coffeecloud

8 ms·

1.
by coffeecloud 4mo ago
Its beautifully written C code. Very readable and grokable.
2.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
K
3.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
> That must be why there were no successful companies in the United States before 1965. Of course there were. There were also lots of successful companies before we had highways or municipal plumbing. So I’m not sure what point you are t
4.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
There is a broader definition of "infrastructure." For example, Medicare is infrastructure that is directly related to the success of any company in the United States. Has Tesla ever received a check from Medicare? Probably not. B
5.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Yup, the 50% of the population that has managed to extract zero wealth from the system aren’t asked to put very much back in. Makes sense to me.
6.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Who got more out of the system: someone getting weekly $400 check or someone who has managed to acquire 100M in assets? People on welfare aren’t getting nearly as much out of the system as people who have amassed massive wealth, so they sho
7.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
A new type of tax on the absolute wealthiest of the wealthy is not "taxing everyone to death." I'm sure there are some great ways we can reduce/improve government spending, but that is completely separate from the idea t
8.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
My point was that just because we impose a new tax on unfathomably wealthy people, it doesn't mean that we are inherently going to impose that tax on normal people. We can't be so scared of our own shadow that we are paralyzed in
9.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
k
10.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
"Your opinions are completely, totally, objectively false. Here are 3 of my opinions and unsubstantiated conjectures that prove so."
11.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
It’s simply pay for use. The more someone uses the system, the more they pay back into it. Anyone with more than 100M in assets has used the system a shit ton and owes a lot back into it.
12.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
We all earned the money. Nobody makes 100M in a vacuum. That sort of profit only comes from taking full advantage of a country's infrastructure, its educated population, its safety from invasion. We all provide the society that allows
13.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Yup I totally agree, because bad things can happen we shouldn't try to do anything. Much simpler.
14.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
What you see on youtube is not what the judge and jury see in court.
15.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
If cops wanted to win the trust of the public and work alongside their fellow citizens to keep their communities safe, they would welcome to use of body cams and hold themselves accountable to a high standard of integrity. Stuff like this c
16.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Kudos to Joel for sticking with that obnoxious interviewer.
17.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
To me it sounds like this argument is claiming that "training models" is legally equivalent to "training humans". So are there other examples of a human being allowed to do something where a machine made by a human is no
18.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Oh I found the goto-definition works pretty well in RubyMine. I would imagine goto-definition not working well to be more an issue with Ruby being a dynamically typed language and having metaprogramming features like define_method, not the
19.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Read through the Rails docs and you'll learn all the "magic" is pretty easily explainable, mostly just predefined naming conventions and directory structures and a bunch of preconfigured gems.
20.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
In 1 year I can stand up a system big enough that it would require 2 engineers to manage its ongoing maintenance, feature requests, bug fixes, 3rd party API updates, etc More software requires more software engineers to maintain it, who the
21.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Then why enforce any laws? Any enforcement is on the same slippery slope. I don’t think slope is nearly as slippery as you claim. There are miles of high friction slope between enforcing traffic laws on public roads and totalitarianism.
22.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Putting up speeding cameras on public roads is not “unlimited surveillance” or “cameras everywhere”
23.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Why is the solution to the abuse "don't use traffic cameras" instead of "hold people accountable for shortening yellow lights"?
24.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
What’s the difference between “constantly monitor behavior in order to coerce a desired response” and “enforcing the law”? Are traffic cameras a slippery slope to cameras in your house to make sure your aren’t doing drugs or building an unp
25.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
“Existence at every second” is very different than “when choosing to drive on a public road”
26.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Political parties aren’t democratic institutions. They are essentially private organizations who can operate however they want. It’s only been the last 50 years or so that either party has used primaries as anything more than a straw poll
27.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
I think it was pretty widely understood that he was going to have to be adamantly in the race until the exact moment he wasn’t in the race. The second he showed any public wavering it would have been over.
28.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
How many of those are actually qualified though?
29.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
I bought my last car by emailing half a dozen car dealerships in my area about specific cars they had on lot. I told them I was looking to buy it within a week if the price was right and asked for the “out the door” price. Some tried to p
30.
by coffeecloud 2y ago
Unrelated to the original question: I know it’s unpopular to say here, but I found studying data structures and algorithms to get ready for job interviews made me a better developer.

More ›