaScript web apps, Three.js, Pixi.js

https://ud0.io/

In this case, it's not a trick question per se, but it certainly does something to trick the mind into not enumerating the possibilities. It would be interesting to see how the majority of programmers respond to it, as compared to say the majority of mathematicians. I suspect the question tricks people into abstracting too early: 'one variable in this system is undefined, hence I can't say!'

It is not an intellectual or rhetorical shortcoming to then answer with "No, I agree neither with your premise nor with your conclusion."

On the other hand, if you do D-Decouple and agree, then the mugger will either proceed to rob you immediately, or if an audience is present, they will first read aloud a well-prepared statement that 'proves' how you indeed don't have any right to your possessions - before inevitably proceeding to rob you. Not robbing you was never in the cards, they just made it seem that way by phrasing the question to provide an illusion of openness to discussion.

People who accept D-Decoupling during a debate get steamrolled by bad-faith counterparts, and the audience on average will never remember that there was an "if" hypothetical in front of the question to begin with.

In practice, the "If we accept X, then we must do Y" maneuver is seldom performed in good faith. It's merely a vehicle to move on to the Y part without concerning yourself with X, and it's mostly performed for the benefit of an audience who will only remember the Y part, or those who already agree with X. A side effect is also the gradual normalization of X through repetition.

People who already agree with the premise will see nothing wrong with this, and that's not necessarily unethical. It only becomes unethical if the proposition has negative consequences and the "hypothetical" becomes a deniable position that allows the speaker to retreat behind if challenged.

In other words, I do think the implications of the hypothetical part matter. Not all "If we accept X, then Y" have X's or Y's worthy of consideration. I would also argue that it's probably valid to look at the Y part in isolation. If Y is unethical or nonsensical, I believe there is no intellectual duty to consider any part of the argument.

> This is also what Software Engineering has become: you memorize, regurgitate and participate in agile the masquerade. Creativity is shunned. Tried architectures/patterns are what is expected.

Not necessarily. If it feels like this, you may be in the wrong bubble. And that bubble is going away, too, because these tasks are the first that will be replaced by AI-assisted code generation. In the meantime, you can always Google an algorithm if you know what to look for.

There is almost zero usefulness in an ability to regurgitate boilerplate patterns, but there is tremendous usefulness in executing good judgement, creative problem solving, and a solid understanding of fundamentals.

Programming is about solving problems that are interesting to you personally, in a way that satisfies you (and ideally your customers). The hard part is finding that niche.

> I used to think this job was a creative one, since writing frameworks and libraries for further use, documenting code and extreme programming made me think that I was building something new and useful.

You had it right the first time. If you enjoyed making these tools, that means there is still an internal drive in you to solve those kinds of problems. Even if those tools happen to be terrible, apply lessons learned and repeat! Spoiler alert, everyone else's tools also make trade-offs at the wrong points, even successful ones. Don't be fooled into thinking that the big things are already solved.

In the end it's about finding gainful employment doing something you enjoy. The good thing about programming is that you get to choose your environment and the nature of your work from a very broad spectrum.

> I wish I had practiced law for the past 7ish years instead, because at least all of my skills would still be relevant.

If you chased framework specifics and arcane patterns for the last few years, then yes, some of that work is not relevant anymore. Learn from that, stop chasing ephemera. You may be better served by doing deep work on a specific thing for a long time, as opposed to perpetually playing catch-up with JavaScript frameworks to impress the next fickle startup that thinks it'll change the world by selling ads.

I would advise anyone who doesn't absolutely need it for an interview to stop spending time on LeetCode and such sites. Instead, invest that time in a project that is relevant to you, and learn everything about a specific domain as deeply as you can. Pushing up a score counter on LeetCode doesn't compare to actually making something competently in the real world. ADHD can trick you into believing that solving artificially parceled-up and pre-defined problems for points in a few minutes at a time is progress, but it's not. Work on something meaningful that doesn't leave you with an empty feeling.

I recently went from my full time programming job - doing mostly business and scientific software - to a freelance setup. I'm up for:

  - game development
    I would love to help out with custom engines and games!
  - server-side code
  - scientific applications
  - core languages: C, C++, PHP, Javascript, some C# and Lua
  - experience with: OpenGL/WebGL/HLSL, Cuda, SIMD
  - performance optimization of existing code
  - working in custom codebases
  - researching solutions to algorithmic challenges
  - web stuff: Websocket brokers, server-side rendering, vanilla JavaScript web apps, Three.js, Pixi.js

Contact me at: [email protected]

We're in the far future and space-faring humans still worship the old religion(s). A supernova that occurred roughly during the time of a key event in the religion's history turned out to have killed off another distant civilization. There is an observation that bad things can happen to good civilizations and how that doesn't square with a benevolent creator deity.

Do you perceive one of these as harsh criticism or was there some other issue in the text that I missed?

From the way non-aphantasia is characterized here one could assume that the difference is just how much control people have over the content of the image, as opposed to the degree of realism.

A hallucinating person may have an experience that feels indistinguishable from reality, but they can't control what the experience entails. From this test, I gather that a non-aphantasiac person has an equally-as-realistic image in front of them, but they are completely in command of what is shown.

