That is, either determine what the optimal set of features is from the outset, design around that, and freeze or organically reach the optimium and then freeze. After implementing the target feature set, nearly all engineering resources are dedicated to bug fixes and efficiency improvements. New features can be added only after passing through a rigorous gauntlet of reviews that determine if the value of the feature's addition is worth the inherent disruption and impact to stability and resource consumption, and if so, approaching its integration into the existing UI with a holistic approach (as opposed to the usual careless bolt-on approach).

Naturally, there are some types of software where requirements are too fast-moving for this to be practical, but I would hazard a guess that it would work for the overwhelming majority of use cases which have been solved problems for a decade or more and the required level of flux is in reality extremely low.

git was designed to facilitate the collaboration scheme of the Linux Kernel Mailing List, which is, as you might guess... a mailing list.

Rather than a pull-request (which tries to repurpose git's branching infrastructure to support collaboration), the intended unit of in-the-large contribution / collaboration in git is supposed to be the patch.

The patch contribution workflow is entirely CLI-based... if you use a CLI mail client (like Linus Torvalds did at the time git was designed.)

The core "technology" of this is, on the contributor side:

1. "trailer" fields on commits (for things like `Fixes`, `Link`, `Reported-By`, etc)

2. `git format-patch`, with flags like `--cover-letter` (this is where the thing you'd think of as the "PR description" goes), `--reroll-count`, etc.

3. a codebase-specific script like Linux's `./scripts/get_maintainer.pl`, to parse out (from source-file-embedded headers) the set of people to notify explicitly about the patch — this is analogous to a PR's concept of "Assignees" + "Reviewers"

4. `git send-email`, feeding in the patch-series generated in step 2, and targeting the recipients list from step 3. (This sends out a separate email for each patch in the series, but in such a way that the messages get threaded to appear as a single conversation thread in modern email clients.)

And on the maintainer side:

5. `s ~/patches/patch-foo.mbox` (i.e. a command in a CLI email client like mutt(1), in the context of the patch-series thread, to save the thread to an .mbox file)

6. `git am -3 --scissors ~/patches/patch-foo.mbox` to split the patch-series mbox file back into individual patches, convert them back into an annotated commit-series, and build that into a topic branch for testing and merging.

Subsystem maintainers, meanwhile, didn't use patches to get topic branches "upstream" [= in Linus's git repo]. Linus just had the subsystem maintainers as git-remotes, and then, when nudged, fetched their integration branches, reviewed them, and merged them, with any communication about this occurring informally out-of-band. In other words, the patch flow was for low-trust collaboration, while direct fetch was for high-trust collaboration.

Interestingly, in the LKML context, `git request-pull` is simply a formalization of the high-trust collaboration workflow (specifically, the out-of-band "hey, fetch my branches and review them" nudge email). It's not used for contribution, only integration; and it doesn't really do anything you can't do with an email — its only real advantages are in keeping the history of those requests within the repo itself, and for forcing requests to be specified in terms of exact git refs to prevent any confusion.

It’s unfortunate that so many podcasters have leaned into the myths about being able to manipulate dopamine as some global up/down thing you can adjust by following certain protocols.

Andrew Huberman is among the worst at this because he has enough education that he should know better. I think he’s too enamored with the traffic and clicks he gets when he talks about dopamine, so he’s willing to stretch the truth or even break it completely if it will make for engaging podcast content.

Some of the studies he cites over and over again about dopamine don’t even say what he claims. Huberman is a joke among people who actually know the science, but he became a hero to people who thought he was just a nice guy sharing free knowledge with them.

It will make more sense when you realize the trades were basically designed to suppress the 'out-group' from joining the union or being hired to keep up the union workers wages. That's why hiring an EE is so much cheaper than hiring an electrician.

That is, the dirty secret is: the trades have a vested interest in having 'shortage.'

A good friend of mine in HS did one semester of college, said "nope. not for me" and became an electrician. Fast forward ~30 years, he planning on retiring in a few years (could retire now if he wanted to).

