gnaritas

49 ms·

391.
by gnaritas 9y ago
If you provide good content, google will find it and back-links will build themselves naturally from organic traffic; he's objecting to the unnatural building of back-links via spamming the Internet. No one likes when they google somet
392.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Seems like the real trick is to find someone talented but unaware of how much money they can generate on their own, and use their work to make money. That's the basis of capitalism in a nutshell.
393.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Maths are models of reality which may or may not be correct and can only be verified by comparing them to reality. While they serve as the most simple way to explain reality, don't confuse them with reality. The map is not the territo
394.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Many-worlds has a concrete, physical, simple explanation for quantum effects. So does religion, it doesn't make it true without evidence. Inventing unseen universes is easy, it's not simple, it fails the Occam's razor te
395.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Inventing infinite universes to explain something isn't simpler than "there are no photons"; it might please you more, but infinite universes is the more complex explanation as it essentially asserts magic. It's far simp
396.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> other than you prefer one set of trade-offs to another. reply So you can understand the point being made, congratulations, it's what engineering is all about.
397.
by gnaritas 9y ago
You can't challenge a claim about how I feel about something, if I say something doesn't hurt, nothing you can say will convince me it does. Pain is subjective, keep that in mind when trying to tell others how they feel about some
398.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> that could be specified in a sufficiently-expressive static type system Ah the mythical sufficiently-expressive static type system, I'm concerned with type systems that are in use in real jobs, not vaporware ones that could exist
399.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Nothing is stopping languages from allowing both Nothing stops pigs from flying either... hypothetically, but they don't, and languages don't, so debating what they could do is rather pointless, they don't. > how ofte
400.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Using Haskell is more painful than any type bugs it might help fix, no thanks. One can write correct code without a type system to guarantee it for them, we're fine doing this rather than dealing with said pain in the ass type system.
401.
by gnaritas 9y ago
State of the art is hardly relevant, what's relevant are languages in demand by employees that dynamic language are actually in competition with so no I don't accept that restriction for the sake of the argument as it's movin
402.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> You haven't learned the true power of a decent type system then. Conversely you haven't learned the true power of dynamic types or like coding with handcuffs to keep you safe. What static types offer me is not as useful to me
403.
by gnaritas 9y ago
That's not what I mean by more code, by taking advantage of dynamic typing you can write more generic code than is even possible with generics in a statically typed language; code that works for any type, whereas a static language eith
404.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> You even introduce a class of bugs doesn’t exist for statically typed languages. Conversely, you're also able to write equivalent functionality with less code and with idioms you can't use in statically typed languages. It&#
405.
by gnaritas 9y ago
You don't have to intrude new syntax to create an embedded DSL, that's the whole point of an embedded DSL, it uses the languages existing syntax. Smalltalk and Lisp are full of DSL's, as is Ruby, of the three only Lisp has th
406.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Embedded DSL's are just libraries, what makes something an embedded DSL is that it attempts to be a literate fluent configuration language in the host languages native syntax. If it doesn't use the host langauge's syntax, it&
407.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Anecdotally, intellectual pursuits simply aren't of interest to them. Those interested in intellectual pursuits (aka nerds/geeks) are a minority of the population.
408.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Its a tragedy of the commons. Alternatively, it's a feature. The miners "are" the network, them rejecting a change is the network saying no democratically, and that was the intent of the way things were setup, this is h
409.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Yup that's what I meant; thanks.
410.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Would you mind removing the slow ban?
411.
by gnaritas 9y ago
I thought I've been being quite civil, but OK, I'll lighten it up some more.
412.
by gnaritas 9y ago
The "left" is not a single person with a single position, by treating it as such, you're sealing yourself into a personal delusion about others that might make you feel good, but simply isn't accurate. And using derogat
413.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Pointing out to someone that you don't share their worldview and in fact find it weird does contribute something, hopefully it pops their little bubble of thinking everyone agrees with them. And no, I didn't insult him, I said his
414.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Care to elaborate? Sure, IQ is not a valid measure of a human being, certainly not one with which to decide to exclude those seeking a home. > As a patriot Equally disgusting, patriotism is just another form of tribalism and bigotry
415.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Earning a lot of money is a pretty damn good proxy for contributing to society. What a weird reality tunnel you inhabit.
416.
by gnaritas 9y ago
That's short sighted and incorrect. Rental is only going to cost more than ownership if multiple people aren't sharing the cost, but the whole point of autonomous cars defeats that idea, renting will be vastly cheaper than buying.
417.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Sure it will, when cars are available on demand anytime you want one for however long you want it at the press of a button. Convenience changes values, and ownership sucks when that kind of convenience exists.
418.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Yes, but no one but you is saying nothing can exist that wasn't made; that's a statement of faith, not one based on evidence. We already know it's factually wrong, quantum mechanics has already shown particles spring into an
419.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> I often hear: "Ok, where did E come from then?" Well, by definition E was not made. E is not U. Your logic boils down to the fallacy of special pleading and thus fails. You can't define God into existence by calling him
420.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> I'm looking at this video and can't stop thinking: "Who created this process?" Then your thinking is flawed, there is not "who", the process was not "created", it evolved. Nature is not a "w

More ›