This is why I like strong type systems with exhaustivity checks
This is why I like strong type systems with exhaustivity checks
Apparently they can’t read their own survey results because DevEx is clearly the highest paid category there but they think it’s SRE and cloud
I never got the impression Michelle even wanted to run, and frankly I’m not impressed by the notion that the best candidate was a wife of a previous victor. Didn’t work out terribly well last time, and not actually particularly great credentials on their own
Had to make sure there has just the right tension on the left wire or you’d only get half the track. Bonus points for weirdly mixed stereo where that just sounded shit
When people say a country was/is “communist,” they mean it’s being ruled by Marxist-Leninists, not that it’s achieved the hypothetical level of society that usually only Marxists are familiar with.
This is a great line
No I don’t think that’s how the argument was meant to work. I think the point was that since most eggs people eat aren’t fertilised, the initial comparison fails down, but if most eggs were fertilised it wouldn’t. I’m not sure that’s a convincing position myself, but w/e. tbqh I don’t think most people would eat a fertilised egg… Like, you can really tell. I forget where I was going with this. Think I’m gonna go to sleep now. Goodnight.
Bring back political executions! I can see no downsides!
Mate, first of all: chill. Second of all: me, mincing words? You’re the one who’s decided the phrase ‘natural philosophy’ only applies to ancient Greeks. It’s literally just what science used to be called. Being very very hung up on a specific definition of a word or phrase and excluding other common usages is not a good basis for an argument. There need have been no argument at all. ‘We call it science now’ seems to be what you meant, but it’s not coming across well
Oh. And you can still do science without a theory. It’s called data collection and it is absolutely vital.
Edit: a good example would be Rosalind Franklin’s work on the structure of DNA. She did some incredible science with x-ray diffraction which was vital to Crick and Watson’s theory of the structure.
Edit X2: also ‘doing it implicitly’ is totally fucking fine if the result of being invalidated is you create a more refined model of reality. Which is, like, pretty much what the whole thing about astronomy is…
That sounds plausible but is, in fact, kinda a made up distinction you just came up with. People up to and including Isaac Newton used the phrase ‘natural philosophy’ to describe what they were doing. ‘Testing’ in any meaningful sense of the word was a part of that more often than not. Even Pythagorean astronomy was implicitly testing things by making predictions of the movement of celestial bodies. So, no, but thanks.
Edit: also worthwhile, I feel, mentioning that a lot of good science is purely observational and involves no direct testing, even of theorems. E.g early paleontology would, I feel, fit into that theme
Tbh anything that can give you a curated set of options, and some resources that can help you make the final decision is pretty incredible. But that’s the thing about most AI - it needs some human vetting for good results, regardless of how powerful it is
Previously known as natural philosophy
This is not a natural landscape. You don’t get fields of grass like this without human intervention. This started in the bronze age, so just because your local human-made landscape is green, make no mistakes.
Bit by-the-by, though, because obviously computers are completely awesome, but real nature is not this placid homogeneous scene
I feel like there are actually multiple counter-examples to this, but they’re all much better realised worlds than Harry Potter
If you grew up hearing the crackle, then to have it removed is pretty jarring. Some stuff feels to me like it benefits from it because it’s kinda old-timey stuff anyway, and it sets the mood better - like the Beatles or Frank Sinatra. But it’s not an audiophile thing in that case, just vibes.
I know you’re playing the straight man to a joke, but actually you can apply a linter, then tell GitHub to ignore the implied ownership history for the purposes of blame from that reclining pr. All such prs are massive and yet by virtue of the replayability of the linter it’s also very easy to ensure errors didn’t slip in when reviewing.
I know the original comment was about renaming all the variables, but that’s obviously deliberately absurd, so I’m using here a completely realistic example instead.
Yeah but I bet you do it sometimes on your own pull requests even after you’ve opened them don’t you?
I’m not sure that anything can objectively be said to ‘matter’. So, yeah, I guess? Things only matter to us because we.care about them, sure…
That seems a little glib to me. Not all stories are lies, not all stories have happy endings, some victors are known now thousands of years after their death. On a cosmic timescale I suppose that, trivially, nothing matters - but, conversely, the cosmic timescale is so vast that it doesn’t matter to us…
Also I couldn’t really parse what you were saying in your second paragraph so I’m gonna leave that there
Sometimes…
'spose that’s true enough