I appreciate the sanity check, but just to throw a monkey wrench into your model…
I think the square-cube law will bite you here. I expect power/mass isn’t constant. Mass grows faster than cross-sectional area which is key in muscle performance.
I’m my professional experience working with both, Java shops don’t blindly enforce this, but c# shops tend to.
Striving for loosely coupled classes is objectively a good thing. Using dogmatic enforcement of interfaces even for single implementors is a sledgehammer to pound a finishing nail.
Whoever is demanding every class be an implementation of an interface started thier career in C#, guaranteed.
Kids certainly have the capacity.
Windows 3.1 had some BASIC games that you could run. A snake game and one where monkeys threw bananas at each other. It was a great “fuck around and find out” platform. I could write simple programs from scratch well before 10, learning entirely through experimentation.
“I’ve got one single nail. And another nail to nail it with. And I’m going to stop this infernal ice cream machine once and for all!”
r/nothingeverhappens
Maybe im misunderstanding:
Are you saying that there necessarily exists for all not extinct species of social mammals a “common-sense-overriding mechanism”?
I’d also like to see the chart if it was actually representative of the rich. Populate the chart with individuals reporting >2.5 million in income per year.
I think that’s fair comparison.
The difference was that investment followed realizable value for PCs. Or cell phones. Or iPods. Or “the cloud”. The horse and carriage were in a sane order.
The internet itself might be an even better comparison, with VC dumping money into anything without an understanding of how to get a return.
If ANYONE had reproducible guidance on how to get positive value out of these systems… they’d be booming like NVIDIA. It’s another “during the gold rush, sell shovels” model.
Raises an eyebrow that we’re not seeing it.
I think these companies are sitting, waiting, and praying for an emergent use-case to reveal itself. They’re spending money to be prepared to corner a market that as-of-yet doesn’t exist.
A one dollar coin with a picture of a loon, eh?
Not sure if it was Microsoft or my org but I was asked several times to stop using “bummer burt” in all my comms
If it was fine before, no hw changes, no sw changes, and the only delta was the CMOS battery… really think it’s a bios issue
A crazy number of devs weren’t even using EXISTING code assistant tooling.
Enterprise grade IDEs already had tons of tooling to generate classes and perform refactoring in a sane and algorithmic way. In a way that was deterministic.
So many use cases people have tried to sell me on (boilerplate handling) and im like “you have that now and don’t even use it!”.
I think there is probably a way to use llms to try and extract intention and then call real dependable tools to actually perform the actions. This cult of purity where the llm must actually be generating the tokens themselves… why?
I’m all for coding tools. I love them. They have to actually work though. Paradigm is completely wrong right now. I don’t need it to “appear” good, i need it to BE good.
I’m pretty sure if you played mp2 in an empty sealed room for 14 hours straight you’d somehow come out reeking of whisky and cigarettes.
3 was great on it’s own merits as a game, but the noir elements were ratched way down compared to the first and second.
Max Payne 2 was… I dunno… damn well perfect for what it was supposed to be in the era it was developed with the technology of the time.
I follow a way… the way of no Vietnamese soup monarchs.
I think you’re going in the right direction, but I think you still ended up overshooting the runway here.
As much as there was demonstrated techniques, and explanation… the PREMISE was that the act of painting was something you could enjoy.
The title of the show wasn’t “learn to paint”.
I also heard it as a light jab at his age