>The lesson is taught early and often. It often sort of baffles me when other people are baffled at how often this happens in science,
Math and some sciences have the aura of definitive right and wrong, so even though by college everyone knows the expression "give the answer the teacher wants to hear", they just think in those subjects the teacher has access to absolute answers.
The primary thing taught by our schooling system (and 2nd place isn't even close) is bureaucracy obedience. This has the obvious effects, but one of the subtler ones is deference to "science" as an authority requiring obedience rather than the process of figuring shit out.
I studied Engineering rather that physics. In our lab reports we were expected to include a discussion of the results and the experimental method. It was basically expected that the report should include associated commentary around potential sources of error and modifications to improve the experimental accuracy.
I don't recall ever being marked down for failing to obtain the "correct" result the impression I came away with was so long as you were thorough in your discussion and analysis the exact result was less important.
I can remember my second year thermodynamics class had a fairly complicated lab which involved taking measurements from inflow and outflow of various heat exchangers in a variety of configurations (Counter flow, Cross flow etc) then computing the efficiency of each configuration. I recall getting into minutiae in the report about assumed friction factors and suggested methods to asses the smoothness of the pvc pipes etc. to improve the accuracy of calculations etc.
I don't think they're not recognized for it, they just don't brand themselves as it.
For as long as broadcasting has been a thing, major broadcasters were involved in pushing the technology forward. For most of it's history the American network NBC was a subsidiary of the Radio Corporation of America. But NBC's brand is not tech, they want to consumer to associate the gliz of the picture.
Bleh, that attitude ruins merch. If all you care about is maximizing the number of walking billboards then you're satisfied because it's impossible to calculate the ROI of making available designs that people actually want to wear in public but reduces walking billboards.
The only tech merch I've ever worn was back when firefox had a good logo, goodwill, and no text on the front of the shirt.
Lots of people just want a simple graphic tee and IFKYK. It's not sports. Bands can sometimes get exceptions, but often approach wrestling tshirt levels of gaudiness.
Capital-A atheism is a dead fad. It was a few years of people loudly dunking on something that that was safe to dunk on. The overall culture found them grating and insufferable, even to other atheists. Over time we swung to the point where you see more discussions like these.
>What's the deal here?
Without making a jab at the bay area culture bubble, I dunno what to tell you.
I don't need religion to be bad, that was Capital-A atheism's thing. I just need it to leave me alone. And it does.
Some people are religious, and a lot of those who are would recommend it. When it comes to defending religion, as an atheist I still think bad takes are bad takes even if they're against the religion I left.
> The cuneiform texts of an ancient Mesopotamian people should, in theory, hold little interest to an arts and crafts vendor based in the midwestern United States.
Why shouldn't it? People with money buy artifacts and art of note. The rest of us buy replicas and less noteworthy stuff. People from the Midwest can take interest in ancient Mesopotamia.
When writers casts the reader as dumb so they can twist it with an upcoming reveal, it's a signal I use to stop reading. If the twist was good I wouldn't need to be made to think little of the Hobby Lobby owners.
> Or is this shower-type thought safe to chuck in the receptacle of non-sensical but good sounding ideas
Regardless of veracity, having an answer is reductive beyond the point of utility.
Like, yeah, it's reasonable to infer that someone who has chosen a career in programming might enjoy a nice game of Factorio. But beyond that, what is actionable or predictive about knowing?
It's worse than that. People will start making the hidden little assumption that the complexity of a deliverable is strongly correlated with the practitioner's propensity for complexity.
It's just blaming developers for bad software with extra steps. Instead of considering the dozen bigger factors that lead to shipping imperfection, we just have another reason to pull out the tired old excuse of blaming the programmers and their broken nerd brains that focused too hard on nerding instead of delivering business value.
No I totally see your point I think people are too unfair to programmers in general - seeing software as a cost center and not appreciating the complexity or difficulty inherent in it - and I get how even the question suggests a kind of negative stereotype that might damage people's interactions with non-programmers, for sure.
I came at it from a more positive viewpoint - not of the connection with complexity being a bad thing, but just exploring the dynamic and wondering what it means for us. I think a lot of the answers are really interesting tales born from that experience of working with it day to day, and I think wrestling with the complexity of the world is central to what we do. Celebrate our heroic victory, dance with the complexity of the world! :)
Current? Derby Line/Standstead has been fucked since Bush 43. The library access was cold comfort after all the other changes "because terrorism."
Yeah, it's discouraging that it too is now gone. But if someone wants to be mad at Trump, just be mad at Trump. They don't need to suddenly pretend to care about Derby Line to have a legitimate gripe about Trump.
Have you considered instituting a formal quality system? I'm not even saying that it's an alternative to or incompatible with licensing, but there are off-the-shelf standards for software process and quality you can download and implement today without government action.
A surgeon doesn't get to time-travel and test 1000 different ways to make a cut. You don't get to build 1000 bridges in the same location for load testing. But with software we can have a final deliverable that remains inert if you put quality gates between the development process and deployment. There is a very strong argument that when it is possible to have process and testing to hold the deliverable itself to the standards, that puts more confidence in the deliverable than just practitioner sign-off that it's right.
Jenkins is cron with bells and whistles. The result is a pile of plugins to capture all the dimensions of complexity you are likely to otherwise bury in the shell script but want them easier to point and click at. I'll hate on jenkins with the rest of them, but entropy is gonna grow and Jenkins isn't gonna say "no, you can't do that here". I deal with multiple tools where if tried to make fun about how low the jenkins plugin install starts are, you'd know exactly where I work. Once I've calmed down from working on CI I can appreciate Jenkins' attempts to manage all of it.
Any CI product play has to differentiate in a way that makes you dependent on them. Sure it can be superficially nicer when staying inside the guard rails, but in the age of docker why has the number of ways I configure running boring shell scripts gone UP? Because they need me unable to use a lunch break to say "fuck you I don't need the integrations you reserve exclusively for your CI" and port all the jobs back to cron.
Math and some sciences have the aura of definitive right and wrong, so even though by college everyone knows the expression "give the answer the teacher wants to hear", they just think in those subjects the teacher has access to absolute answers.
The primary thing taught by our schooling system (and 2nd place isn't even close) is bureaucracy obedience. This has the obvious effects, but one of the subtler ones is deference to "science" as an authority requiring obedience rather than the process of figuring shit out.