wellpast

27 ms·

211.
by wellpast 7y ago
Or - don’t smoke?
212.
by wellpast 7y ago
Don't worry, guys! I'm working on a browser plugin that will continuously save your work if you're using this app and reload your writing when the app deletes it.
213.
Lyme Disease Vaccine(vox.com)
1 points by wellpast 7y ago|0 comments
214.
by wellpast 7y ago
I have a really hard time with the idea that there is this thing called Architecture and it is separate from some other property or activity like Code/Coding. If you show me the implementation of a low-level component (a file, class, n
215.
by wellpast 7y ago
> This may be true in principle, but your whole argument falls apart because religion does make assertions about the real physical world. They (taking here the example of Christianity) they postulate miracles, divine intervention, life a
216.
by wellpast 7y ago
> With all due respect, I think it is you the one who's been tricked into the ethereal realm of 'the religious', which you've used often in this thread to get out of the real discussion. "real discussion" --
217.
by wellpast 7y ago
The trick was in both sides acting as if geo or helio-centrism from a scientific method pov had anything to do with the derived value to the religious. The religious derives value — perhaps — from the concept of centrism, perhaps the ce
218.
by wellpast 7y ago
You have an ellipse to finish I think. Show us your brilliant thinking:
219.
by wellpast 7y ago
The Hellfire fear is a naive interpretation of what most religious people derive from their religion.
220.
by wellpast 7y ago
Or you could write narratives and koans and poems that explore it and assist in exploring it to its depths. Or -- better -- read the ancient and long-evolved, long-refined attempts at this. Why limit exploration to the narrow (and yet high
221.
by wellpast 7y ago
You don't have to appeal to religion -- in the word. But you will be appealing to something that isn't Scientific rhetoric, call it what you will. You can just use the word Wonder if you like. I only object when one approaches som
222.
by wellpast 7y ago
Take my example of the person who believes in Resurrection encountering the Scientific dissenter. Either they are having a fair debate and they are talking in the same domain or they are not. I say they are not. Yet they are still having th
223.
by wellpast 7y ago
I mean this with no offense but I think you're reflecting the deficit in thinking I mention. E.g. here: > If you're just saying that people can use religions to make themselves feel better by believing in things that are false,
224.
by wellpast 7y ago
Thanks for these links. I read through the book's examples of Tech Debt. The book enumerates some examples of failed software projects and calls their failures "Tech Debt". I have two issues with this. The first is how fuzzy
225.
by wellpast 7y ago
>> Bad design choices cost you over and over again. >In the sense in which you seem to mean this, this is a ridiculous statement The point is to acknowledge the Cost. There is tremendous cost in design choices. No design choice wil
226.
by wellpast 7y ago
> There are major aspects of our life that remain unexplained, leaving professional scientists with the choice of whether to accept the general notion that they will also be resolved one day by the scientific method. ... This ambiguous s
227.
by wellpast 7y ago
This is an interesting take. I'm in my forties, will/hope to be a direct tech contributor for my full career, and definitely make sure to prepare well for whiteboard interviews. I find them fun to a degree, and I used to nail them
228.
by wellpast 7y ago
Debt implies you consciously accepted it. What you’re describing with your product is the fruit of unskilled (amateur) labor.
229.
by wellpast 7y ago
What I suggest is you try to run a project and deliberately avoid reaching for the concept of "Technical Debt". You will find yourself squirming a little. It will be uncomfortable at first. But if you hold to your guns, you will f
230.
by wellpast 7y ago
At any given crossroads in a business endeavor, you encounter a problem. Now you have two choices: 1) You select and articulate your assumptions. You select and articulate your requirements. You also may try to capture and articulate your B
231.
by wellpast 7y ago
What you're saying is no one has perfect forsight. That's a given. You don't need the notion of "Tech Debt" to deal with that. It is a complete given at any given time, during any given sprint, that all the features
232.
by wellpast 7y ago
You're letting him off the hook for [3]. Unless the PM's are saying " Generally try to limit the number of items to 10 but it's okay if there's 11, 12, or so. And if there's some case where there's a 100
233.
by wellpast 7y ago
> Researchers talks and paper published by https://sei.cmu.edu is a good starting point Please link to a real paper that explores Technical Debt. This is just the link to SEI's home page. I'm looking for clarity, no
234.
by wellpast 7y ago
> The article links tech debt to financial debt early on, and this is exactly what the analogy is - it is best to be as literal as possible about it. Financial debt has a clear quantitative measure. Tech Debt is an incredibly fuzzy conce
235.
by wellpast 7y ago
> Is it worth implementing a cache layer in a system? This isn't a "Tech Debt" thing. This is a feature/scoping thing. Does my system need to handle 1M concurrent users? If so, support that. If not, don't support
236.
by wellpast 7y ago
Unlike financial debt, which has a clear quantitative measure, Tech Debt is an incredibly fuzzy concept to the point of being useless for anything other than covering one's ass. We can do better as engineers than resting on such fuzzy
237.
by wellpast 7y ago
Perhaps this isn't "Tech Debt" at all. Perhaps this is a long understood, well-known activity called Prototyping or Learning. Perhaps the concept of "Tech Debt" is just fuzzy thinking.
238.
by wellpast 7y ago
I'm going to take a more controversial position here, and it bothers me that it is even controversial. The very concept of Tech Debt, though prevalent, is pernicious, because its a concept that is far, far, far too fuzzy and therefor
239.
by wellpast 7y ago
> Monorepo is great if you're really good, but absolutely terrible if you're not that good. > Multiple repos, on the other hand, are passable for everyone – they're never great, but they're never truly terrible, ei
240.
What Are We Doing?(write.as)
1 points by wellpast 7y ago|0 comments

More ›