He's smart, worked hard, learned and taught himself as much as possible. Took & passed all tests asap, got his contractor's license asap, etc. Branched out to learn industrial controls and electrical too.

I think pursuing a trade can be a really good way to go... but you need to go into it planning to learn & teach yourself and push the excel.

I know welders who make >200k USD a year working 4-6 months a year. They are crazy skilled and know their craft inside and out... they know more metallurgical science than me (and way more practical knowledge about metal alloys) and I was chemical and materials engineering major.

I know a master carpenter/craftsman who makea >500k a year, profit, doing high end cabinets, woodworking, furniture, building, kitchen remodels, etc.

from this week, lawyerballing on reasons to ignore judicial decisions they don't like https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hear-arguments-trump-adminis...

here we just call for impeachment of judges who rule against us https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-federal-judges-impea... - “at a certain point, you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge.” - what else you got in mind, exactly, Donald?

and obviously there's the whole impoundment thing we've just been talking about - the executive blatantly ignoring a law that restricted that. should be trivial to imagine ways THAT could be misused.

Musk's entire role is pretty suspect - where was the Senate confirmation hearing or law authorizing the delegation of power to him? where is the authority over departments headed by actual cabinet members beyond "Trump said so"?

another big flashing warning sign is RFK and the CDC re-opening the vaccines/autism thing. wouldn't it be curious if suddenly a new study contradicts decades of research there? seems a bit wasteful to re-litigate unless you have reason to believe you'll get the result you want, not the one the numbers have been pointing to...

What are the good actions? Laying people off to save pennies off the budget? Promising tax cuts to enlarge the national deficit? Renaming shit?

(EDIT: another big corruption-enablement thing would be deciding the FCC is the "let's police speech i don't like" department.)

We are witnessing in real time the answer to why 'The Matrix' was set when it was. Once AI takes over there is no future culture.

You would think FAANG would have a half decent UI and UX with the amount of money they have. But anybody that has used Amazon.com or AWS, GCP, or even Azure would beg to differ.

Personally, off the top of my head. The most polished UI/UX has to be “mcmaster.com”. I can find anything I need in what seems like a couple minutes.

Compare this to big box stores like “Home Depot”, “Lowe’s”. I can spend 10-15 minutes just trying to find the right size of screw, board, or whatever using their bloated sites. On mobile it’s even worse.

Suppose I say that good code should have the lowest number of curly braces, or the lowest number of subroutines, or the flattest or deepest object hierarchy. A measure being objective doesn't make it good. So why is test coverage good?

In fact, every single one of the metrics proposed in the parent post is something I have seen gamed to the point of maladaptivness.

* execution performance time - So frequently overly focused on that you can find google hits for "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." I have seen developers spend hours or days saving (sometimes imagined!) run time, where all the time they saved over the life of the product wouldn't add up to the time spent. Extreme pursuit of performance leads to code that is hard to work on - who cares about those milliseconds when critical new features take months to write, or are even impossible?

* build time - It is very easy to diminish build time by destroying critical architecture. I have done it myself. :)

* regression frequency - Insisting on only making very safe changes is how you wind up spending six weeks lobbying change control boards for one line of code.

*defect quantity - In environments that actually track this, people merge issues into a single "fix what's wrong" ticket, degrading the utility of the ticket system. Defect granularity is not actually obvious!

* code size - Obfuscated X contest entries are often very compact, and people who obsess on saving lines and characters can wind up leaning towards that style.

* dependency quantity - Leads to attempts to homebrew encryption.

* test automation coverage - Automated testing ossifies design and architecture, which can paralyze, e.g., an experimental prototype. Full coverage is also costly - time and energy spent maintaining pointless tests can come at the expense of mitigating more realistic risks. I realize I depart from prevailing wisdom in this, but there are times and places when automated testing is simply inappropriate.

* test automation execution duration - Sometimes the right way to write a test is slow.

