It's not about hard drive space, it's about start up time.
The 10x LOC (despite being a huge exaggeration) is also the fixed cost, not the marginal cost. You're only forging main loop and includes, not any fundamental complexity.
This is also a funny argument coming from a Go programmer considering that Go trades off conciseness and expressivity for simplicity. Show me some of your favorite Go and I'm sure we can replace it with some concise C++.
I just mentioned this elsewhere. But everyone in freelancing and agency feels the same way. If only they could get that sweet passive income they could relax and have a stable buisness. Here are some things to consider:
- have you ever built and maintained a large codebase/project over several years?
- have you ever sold or marketed a product rather than a service?
- are you ready to compete with the whole world, as opposed to locally?
In my experience they are completely different skills, that agencies and freelancers do not have.
One approach is to develop internal "products" that make you more efficient. The bar drops from being something a customer can buy and enjoy right off the shelf, to being a productivity multiplier.
I persnally actually accepted the opposite. If everyone is obsessed with passive income and not doing work, to the extent that they are accepting tiny margins with artificially low discount rates, I want to maximize the value of the time I do concrete work.
This is always a temptation for agencies which almost never works out. They underestimate the effort to build a product. They also typically don't have the skill or experience to build a high quality product that can compete with the whole world.
inb4 it's just showing me what I like. In icognito mode go to YouTube and watch a single video that might suggest you are an 18-45 year old male, and then look at your suggested shorts.
This is a silly and stupid argument. I was searching for some programming tutorials and it showed suggestive content in search results in maybe you might also like section or something like that. WTF is that.
That's one possible union architecture, sure, but you're missing the forest for the trees. A union offers job security to reduce the risk of "managing up."
It's the one used by all the major ones: airlines, auto manufacturers, and teachers. What institution do you know of that has a greater emphasis on measuring performance?
I'm sure most unions would love performance based pay where union reps decide what constitutes good performance. For some mysterious reason management is as keen on unions exercising their judgement as unions are on management deciding.
Where unions agree policies that treat members as interchangeable (e.g. age based pay) it is usually as a result of a compromise brooked with management who would love to have the latitude to give pay raises to scabs, kiss asses and spies.
That's not generally how it works in professional sports with player unions. Nor does it work that way in the film and television industries where there are unions representing writers, directors, actors, etc...
The shape of the union is whatever the membership wants it to have.
Both of those examples have weaker unions that play less of a role. Also the poster above suggested that the union as opposed to the management could measure performance. That doesn't happen in sports or TV.
They are incompatible sets of axioms, but they can describe the same set of shapes, although one system is going to be a lot more inconvenient than the other. The differences are logically interesting, but about as incompatible as choosing to make the origin of a euclidean system one corner of the room instead of another.
In contrast physical theories contradict each other by making different predictions which can be falsified.
That's no longer the halting problem: formally, the input to a halting oracle is
an index for some fixed choice of admissible numbering of the set of Turing machines, meaning one that can be computed from the standard numbering induced by some universal Turing machine. Your encoding is not admissible.
Just your luck. Under Univalence identity is equivalent to equivalence and it's computationally decidable.
So you should be able to produce a decider which determines whether any alternative encoding/representation is equivalent to the halting problem; or not.
Formally speaking Turing machines are formal language recognizers, so in which formal language is the formal statement of the Halting problem expressed in?
I'd also like to see the decider for "admissible" vs "inadmissible" encodings. Input validation is an Interesting problem-domain for sure.
(Of course, this is all for the sake of maximum pedantry)
> Just your luck. Under Univalence identity is equivalent to equivalence and it's computationally decidable. So you should be able to produce a decider which determines whether any alternative encoding/representation is equivalent to the halting problem; or not.
Moving to a constructive setting lets you say things like "all functions are computable" because it has a restricted notion of function. It does not give you any new information about classical objects.
Sure, whatever - the point is that they're different objects, and results about one are not results about the other.
> What do you mean by “restricted” when you are characterising a function?
I mean whatever the word "function" means in a given setting. A classical function X -> Y is a relation such that if `(x, y1)` and `(x, y2)` hold then `y1 = y2`. A function in intuitionistic type theory is a well-typed lambda term. A function in the categorical semantics of a type theory is an exponential object. And so on.
> Show me the decider… for “classical” and “non-classical” objects.
No such thing: it's a metatheoretical judgement, not a theorem. Same story as type errors: within the language, `stringToUpperCase (5 :: Int) :: String` isn't a false statement, it's just inexpressible nonsense. There is no such object as `stringToUpperCase 5` and so nothing can be said about it internally. When we talk about it, we're talking, from outside the language, about a syntactic construct.
