pytester

10 ms·

61.
by pytester 7y ago
If you define "sensible" as "might impact existing MS monopolies" then no, NONE of it is particularly sensible. Microsoft doesn't love Linux if it interferes with its monopolies. It never did and it never will. That
62.
by pytester 7y ago
I'm not denying that the market exists. I'm denying that the product google launched in these cases was comparable to the competition. Google code, for instance, was SO inferior to github that comparing the two is actually kind of
63.
by pytester 7y ago
You don't.
64.
by pytester 7y ago
>Reason, Cato Reason and Cato are corporate funded think tanks pushing a corporatist agenda. If you look at CATO's front page piece right now, for instance, it's not an investigation it's an opinion piece on how hard it is
65.
by pytester 7y ago
>I disagree. That's effectively how modern journalism works where the news is "objective" by letting each side say its piece. Even that level of objectivity is rarely met these days. One advantage of this is that it's
66.
by pytester 7y ago
Exactly
67.
by pytester 7y ago
The problem with free review sites is that once you've built up trust as an honest, objective reviewer, the most effective way to profit on that trust is to violate it.
68.
by pytester 7y ago
>Thousands or millions of people used Hangouts, Google Reader, Google Code, or Picasa - they'd have been considered big YC successes. Other than google reader I doubt any of these would have gotten traction at all without big g behi
69.
by pytester 7y ago
That only works for products people actually like. I can think of maybe one product where this was a good model.
70.
by pytester 7y ago
>People don't use Linux Desktop because it is bad. There is a reason why it is not offered as an option to be preinstalled on laptops except in a few instances. That reason is not "because it is bad". The windows license i
71.
by pytester 7y ago
>Microsoft loves Linux because it makes them money. I'm not sure why anyone would expect differently. I rather thought the point of the article was that Microsoft didn't actually love linux but pretended that it did to stave
72.
by pytester 7y ago
Comments are there to clarify whatever is not easily understood in the code. If that's intent, sure, it's intent that should be commented. It's not always the intent that needs clarification.
73.
by pytester 7y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Comments are for explaining code that IS there.
74.
by pytester 7y ago
Depends on the area of the code you look at, but they can be fairly sparse, yes: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/PC/python_uwp.... I'd say that redis is probably a better example
75.
by pytester 7y ago
It's good to comment the what too if it's hard to discern what it's doing from the code. There have been a number of cases where, for instance, I had to call a bizarrely named API and do something unexpected in order to get a
76.
by pytester 7y ago
>I think we should probably just get it over with and accept that composition of functions operating on immutable data structures is just the right way to go. It can provide an incremental improvement but it is https://en.wiki
77.
by pytester 7y ago
Comments are often a code smell indicating that the code was written in a hard to understand way. On a top notch code base - the kind that almost nobody works on - they probably should be sparse and mostly unnecessary. Moreover, when a lot
78.
by pytester 7y ago
To be honest there are a lot of processes that don't work for google either but with their treasure chest of money and profits from an easily defended monopoly flowing in, it's really hard to argue that. I can still remember all o
79.
by pytester 7y ago
I think it's quite hard to pick out which groups will end up being the scapegoat du jour, although there are some hints. I think the hammer is much more likely to come down on Muslims than Jews in the west, for instance. Whichever grou
80.
by pytester 7y ago
Precisely. The democratic party would be weimaresque almost to a fault under Clinton or Biden, just as it was under Obama. If AOC, Sanders and Warren took the reins of the party, they'd not only lose all support from billionaires, they
81.
by pytester 7y ago
>Looking at this now though I think, okay, there's more of us than them. Their solution to this is 1) divide and conquer and 2) scapegoating. Which is why a racist boomer robot took your job and gave it to a Chinese millenial mexica
82.
by pytester 7y ago
If past history is anything to go by they will support "moderate and conservative" status quo politicians until the point where the people have given up on them and started seeking more radical change - from ever more extreme vers
83.
by pytester 7y ago
>Of course you should be respectful in a code review It seems self evident but there are a lot of people who don't believe this and take a kind of perverse pride in "tearing others' code to shreds" so it's worth
84.
by pytester 7y ago
If you look at the actual richest people in the world though, they largely make their wealth off the hard work of others (walmart family), through some kind of gamble (finance), some kind of parasitism (unearned income like interest) or by
85.
by pytester 7y ago
>But you can't "fix" greed. Even punishing greed doesn't make people less greedy. That's a bit like thinking that the war on drugs will make people want drugs less Or that punishing robbing banks makes people do
86.
by pytester 7y ago
>Regulations lead to lobbying. And lobbying leads to corruption. Capitalism is a prerequisite for lobbying. Regulations are not. >For instance the financial crisis. One big reason for this was regulations forcing banks to make awful l
87.
by pytester 7y ago
Wasn't too surprised to see that Bloomberg neglected to mention a pretty self evident reason why tech workers might want that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... I'm pretty sure th
88.
by pytester 7y ago
Unrelated groups of people acting in self interest without being upfront about it isn't a conspiracy. It's human nature.
89.
by pytester 7y ago
There's also pipsi.
90.
by pytester 7y ago
>Lending someone money doesn't cost you money, it earns you interest. In the case of government bonds, barely. >That may be true, but the interest payments are still flowing in a specific direction. Sub-inflation interest payment

More ›