I'm not disagreeing that these are generally good things to strive for. They are! I'm saying that if you think these things define goodness, each one can lead you to a cursed place. (I hasten to add that there are times when a metric really does define goodness - sometimes you need speed or reliability or whatever, at any cost. Recognizing that circumstance and its limits - "any cost" does not generally mean any cost - is subjective.) Goodness is subjective, and while objective measures can help you assess it, such measures cannot define it - when and how you use which measures, and when you think they've gone off the rails, is itself a judgement call.

I once inherited a system that was both essential for business operations and a thorn in everyone's side. The guy I inherited it from (and the guy he inherited it from) had taken over a year to learn how to use it. I set about reorganizing, rewriting, documenting, abstracting - all those soft changes in pursuit of clarity and obviousness. They aren't objective, but they do pay off: when I handed the system off to the next guy (and three more after him!), he was off and building on it in a day. That was how I knew I had succeeded! When doing that sort of thing, you do always wonder if what you're writing is clearer for everybody or just you. But surely even the most hardheaded bean counter can see the value of training developers in a day rather than a year. That's good. :)

Goodness is contextual and subjective. I can agree that your goals are generally right, and I can point to circumstances where they're overemphasized or even outright wrong. Sometimes, when the sky is falling, a nasty little bash script that meets none of the usual criteria for "quality" is the best possible thing.

There are people who use subjectivity as a haven for vanity, and build mountains of pointless code in pursuit of some idea of goodness that serves no practical purpose or is even harmful. It is important that we retain our on ability to criticize on subjective grounds, precisely to counter that sort of activity - because you will find it in the land of the objective advocates as well, building mountains of metrics that don't serve any practical purpose either. To recognize a bad abstraction and a bad metric is the same skill, and requires the same confidence in your own good judgement.

Objectivity is no refuge from the necessity of good taste.

    pip install files-to-prompt llm llm-claude-3
    llm keys set claude
    # paste in your Claude API key
    llm models default claude-3.5-sonnet
    files-to-prompt my-github-repo/ | llm --system 'say OK'

    llm chat --continue

If you want to run against an updated copy of your files, start a new conversation with the files-to-prompt piping again.

The back end of all these companies is the same, some call center/scheduler that manages everything very cheap. They run the purchased companies as fronts and jack the prices and push for big replacement/upgrades until reviews dip. Then they dissolve the company into a generic regional company and sell that to a national like servicepro.

State management in React is a major source of pain and complexity and if you build you application using events then you can eliminate state entirely.

Most state management in react is used to fill out props and get the application to behave in a certain way - don't do it - too hard, drop all that.

Here is how to control your React application and make it simple and get rid of all state except useState:

    const ImageComponent = () => {
      const [cacheBust, setCacheBust] = useState(0);

      useEffect(() => {
        const eventListener = () => setCacheBust(Date.now());
        window.addEventListener('customEvent', eventListener);
        return () => window.removeEventListener('customEvent', eventListener);
      }, []);

      return (
        <div>
          <h2>Profile Image</h2>
          <img
            src={`https://example.com/profile-image.jpg?cachebust=${cacheBust}`} // Image URL with cacheBust as query param
            alt="Profile"
            style={{ maxWidth: '200px' }}
          />
        </div>
      );
    };

    // Component that dispatches custom event
    const DispatcherComponent = () => {
      const dispatchCustomEvent = () => window.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent('customEvent'));

      return (
        <div>
          <h2>Dispatcher Component</h2>
          <button onClick={dispatchCustomEvent}>Reload Image</button>
        </div>
      );
    };

I wonder if that kind of training data is being worked on now..

It's a custom build of Firefox with somewhat sensible, sometimes strict, privacy respecting default settings.

