purpledove

6 ms·

1.
by purpledove 16y ago
The implication being that he is too good to waste his time on math.
2.
by purpledove 16y ago
I can't take this seriously - blaming an individual, especially a CEO, for destroying a corporate culture is ridiculous. I know essentially nothing about the history of HP, but what I do know is that the board bears ultimate responsibility
3.
by purpledove 16y ago
Please see Dennis M. Ritchie's short bio: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bigbio1st.html He has deep mathematical talent. Ken Thompson also has deep analytical abilities as demonstrated by his contributions to computer chess: https
4.
by purpledove 16y ago
Clojure, like Lisp, has terrible syntax that is difficult for human beings to read. This is one of the reasons the academic community kept Lisp alive - independence from industry, ability to weed out weaker programmers, flexibility. I'm wel
5.
by purpledove 16y ago
I'm 30, and I've worked at various corporations, both small and large, for 5 years. I've never once been told "I can't do things". Not once. Rather the opposite - I've worked with people who went on to found start-ups, and I've learned a gr
6.
by purpledove 16y ago
All of the fears he mentions are present all of the time when coding - fear of working on the wrong thing, fear of not being able to solve problem X, etc... Those fears are healthy and there for good reason - to enable the planning and exec
7.
by purpledove 16y ago
This is an excellent suggestion. Other suggestions: read the wikipedia articles on Simple LR and General LR parsers; google "python descriptor" and read the top results.
8.
by purpledove 16y ago
I fail to see how Chris was a "casualty of the system". I have a little trouble buying his stated desire to transfer to a vocational school for training mechanics...in any city there are plenty of mechanics around, and you just need a littl
9.
by purpledove 16y ago
Oh wow, overload. Tempted to leach, but... Anyway, here is a recommendation: 2006.03.26 - This is a good long mix I listened to many times.
10.
by purpledove 16y ago
I agree - there is a vagueness issue with the rule, and it is not obviously falsifiable. But as stated, the rule does not discuss unpublished works - it is a statement about published work, and the statement is that each scientist is throwi
11.
by purpledove 16y ago
Quite right - he goes in the second list.
12.
by purpledove 16y ago
The equal-odds rule is simply wrong. A few examples: Andrew Wiles, Charles Darwin, John Forbes Nash. These people produced a small amount of work, but they shook the earth. Some people are geniuses, and some are not. It appears rather that
13.
by purpledove 16y ago
It wasn't a comparison of companies, it was a rebuke of Microsoft's leadership. The criticism is certainly valid, and all the more convincing because Microsoft HAS shipped high-quality products, so they are CAPABLE of doing great work, they
14.
by purpledove 16y ago
Speaking of evil, let us not forget Goldman Sach's treatment of Sergey Aleynikov. Makes Oracle look like Mother Teresa.
15.
by purpledove 16y ago
She is saying that the start-up mythology of success, which is vital to keeping up the spirits of the best of us, can lead the good-but-not-great astray in their lives. She is saying that ideas are powerful, and internalizing the wrong ones
16.
by purpledove 16y ago
I recommend A. K. Dewdney's "The New Turing Omnibus". It is a series of articles and is very easy to dip into.