tmoertel

45 ms·

571.
The day my mind became open sourced(opensource.com)
2 points by tmoertel 13y ago|0 comments
572.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Of course it did, but what it said wasn't enough to make me want to start using Rails again.
573.
by tmoertel 14y ago
It made it hard to believe that the project wouldn't be plagued by security problems. For me, that was enough.
574.
by tmoertel 14y ago
I stopped using Rails not so much because of the existence of the escape_once method but because of what its introduction in 2006, and its continued use in mainstream Rails methods (until 2010 when Rails 3.0 was released), said about the
575.
by tmoertel 14y ago
That Rails has an escape_once method is a big part of the reason I stopped using Rails. If you think "double escaping" is a problem to be solved by creating a helper method that won't escape what's already escaped, now you have two proble
576.
by tmoertel 14y ago
I'm saying that "brick _" is more restrictive on the phrases that can plausibly follow it than is "modern _". By choosing to place brick first, you narrow the possibilities so much that the following word has little work to do and seems o
577.
by tmoertel 14y ago
How is Order the modifiers to maximize the product of their successive restrictive effects equivalent to "people copy what they know"? The restrictive effects of a given adjective are an input to the model because that issue was never the
578.
by tmoertel 14y ago
But "the question", as you offer it, is based on the fallacy that there is some underlying natural law to the way we use words. There isn't. There is no blank slate "to start with," no axioms from which everything else follows. Words have a
579.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Can you show me the tautology? I don't know how to come up with a reasonable model for how people are likely to interpret words without accounting for the fact that people interpret words in large part by how they have been interpreted in t
580.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Sure, let me try to explain. My model is built as follows: 1. People speak and write not by following rules but their ears. 2. Since the ear hears words in sequence, the interpretation of those words also occurs in sequence. 3. Thus the phr
581.
by tmoertel 14y ago
I defined [ x _] to denote the size of the hole _ in the context x . By "size" I mean some measure of the width of the distribution of things that can sensibly fill the hole. One reasonable measure would be entropy. So, for example, we
582.
by tmoertel 14y ago
I'm just making this stuff up based on what seems sensible. For all I know, my hypothesis has been made countless times before and refuted by practicing linguists. But, from what I can see so far in this conversation, the hypothesis seems p
583.
by tmoertel 14y ago
How about this rule? Order the modifiers to maximize the product of their successive restrictive effects. For example, we would prefer "great green dragon" to "green great dragon" because ([_] - [great _]) * ([great _] - [great gree
584.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Here's a potentially troubling question: Is it considered X ist, for whatever variable X you're concerned about, to infer anything about some proposition Y based on the observation that X = x ? That is, is it X ist to rely upon pr
585.
by tmoertel 14y ago
> So there's a lot more to questions like this than these vacuous answers. It's a psychological game, and if their offer was actually the minimum you were willing to accept, you have to ask what else you could have done, either now or i
586.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Isn't the answer to that question always going to be that you were offered what you were offered because that was the least amount they thought you might accept? That is, nobody pays you what you're worth to them. If they did, their profi
587.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Can you explain what makes you believe my explanation fails to account for systemic conditions? Are they not accounted for by the beliefs and preferences of the person saying yes?
588.
by tmoertel 14y ago
The actual reason you make less money is that you were offered less money and said yes. So why did you say yes? Pondering that question will reveal a lot about yourself and what you value, and it will also suggest what you should do if you'
589.
by tmoertel 14y ago
> Is there some sort of crazy game of one-upmanship in the USA as to who can drive the most impractical gas guzzler? Not at all. It’s just that in the USA, things are on a different scale, and it makes sense to have larger vehicles. For
590.
by tmoertel 14y ago
> However, the act of writing tests first has a powerful benefit: the code you write _must_ be testable. No, the act of writing well-tested code at all has that benefit. Whether you write the tests before or after the code, one at a
591.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Two questions: 1. What do you about security? How, for example, do you make sure you don't introduce XSS vulnerabilities into your code? To use your words, how does "writing the tests prevent bugs" when we're talking about bugs that crea
592.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Just curious: If you believe that TDD isn't supposed to help you write code that does what it's supposed to do, what do you do in addition to TDD to make sure that your code actually works correctly?
593.
by tmoertel 14y ago
The benefits that you attribute to TDD are not exclusive to TDD. They are the benefits of having well-tested code, and TDD is only one of the ways to get there. The problem with the TDD way of getting there, however, is that it's expensiv
594.
by tmoertel 14y ago
What did you do before your learned TDD? Did you write automated tests? To what degree?
595.
by tmoertel 14y ago
The point about learning Haskell in particular is that it's a way different different language. It's a single language that gives you exposure to a lot of new ideas: purity, laziness, modern type systems, functors, monads, monoids, etc.
596.
by tmoertel 14y ago
> By definition, going through TDD is going to be a safe route, ... Why is TDD safe? Most TDD advocates seem to be blind to the fact that testing is a terrible way to prove many important properties about software systems, security pro
597.
by tmoertel 14y ago
One of the reasons that "high-quality journalism" is in trouble is that it's no longer high-quality compared to the competing offerings now available to readers. In the past, readers had to rely upon journalists "doing research, finding ne
598.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Funny, mirror-image story. In the early 1990s I was writing utility software for Macintosh, then on the 68K platform. The utility basically had to patch the OS as it was running, a common practice back then. To figure out where to place
599.
by tmoertel 14y ago
Has anyone deciphered the fat-mustache diagram in the "Query Understanding" circle? It's in the Algorithms section. At first I thought it was supposed to represent a Gaussian-like probability distribution. But when I clicked on it, the resu
600.
To Boycott or Not to Boycott [re. opening access to publicly funded research](cacm.acm.org)
2 points by tmoertel 14y ago|0 comments

More ›