There's also the Arkenfox user.js which you can put on top of vanilla Firefox, aiming for the most privacy and security possible. https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js

    The purpose of knowledge is action, not knowledge.
    ― Aristotle
    
    Knowledge isn't free. You have to pay attention  
    ― Richard Feynman
    
    "Information is not truth"  
    ― Yuval Noah Harari  
    
    If I were the plaything of every thought, I would be a fool, not a wise man. 
    ― Rumi
    
    Dhamma is in your mind, not in the forest. You don't have to go and look anywhere else.
    ― Ajahn Chah
     
    Man has set for himself the goal of conquering the world, 
    but in the process he loses his soul.
    ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn
    
    The wise man knows the Self,  
    And he plays the game of life.  
    But the fool lives in the world  
    Like a beast of burden.  
    ― Ashtavakra Gita (4―1)

    We must be true inside, true to ourselves, 
    before we can know a truth that is outside us.   
    ― Thomas Merton

    Saying yes frequently is an additive strategy. Saying no is a subtractive strategy. Keep saying no to a lot of things - the negative and unimportant ones - and once in awhile, you will be left with an idea which is so compelling that it would be a screaming no-brainer 'yes'.
    - unknown

If you get the filters and fans in the same diameter they will just slip together without any additional hardware. But it will be quite wobbly. I used velcro (monoprice, laying around for wire-taming) to secure it to a vertical bookshelf.

My BOM: - $199: TerraBloom 6" Silenced EC Inline Duct Fan, ECMF-150-S, 288 CFM, 36W

- $114: TERRABLOOM 6" AIR FILTER 24" LONG, 1.8" (46MM) THICK,

- $80: TERRABLOOM 6" AIR FILTER 16" LONG, 1.8" (46MM) THICK

I'd probably go 8" if I was buying today, I hedged a bit cheaper because I wasn't sure if the quality/performance would be what I needed. This has been running for 9 months now with almost no noticeable degradation in performance, although I'm not currently quantifying it. Eventually I intend to install 3 VOC sensors, one outside the unit near the intake, one inside the unit, and one outside the unit at the outlet....to measure the VOC scrubbing efficiency curve over time and assist in deciding when to replace the carbon.

We've been running it 24 hours per day, usually about 40% but sometimes at the lowest setting (maybe 25%) and sometimes at the highest 100% setting.

After 9 months, it can still use it for point sources of concentrated smells like soldering and it captures 100% of the odors. And this is operating in a high-VOC environment near a lot (dozens) of chemical plants on our side of the city.

Technical founders often focus on a particular cool way of solving a problem and burn lots of capital building that thing. Sometimes the thing is the right thing and everyone makes money. But sometimes it’s not. Yet if you stick with the same problem space for long enough, and aren’t too connected to your particular solution, I think you have a greater chance of succeeding.

Okay, go ahead and poke at my pontifications now. I’m ready.

Perhaps that's the differece: specialization. More contractors and take-out meals mean less working with friends.

Friends are good for unspecialized labor, but when you get into skilled labor it falls apart. The one plumber friend will get swamped with requests, and the quantum physicist may not find an opportunity to reciprocate.

I'm "unhappy" multiple times a day when I start doing something that doesn't usually have to be done right away. But it's often a choice not between doing something now or later, but doing something now, not never.

However weirdly this may sound - I constantly do things against myself, for myself. I don't get much satisfaction from finishing those tasks but my life quality has increased drastically and I wouldn't go back from moments of discomfort to an ongoing discomfort.

The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselves.

Most research is flawed or useless, but published anyway because it's expedient for the authors to do so. Plenty of useful or interesting angles are not investigated at all because doing so would risk invalidating the expert status of the incumbents. Of the science that is communicated to the public (much of which is complete horseshit), the scientists themselves are often complicit in the misrepresentation of their own research as it means more of those sweet, sweet grants. The net result is the polished turd that is scientific research in the 21st century.

"Educated" people can say what they want about how important it is to believe in the science and have faith in our researchers and the institutions they work for.

The fact remains that if one were to assume that every single scientific discovery of the last 25 years was complete bullshit, they'd be right more often than they were wrong.

One fault is the drop in teaching hours : https://www.reseau-canope.fr/musee/collections/cache/a65f40c... this is a schedule from 1952.

We are lying to kids and parents : https://twitter.com/loysbonod/status/1356128734508679168

Or Pierre Colmez writting : https://webusers.imj-prg.fr/~pierre.colmez/lettre.pdf and https://images.math.cnrs.fr/R-eduire-les-in-egalit-es.html?l...

