Is it really comparable?? I use JB IDEs heavily and when I tried Zed a few months ago it felt more like Notepad than IntelliJ. Maybe that’s what you’re looking for and I am sure that’s fast, but they seem to have quite different use cases.
After moving to Zed I also missed good Git integration that I had in VSCode with GitLens.
That pushed me to finally try Jujutsu instead of Git, since it has a CLI (and TUI and GUI, if that's your thing) that are perfectly usable by mere mortals. Now I feel as fast as when I had the Git integration, despite using the terminal.
But if I had stuck to Git, trying GitButler or Sublime Merge was the next option on my TODO list.
Use a single database and RLS + session id to ensure queries already come filtered for that tenant without the need to add "where tenant_id = ?" around the application layer.
Which begs the question, if attractiveness is such a big predictor of success, why hasn’t everyone evolved to become very attractive? The evolutionary pressure for increased attractiveness should be very high, since it affects so many areas of your life, from career success, to getting partners etc.
Is it that the speed at which we evolve to become more attractive is superseeded by our ability to become better at discriminating for attractiveness?
It's possible that people have evolved to be more attractive than a long time ago, but the issue is not of absolute beauty but rather relative attractiveness. There will always be a top 10% and a bottom 10%, even if the entire population increases in attractiveness across the board.
But separately, it's not clear that attractiveness is hereditary in the same way that height, for example, is. If two tall people have kids, they will almost certainly be tall. It's also incredibly unlikely that two short people will not have kids that are tall.
With attractiveness, heterogeneity between generations is much more common. I know some very attractive people who have not-very-attractive offspring, and vice versa. It depends on how the features of the two parents mix together.
I mean at the very minimum there lies a great deal within our locus of control that can influence overall attractiveness. Are you in shape and well groomed? So many are not, and it’s weird that people don’t at least try to hit that Pareto inflection point within their own possible range of attractiveness, knowing, as we all do, that it makes a difference.
Do you have a study showing this? Also what’s your definition of “success”? I will argue that less attractive people have to work harder, gain more skills, and develop a personality. All attributes that makes you more likely to succeed in whatever you want to achieve.
And justice for all (who are attractive). The biggest con is that the criminal prosecution system is blind and unbiased when it clearly is anything but.
"Software", like "science", is a broad term. Just like there are many kinds of scientists and you could be, say, a biologist or a physicist, there are many entirely disparate fields of software engineering. At the end of the day, software itself is just a means to an ends: solving a problem. Solving some of these problems like the one that GP discussed have more to do with math than programming. The programming is mostly the implementation of the math. So if you're not versed in that math, of course you wouldn't understand the code that's being written to implement it.
Building machine learning systems is vastly different from building operating systems which is vastly different from embedded systems which is vastly different from networking which is vastly different what most of us do (myself included), which is building CRUD apps. We're just solving different problems. Of course there are common themes to writing good code, just like there are common themes to performing science, but the code and solutions will look almost nothing alike.
Because there are so many fields of software development, and you don’t need to be good in all of them. Don’t put yourself down for not understanding, you can always put some time into algorithms again if you need to :).
most of the optimizations discussed are actually kind of obvious if you know how chess notation works in the first place. like the reason the starting move "Nf3" makes any sense is because only 1 knight of all 4 on the board can possibly move to f3 on the first move. what the OP is doing is trying to take that kind of information density and trying to represent it, first by assigning bits to each part of a possible move and then by paring it down where the space of legal moves excludes entire categories of possibilities. there's another article that goes much further into how much optimization is possible here: https://lichess.org/@/lichess/blog/developer-update-275-impr...
Saying that your future estimates will improve based on your last ones, is like saying you have more chances of winning the lottery if you lost some games before.
Critics of estimation often use a sneaky trick called the motte and bailey fallacy. They mix up two different ideas: one that's pretty reasonable and easy to defend, like "we can't know _exactly_ what's going to happen in the future," with another that's way out there, like "the future is a total mystery, so trying to learn anything about it is useless because it's all just random noise."
"Critics of estimation" usually do this because managers don't actually know the concept of "estimation" and define your worth and paycheck on this concept. So it's just easier to simplify it to "just random".
Past experience can be used to drive good estimation. But it takes experience with the process of estimating to know when you "know" that your experience is relevant, and when it's not clear if the previous experience translates.
It doesn't matter how much experience you have with past estimates if one of the steps in the flow involves a scenario where you just can't estimate it. (Happens a lot when dealing with third parties)
I think for that scenario, there would have to be experience estimating based on the third party involved.
We have third parties building portions of our systems and for some of them I can estimate reasonably well their actual net duration because I've had a lot of experience with them, and they've been fairly consistent.
But there are others where there's a wide range, so I think it boils down to whether you can spot a pattern or not.
Of course it's a fake story. It's a tried and true method of farming karma: write the most rage-inducing (read: engaging) story you can possible come up with, post it on r/AMITheAsshole (or similar ragebait subreddit), and just watch the upvotes come.
It's called bait for a reason, and it's why most popular subreddits are not good places to hang out anymore.
To what end? Fake internet points just for the high score?
Or are these future scammer accounts building credibility?
I just don't understand ragebait, seems like a waste of everyone (including OPs) time, with no tangible reward.
This. There's a whole market for high-karma old Reddit accounts. If it has a comment history that makes it look like a real person is behind it, even better.
Buyers are usually companies looking to astroturf their product/service, or scammers.
Google "buy reddit account" and see how many results there are.
First it's a great way to practice your story writing. Instant feedback, and a way to measure impact.
Second, it's to create fake accounts with real post histories so that they can be sold. There is a lot of strategies and work behind this approach.
Sold accounts then look "real", so when real people endorse product X on r/buyitforlife or AskReddit threads about "what product's quality has gone down?" it looks like actual people and not a targeted marketing effort.
Long stories also make for good consensus building by hammering points that are relevant to socio-political discussions. Like when the Woke was riding high during 2016-2018 there would be constant discussions in r/relationships, AskReddit, TwoXChromosomes, etc. about abuse, to keep people constantly talking and thinking about gender issues.
You can also create "tailing" or "follow-on" accounts that post replies to the obviously BS stories, including those that post "lol what a load of BS", as that builds their history, too, and you can steer opinion by having a few of those supporting shillbots make outrageous claims for (or against) the story, and then disprove them in ways that leads the audience into intellectual positions that the posters want.
It's nice to have my opinion, suggestions, thoughts, etc validated with upvotes.
I'm not sure I'd get the same effect from a totally fabricated story. But that's just me...
Yeah, I've gotten sucked into those stories before too and some are just too fanciful to believe. The AI being trained on Reddit data is going to do more than hallucinate...
Not just petty. It sounds like an awful lot of work for very little result. An actual vengeful person with that level of access could certainly do better.
It’s probably fake, but it’s not unbelievable to me that a spurned tech savvy incel type could be this petty. I have seen rejection hate flow for years.
And the victim just silently accepts their ditziness is local to only the office? Sorry but this is almost surely a creative writing exercise. I normally don't comment on these things but they also normally don't show up on HN.
