Dewie3

39 ms·

331.
by Dewie3 11y ago
Just train/program the AI to be more empathetic. :)
332.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> to make the type checker happy I like that rhetorical device. So subtle.
333.
by Dewie3 11y ago
Is any of that supposed to contradict any of what I said? I don't see it. Though what you've written here doesn't contradict my current mental model of Buddhism, I might have been wrong in assessing Buddhist's motivation
334.
by Dewie3 11y ago
Right, I've had the experience that thoughts can deeply affect my mood and how I feel about life and myself. I wonder, though, why most people seem to simply leave it at that - "some thoughts are bad, be aware of that". Where
335.
by Dewie3 11y ago
Buddhists bet their horse in one particular lifetime on eventually escaping suffering by following Buddhist teaching/philosophy. Some suicidal people bet their horse on escaping a more immediate suffering. Other than the immediacy of t
336.
by Dewie3 11y ago
At least religions like Buddhism don't punish you for an eternal afterlife. At worst it's just "bad karma".
337.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> In a tragically comic way, this was a depressing realization when I was considering blowing my head off or getting run over. Damnation! No guarantees. Death and taxes, yes, but not a breezy afterlife. Well if the afterlife is terrib
338.
by Dewie3 11y ago
1. Old games had to be hard because if they weren't, they would be too short. People would finish them straight away and exclaim "wait... that's it?". 2. The point of playing games isn't always to "win"
339.
by Dewie3 11y ago
I don't agree with the premise that structural editing is for developers that are (necessarily) subpar to begin with (see my other comment).
340.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> I hear what you're saying. But I've been programming for 35 years. I've found that getting syntax right is at worst a tiny percentage of my time/energy/brain cost when doing programming. I don't want struc
341.
by Dewie3 11y ago
Attitudes and beliefs seem to have a tendency to be self-fulfilling to a point. So of course making work fun is going to be hopeless if you've made up your mind already that most of it can't be fun.
342.
by Dewie3 11y ago
The voices of American programmers are loud and many.
343.
by Dewie3 11y ago
`git` also carries negative connotations. But at least that was intentional.
344.
by Dewie3 11y ago
They already chose to try to appeal to those developers by calling it "enum". And that doesn't sound like a good motivation to me: how hard is it to learn something like algebraic data types , compared to learning about life
345.
by Dewie3 11y ago
I agree that the name seems misleadingly specific: it's named after a type of construct which it subsumes . In cases like this I think it is better to call it by a more generic name rather than a specific name which it really subsumes
346.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> If Nim doesn't change the major safety problems with C, why bother? Probably for all the myriad of reasons that don't have to do with safety, and in which Nim is arguably better than Rust, C++, Python, or whatever language is
347.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> My son makes me feel more full of life than I ever felt before, when I really had nothing and nobody to take care of besides myself. Children do seem to provide a fantastic relief for self-loathers.
348.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> ...because zebra's are not a universally useful modelling tool to programmers like references are. References are not the zebras. Nil-references are. We might as well say that the underlying number that the reference are represe
349.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> I agree the concept of 'non-nil' vars is very useful ( non-zebra numbers[1] are also very useful. But why have a "non-zebra number" when I can just have plain numbers ? [1] A "number" which is either a
350.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> Nil is a useful modelling tool, even in Rust where it exists via Option<>/None, correct? Yes. So? A lot of things are useful modelling tools , but that doesn't mean you necessarily want to include them in every refe
351.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> There needs to be an interface between the functional code and the code that has side-effects. Yeah, like some kind of IO type or context. Gosh, someone should try and invent that sometime. :-)
352.
by Dewie3 11y ago
I am of the same opinion. It seems that even here, we get the stereotypical answer: - I've tried to read this book about Make, but it assumes that I know a little bit about Make from before. What's up with that? - RTFM!
353.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> A whole lot of reasons for what allowed the Internet, HN, science, and technology to be where it is at today came out of a nation (silly apparently to the writer) which put "In God We Trust" on everything. Even a broken clock
354.
by Dewie3 11y ago
Yes, it's important that a whole book on a tool called Make doesn't fall for the easy trap of becoming diluted... :)
355.
by Dewie3 11y ago
> I don't really see what the benefit for Jimmy to stay in that situation is. If Jimmy is skilled, and the company thinks or acts like Jimmy is replaceable, then Jimmy is in a bad job. Jimmy should leave before Jimmy is mentally har
356.
by Dewie3 11y ago
I don't know. Some religions don't seem so hung up on prime movers and anthropomorphizing any "higher being(s)". Buddhism, for instance (just my impression).
357.
by Dewie3 11y ago
I didn't mean that it should advocate, as in try to sell itself. I mean that a book should probably be enough to go from zero to hero (?). Which means that you can just use that book to learn about the tool without first doing any ba
358.
by Dewie3 11y ago
- Hey, I read that I need to learn this "Make" thing in order to <do something else>; you've got any resources on that, man? - Yeah sure. Just grab that book over there ( points ).
359.
by Dewie3 11y ago
From the top review: > The GNU Make Book is intended for people who already have an understanding of GNU Make, what it is, and the basics of how and why someone would use it. So a whole book about the Make tool, and yet it still requir
360.
by Dewie3 11y ago
Right - this device seems to be for the kind of person who only measures "productivity" and "being engaged with something" by direct and tangible, immediate results. I read five pages - I was productive. I wrote two pag

More ›