If I don't actually "see" the object but I know exactly what it looks like to the point of having a clear but abstracted version of it in my head, do I still put the slider all the way to the left, or to the center, or what?

I would say that me "visualising" an object kind of feels like watching a GAN paint an image, only the image is never as explicitly shown as if it was on my retinas. Does that count?

When I close my eyes and I think of an object there is never a danger of me not realizing that my eyes are currently closed. Am I an aphantasiac because of that? Was I supposed to literally hallucinate scenes all the time?

I'm transitioning from my full time programming job to a freelance setup over the next few months. I'm up for:

  - game development 
    (I would love to help out with weird custom engines and games)
  - server-side code
  - scientific applications
  - core languages: C, C++, PHP, Javascript, some C# and Lua
  - experience with: OpenGL/WebGL/HLSL, Cuda, SIMD
  - performance optimization of existing code
  - working in custom codebases
  - researching solutions to algorithmic challenges
  - web stuff: Websocket brokers, server-side rendering, vanilla JavaScript web apps, Three.js, Pixi.js

> It exhibited a high degree (∼ 25%) of circular polarization when it was visible. We monitored the source with the MeerKAT telescope from 2020 November to 2021 February on a 2–4 week cadence. The source was not detected with MeerKAT before 2021 February 07 when it appeared and reached a peak flux density of 5.6 mJy. The source was still highly circularly polarized, but also showed up to 80% linear polarization, and then faded rapidly with a timescale of one day. The rotation measure of the source varied significantly, from −11.8±0.8 rad m−2 to −64.0±1.5 rad m−2 , over three days. No X-ray counterpart was found in follow-up Swift or Chandra observations about a week after the first MeerKAT detection, with upper limits of ∼ 5.0 × 1031 erg s−1 (0.3–8 keV, assuming a distance ∼ 10 kpc). No counterpart is seen in new or archival near-infrared observations down to J = 20.8 mag.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.00652.pdf

The structural problem (or feature) in Germany is that voting for a party who is not expected to pass 5% in total votes is basically the same as not voting at all. For me as a holder of niche opinions, this is inconvenient. Of course, everybody knows this feature exists to prevent the recurrence of a Weimar Republic-style desaster.

I do wish we (Western-style democracies in general) would make more use of direct democratic measures. Barring that, I would absolutely love to give my mandate to several parties in different areas (for example, give my mandate to the Pirate Party on IP matters, but give it to someone else on social policy).

The only scientists who can afford to work for free would have to be independently wealthy, that's not very common. I don't think there is anything wrong with charging money for work, even if you do enjoy that work. Like any kind of work, research science has its share of 9-to-5ers who don't really care, but those people have their uses, too.

> It's the ones who are always whining about how they need constant boatloads of public funding (which is supposed to be spent on public services)

The core problem is really that often public money spent on science leads to results that are privately monetized and closed off from the public who funded it. That's why I believe SciHub is such an important institution, because it makes research results accessible to the public who funded them in the first place. However, funding for space-based data gathering (such as telescopes) has generally led to publicly-available data - the same cannot be said for, say, biomedical research.

I would argue that research is a public service, as long as it doesn't get immediately spun off into patent-encumbered "university-adjacent" enterprise (which I would argue is nothing less than legalized corruption). Of course the issue becomes: how do you prioritize science funding and how do you balance it against other public services?

What do you think falls under "the curiosity of nerds"? Isn't that all of science? Or just cosmology? Or space-based platforms?

Every single time there is anything happening with space flight, there is at least one comment saying "We should literally solve every single problem here on Earth first before even thinking about anything related to space". This seems like a pretty shallow code for space flight should not happen, ever.

I've been wondering about the people who make these comments for a while, and your seems to follow a similar blueprint. I have some questions, maybe you can answer them.

What motivates this? Are you worried about Earth getting deprioritized? Is the perception that we must decide between tackling social problems/climate change and gratuitous space adventures? Are these comments a way of saying that humans should never venture beyond Earth or that we're just not ready yet? Even if you believe actual humans should never go to space, do you still believe we should have infrastructure there to support Earth?

I don't expect that to last. There are many influential countries that are increasingly intolerant of LGBTQ+ at a government level. If one of them just so much as mumbles something about "moral values", expect all of these over-eager LGBTQ-supporting companies to quietly delete all references that they ever supported this.

There is no question that a neuron uses a large fraction of its atoms for its functionality, as is every other cell. What I think you're postulating is that these atoms form a functionally uber-complex network with mind-boggling combinatorics - but that position does not align well with current science. Single neurons are not that smart. For starters, they don't have the I/O address space or bandwidth to be, nor do they have the energy budget to behave like a block of Computronium.

Neurons have not been opaque black boxes to us for a long time now. We understand a lot of the biochemical processes going on in there. We may not have a complete picture in many areas regarding many neuron types, but there is not enough unexplored space in there to allow for a cell-sized quantum supercomputer or anything like that.

The upper bound on a neuron's computational complexity is dictated by the intricacies of its protein machinery, which is many many orders of magnitude lower than the number of atoms making up the whole.