I know some people are afraid of change and competition, but I'm thrilled everytime someone shares their new language or library. I don't have to learn or use them all, but it's great to basically have unlimited research and approaches to skim on github/gitlab/etc.. for any language and any problem.
Programming languages can be similar to bacterial DNA. Even if the language never gains broad acceptance, parts of it may be incorporated into other languages.
No they don't. This is just pointless sophistry. It does not explain the idea. It's writing that looks like the point is to show the writer's erudition, not explain the idea.
If you try to express a complex idea directly, in practice, your audience often misses the point or misunderstands it. The complex delivery has in it redundancy. It approaches the idea from different angles. It connects the idea to other ideas.
(That's also a misuse of the word "sophistry", by the way.)
My experience is that this is often insufficient--or if we suppose that it's possible, I can't figure out how to express the complex idea by sticking a bunch of simple deliveries together.
I don't want to abuse analogies, but let's say that you get asked the question, "Why don't you write a computer program that detects when another program hangs, and then restarts the program?" If I'm just going to give an off-hand answer, I'll say that this is connected to a famous problem in computer science, and it's proven to be impossible to solve. If I really want to explain why it's not possible without hand-waving it, I'm going to have to explain concepts like computability, models of computation, and "code as data".
But it's natural to encounter people with these questions.
Philosophy is the same way. It's easy to come up philosophical questions and hard to come up with answers.
If you're writing an article, in either philosophy or computer programming, you're going to have to be careful to ride right line between simplicity and complexity. Too simple, and what you're saying is incorrect. Too complicated, and nobody will understand you.
Maybe I've read to much history, or maybe I just need to pay more attention to Musk, but I'm pretty sure he isn't anywhere close to the category of "Terrible Human Being" I have in mind - even for the West.
He's not guilty of genocide, or even murder, so there's certainly much higher bars that can be set.
But I have a deep aversion to trolls. They cause pain deliberately. That pain is diffuse and hard to account, but so widespread that (a little bit) times (a lot) adds up to a large number. And I think it's pretty clear that Musk enjoys inflicting pain on people.
Perhaps that's too low a bar to set for the title of "terrible human being". But that's my bar, and he sails right over it. I tried to ignore it for a very long time, and I'm not sure how much longer I can.
He's also running a company that is making enormous strides in getting the world off of fossil fuels -- and pushing others to do the same. (I have quibbles with continuing the multiple-cars-per-household lifestyle, which I think will need to be reconsidered if we're going to stabilize our effect on the environment, but at least he's doing something -- and it includes reducing fossil fuels in areas besides transportation.)
And he's running a company that is revolutionizing space transport. I don't believe in his goals there, but I think good will come of it. He's doing it for real, not just running his mouth off.
And yet, on balance, he's contributing to an American social climate which keeps nudging closer to literal civil war. You probably think that's hyperbolic, and perhaps it is, but it's undeniable that its making a lot of people angry a lot of the time. He's in a position to know better, and it looks to me as if he enjoys it. To me, that merits the designation "terrible human being".
You can legitimately disagree with that, but I think we can agree on the reasons I say it.
An alternative way of connecting the same dots (I'd argue the truth is somewhere in the middle):
Musk's comments are moving us closer to a civil war because people are putting too much weight in them. If general society viewed musk as someone who wasn't a "terrible human being" but rather just someone they disagreed with, there would be no justification in their minds to consider a civil war as the response. Someone (even someone with less influence then musk) who says the "bad things" on twitter will likely get more media coverage and outrage then someone doing objectively evil things on a smaller scale.
>But I have a deep aversion to trolls. They cause pain deliberately.
So Elon is a troll because he posts things you disagree with? Because that's the only explanation I can think of here. You didn't provide any evidence to support this assertion.
Not OP, and just opinion, but I've seen markedly different career and personality/friend/family success. They seem like talented happy people able to take on a wide variety of challenges and do well.
The friends with troubled upbringing often do find success in one area of life, but they seem unstable overall and often crash or stall in multiple other areas.
Assuming you don't need bare-level performance and Go is okay, I love how easy and approachable parallel code is with Go. Locks and channels each offer trade offs you can easily benchmark using the built in go test.
I've written so many different concurrent approaches to workers, pipelines, and multi-stage processing systems and found it always easy to reason through ways to limit the number of workers, prevent duplicate work, and implement backoffs.
> The chair collapses; he is injured. He files for worker's compensation. His company paid no premiums in Illinois, no coverage. Will California cover an out of state injury?
This sounds so American: Insurance and litigation for every little thing.
Haha true. I thought the commenter was exaggerating first. But maybe commenter is really serious and literally means it.
So to his second point, does the employer get a tax bill because a worker is in a region? The employee might get an income tax bill in the region, and that seems to be the accepted norm. Maybe the company does get a bill.
If you have an hr dept that isn't worthless, they're already in compliance with whatever local state laws they need to in order to operate in that state, including workman's comp.
And keeping 100% of all features instead of removing the least-used features as you add new ones to keep tech debt from growing indefinitely and reaching a point where new features take months to ship.
ETA: I made this comment before the author clarified they were being sarcastic.
I'd propose that if you made more of an effort to be empathetic with people who lack access to wealth and privilege, you'd understand better the criticisms of centralizing power and power structures in general.
"You don't understand because you can't see my perspective" goes any which way, and so is not an argument. If their are artifacts of your perspective that we need to form a full and coherent view - then share them with us. If you're just looking to be patronizing and dismissive because you only value a certain perspective - then please reconsider.
There's a big difference between centralized power and coordinated action facilitated by wise leadership.
The latter does not require the former, contrary to what some people might say -- those who wish to hold unfettered power, or those who wish to be ruled over by one holding such power.