> That is the definition of information; is it not? The answer to a yes/no questions
No. Self-information of a given outcome with respect to a random variable, which is probably the most common sense of the word, is the negative log of its probability. Shannon entropy, also often called information, is the expected self-information of a random variable. Mutual information is the KL divergence of a joint distribution and the product of the respective marginals. There are other notions.
>Sure, whatever - the point is that they're different objects, and results about one are not results about the other.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "same" and "different".
By "same" do you mean =(x,y).
And by "different" do you mean ¬=(x,y)
Or do you mean something like same(x,y) = { 1 if ??? else 0 }
>A classical function X -> Y is a relation such that if `(x, y1)` and `(x, y2)` hold then `y1 = y2
You seem to be confusing syntax and semantics here, and the infix notation isn't helping...
What does =(y1, y2) mean?
What does =(x,x) mean?
>No such thing: it's a metatheoretical judgement, not a theorem.
What do you mean? Judgments are first-class citizens in Univalent Mathematics. a:R is a judgment that object a is of type R. This literally means "a proves R", and the particular expression "first class citizen" has well-understood meaning in Programming Language design ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_citizen ).
>`stringToUpperCase (5 :: Int) :: String` isn't a false statement, it's just inexpressible nonsense.
So I must be a miracle worker then? Expressing the inexpressible nonsense...
In [1]: def stringToUpperCase(x): return(str(x).upper())
In [2]: stringToUpperCase(int(5))
Out[2]: '5'
>No. Self-information of a given outcome with respect to a random variable, which is probably the most common sense of the word.
Speaking of randomness in a classical setting, this function exists, right?
No, the comment above mine is the one being pedantic. We can absolutely talk about physical correspondence of mathematical concepts, even though there are multiple equally good logical systems for describing them.
That is how they are defined in set theory based math. The mathematical definition is not the only meaning of a word. When when start to talk about the physical world, we need additional concepts. You are welcome to read the wikipedia page about correspondence theories of truth.
The fact is you are talking about the meaning of words. Be they English words; or Mathematical words.
If you are going to talk about the correspondence theory in the same breath as you are talking about any language - you need to solve the symbol-grounding problem.
What function/mechanism/relation (or if you don't like any of those words - pick your own) grounds symbols?
Let's recall your original comment. You said we can't talk about reality correspondence of math because multiple logical systems can describe physical space equally well.
A triangle in a euclidean system is not the same shape as a triangle in spherical, etc. They are only equivalent in that they have an analogous logical definition in their separate systems.
They don't look the same. They don't describe the same physical phenonoma either. In other words, the physical correspondence is not the same, so there is no contradiction.
In what we laughingly call "normal" geometry, given a line L and a point P not on L, there is exactly one line L' through P parallel to L. In this case, the interior angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.
In hyperbolic geometry, there is more than one line L', L'', etc., through P that are parallel to L. In this case, the interior angles of a triangle sum to <180 degrees.
In elliptic geometry, there are no lines L' through P parallel to L. (You also have to alter Euclid's 2nd axiom, defining a line as extending indefinitely.) And in this case, the interior angles of a triangle sum to >180 degrees.
Triangles are triangles; they have three points and three line segments. Their properties, however, are inconsistent in the three axiomatic systems.
If you are operating in a relatively small area, say a bronze-age farmer's field, Euclid's axioms satisfy all your geometrizing needs. If, however, you are on the somewhat-spherical Earth and are dealing with a large enough area, you can make a triangle with three 90 degree interior angles. You can tell which geometry your "physical space" is dealing with, and if you use the wrong one then you will get wrong answers.
For more than 2000 years, geometers assumed their space was essentially Euclidian. It turns out that is not really true, and it also turns out that there are (now, common) situations where the difference matters. So when you do any applied math, you assert that your axioms "faithfully reflect reality". And you may be wrong. And you may not have any way of knowing you are wrong. And you may not even have the mathematical tools to know what "wrong" means.
It could mean more than that, or maybe not. Velikovsky had the interesting hypothesis that you could compare this histories of different traditions to see if they synchronize.
For example, joshua stopping the sun for three days, which would have been in the evening (you’d stop the sun at sunset, not at noon)… so you can look a Chinese history where it was dark for three days, or aztec history where the sun was about to rise.
He does play fast and loose with his source material (based on the ones I’m familiar with) but I think the general idea is interesting…
The 10x LOC (despite being a huge exaggeration) is also the fixed cost, not the marginal cost. You're only forging main loop and includes, not any fundamental complexity.
This is also a funny argument coming from a Go programmer considering that Go trades off conciseness and expressivity for simplicity. Show me some of your favorite Go and I'm sure we can replace it with some concise C++.