Everyone can fill in their pet theory here, but mine is that so much of being American these days is disempowering. Corporations have so much power that not only do they not care about us, but we can't even avoid using them.

Get sick? Good luck fighting your giant health insurance provider or hospital conglomeration.

Looking for an entry-level job? Navigate a Kafka-esque application system only to (if you're lucky) work for a miserable low-level manager who also has no power and transfers that anger onto you.

Want to spend time with friends? Their preferred communication medium is now one of a couple of huge social media companies with horrific privacy policies and a history of emotionally damaging its users.

Want to go to a show? Have fun buying overpriced tickets from one of the two or three ticket monopolies and then pay an exhorbitant, insulting "convenience" fee.

So everyday, in many of our basic daily rituals, we are reminded of how little agency we have in our own lives and how much we both depend on and are subject to the whims of billionaires (who, meanwhile, are busy destroying the Earth).

> Other studies suggest that a two dose regimen may be counterproductive. One found that in people with past infections, the first dose boosted T cells and antibodies but that the second dose seemed to indicate an “exhaustion,” and in some cases even a deletion, of T cells.34 “I’m not here to say that it’s harmful,” says Bertoletti, who coauthored the study, “but at the moment all the data are telling us that it doesn’t make any sense to give a second vaccination dose in the very short term to someone who was already infected. Their immune response is already very high.”

What I don't understand is this comment "essential to a child's development to be part of a social classroom experience" but it is a very common view. Ignoring online schools, the largest public high school in the US has over 8,000 students and high schools with 3,000-4,000 student are common. When in human history has it been the norm for children to gather daily in such large numbers everyday away from their families, with only high level supervision from adults who aren't their parents nor have much depth of insight into their lives? It's more akin to Lord of the Flies with the occasional adult commentary than a way to learn good social skills. What they learn is the law of jungle and many people are scared for life by the experience. Even at the elementary and middle school levels, enrollment of 1,000 students in a single school is common. There's absolutely nothing natural about this. It's an absurd artificial construct and it's amazing so many people think it is somehow a good thing.

Another common question is how will children make friends if not at school? For myself, most of my friends were those I met at school but about a quarter were from meeting in the neighborhood, through youth group at church, or through family or friend-of-a-friend connections. Just because someone lived in my neighborhood didn't mean they went to my public school. Some went to religious or private secular schools. Some kids at church also attended private secular schools (our church didn't have a school) or a different public school. If I had been homeschooled, I still would have met about a quarter of my friends outside of school, and probably would have met many of the same in-school friend through those friends due to common interests and geography. All of this was without me being into sports, which is another way children meet friends, even if it wasn't one of the ways I met them.

Compared to a Prolog program, a MiniZinc model is quite hard to parse and reason about programmatically: Every Prolog program is also a valid Prolog term, and can be reasoned about logically as long as we keep to the pure monotonic core of Prolog, which also includes constraints. Pure Prolog programs can be debugged declaratively by generalizing away goals, whereas for example removing a line of a MiniZinc model may render the model invalid.

In addition, Prolog provides logic variables and therefore allows interesting questions to be asked about the model, such as queries about partially known data. This, in combination with Prolog being a programming language, allows its application in a way that is not readily available, or may not be possible at all, with more special-purpose tools and modeling languages. For instance, David C. Norris is using Scryer Prolog and its integer constraints to model and analyse dose escalation trials as they arise in clinical oncology, exceeding the expressiveness of other modeling languages:

https://github.com/dcnorris/precautionary

Regarding sophistication, a good example are dedicated placement constraints of SICStus Prolog such as the geost/N family of constraints:

https://sicstus.sics.se/sicstus/docs/latest4/html/sicstus.ht...

The publication A Geometric Constraint over k-Dimensional Objects and Shapes Subject to Business Rules by Carlsson, Beldiceanu and Martin gives an overview of what is going on behind the scenes when these constraints are posted:

http://contraintes.inria.fr/~jmartin/CBM08cp.pdf

Implementing these constraints with the efficiency, generality and correctness that SICStus provides is a huge project.