bulatb

6 ms·

31.
by bulatb 2y ago
If civil engineers could launch their dams in debug mode instead of flying out and crawling through a tube, I think they would. They just can't. Though some would still prefer the tube. That's up to them. Service tubes and jack po
32.
by bulatb 2y ago
Thanks, this helped me understand some things. Unfortunately I don't have time to write a real reply right now, but I think I'm more convinced than before. Thanks for taking the time.
33.
by bulatb 2y ago
It's just a feeling, not a dogma. I'll happily throw it away. But why?
34.
by bulatb 2y ago
> It's the Thing module's responsibility to correctly set up the test doubles involved. But why? Maybe there's some fundamental difference of opinion here, because I'm thinking definitely not, no way, test-only code
35.
by bulatb 2y ago
Honestly I'd probably resist this too. Maybe you could practice on me? Help see the benefit? I'm seeing three main points in this advice: 1. Don't misuse mocks. (Mocks, fakes, whatever.) 2. Write testable, well-factored code
36.
by bulatb 2y ago
I understand not everyone agrees on what "repository" means. The session is a UoW (at two or three levels) and also a repository (in the sense of object-scoped persistence) and also like four other things. I'm sort of toleran
37.
by bulatb 2y ago
I mean that from the point of view of YAGNI for a small app. For a big one, absolutely, you will find the places where the theoretical distinctions suddenly turn real. Decoupling your data model from your storage is a real concern and Sessi
38.
by bulatb 2y ago
In theory it's a nice abstraction, and the benefit is clear. In practice, your repository likely ends up forwarding its arguments one-for-one to SQLAlchemy's select() or session.query(). That's aside from their particular exa
39.
by bulatb 2y ago
One could say the same thing about empathy, another "basic" skill. Imagine how you'd rush to justify your lack of it here. Everything you'd say in your defense would equally explain why someone wouldn't know the mea
40.
by bulatb 2y ago
Nobody is thinking about qualia. That's only how I framed it. They just know the machine will never replace them. They're a person, doing person things, and it's a machine. So every time it proves it can, they move the goalpo
41.
by bulatb 2y ago
Qualia might still be magic. Maybe we have souls or something, I don't know. I'm comfortable with saying that this way of answering the question doesn't work, because the argument is simply, "How can it be false if I bel
42.
by bulatb 2y ago
You can't interrogate your qualia. A lot of people think (or really, feel) that makes them magic. It doesn't. But if you feel they're magic, you'll never believe that a "random" mechanical process, which you th
43.
by bulatb 2y ago
> Cursor often gets into "dead loops" trying to fix code [1][2]. But, Cursor also seems to get out of dead loops when it adds `console.log` statements everywhere. Hah. That sounds like just... debugging.
44.
by bulatb 2y ago
The comment I responded to. I take it to be musing from the bailey. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. I'm just a person who keeps hearing, from every direction, "Won't someone please think of the assholes?" --- Ed
45.
by bulatb 2y ago
We've got to stop with this. Bad actors acting in bad faith, causing damage? Well... you know, it's just how they are... They have a right... to... Who's to say they're really bad ? You know? I mean just look at that gu
46.
by bulatb 2y ago
Yeah, "safe_exec" is a useless name without context. But the context was you need to call a program from another program. Many people would call system() or whatever because usually it's obvious and easy, and the pitfalls are
47.
by bulatb 2y ago
Any time you send commands and data down a single channel, user input that's intended to be data can be misinterpreted as a command. For example, if your program wants to: run("program --option '{user_input}' >
48.
by bulatb 2y ago
> That is almost certainly user error on my part If an interested and reasonably savvy person can't get a program to work as it claims, the problem is the program, not the user.
49.
by bulatb 2y ago
Great! Happy to help. Git is like that Brooks quote became software. "Show me Git commands and I'll continue to be mystified; show me history and I won't need your commands." The official book on their website goes throu
50.
by bulatb 2y ago
Rewriting a commit in Git (with rebase, --amend, --squash, whatever) creates a new commit with your changes, keeping the original around but detached from the branch. For example, amending the tip of a feature branch (git checkout feature;
51.
by bulatb 2y ago
People didn't get their worldview from the myth. They like the myth because it fits their worldview.
52.
by bulatb 2y ago
When someone can't accept that other people value different things than they do, and that person also has uncommon values, they will spend a lot of time upset that everyone is wrong. They'll look for something that explains why ev
53.
by bulatb 2y ago
That unholy petvar symbiosis owns the codebase like a cat owns your house. The program and the company are now in service of minTaxRateOffsetTemp.
54.
by bulatb 2y ago
I was struggling to find the word, but I think I do mean "declarative." It's also deductive, but I'm looking at it from the point of view of what I'd have to do if I were proving something. I'm on board with te
55.
by bulatb 2y ago
I'd argue there's a qualitative difference in approach between testing, a procedural approximation to a proof of absence of bugs by exhaustion, and the more declarative (more "formal") method of directly proving things a
56.
by bulatb 2y ago
Yes! This, this, this. Moralizing is the opposite of problem-solving. Assuming is the opposite of understanding. When combined you get a fundamental metaproblem that: 1. You can't solve a problem you don't understand. 2. Moralizin
57.
by bulatb 2y ago
Sometimes asking, "When will we..." is just a turn of phrase, but sometimes it's a serious misframing of the issue. There is no such thing as "we" that meaningfully acts or makes decisions. Thinking about "we&q
58.
by bulatb 2y ago
"If everybody just" is a description of a problem, not a solution. The problem is that everybody will not "just," no matter what could happen if they did.
59.
by bulatb 2y ago
Wouldn't you feel just a little bad if you worked really hard on something, gave it out for free in the spirit of sharing, and someone came along and said thanks, loser , and sold it for money? Would you want to go on making it for fr
60.
by bulatb 2y ago
Yeah, I hear this. Anything I put online is feeding the machine that will replace me. Maybe I can carve myself a niche if I can find an audience, and maybe turn that into something kind of reward-shaped, but that's not happening withou

More ›