Readit NewsNot a rhetorical question. Often the goal is the functional minimum. If that's your gig, it's hard to appreciate code quality maximization, and vice versa.
If you do maximize quality, I'll one-up the suggestion in the article. Treat your first write as throwaway code. And your second. Up until the point where the rewrite would be roughly identical.
It's basically early refactoring, but with the code at its freshest in your mind. Coding it the first couple times implicitly maps out the problem domain.
You also leave no internal technical debt on the table. A surprising amount reveals itself right after you wrote it in. It gnaws at your ability to proceed. Subconsciously, it splits your attention in two: how the code is and how it should be. With each "fail" your attention spreads out and thins out.
Finally, this habit makes you more fluid in the language. Quality-maximized code takes longer, but your actual typing rate ends up being much faster.
Is the air outdoor or clean? It can't be both!
Marketing bullshit aside, this looks great!
Unfortunately, outdoor air has particulate and ozone pollution. Filtering it gives you "clean" air.
In winter and summer, you also heat or cool the indoor air for comfort. If you just pump in outside air, you effectively also pump out the indoor air. This wastes the energy that had gone into heating or cooling it.
These systems save that energy by transfering heat between the air that's getting pumped in and the air that's getting pumped out.
Dead Comment
But it is a bit more than that. About boxes that indicated the engineers that worked on the software are kind of cute in a way — recalling a time when a couple of programmers could write The Finder.
Credits (and Easter eggs) also speak of a time when engineers, if not driving the boat, were at least given a good deal of leeway to sign their creations.
I feel like there were a cadre of engineers that Jobs tried desperately to keep out of the public eye around the time of iTunes, etc. Worried, I suppose, about poaching.
Presenting at WWDC turned out to be the best way an Apple engineer could pass out their resumé.
When the engineers were essentially muted I think it represented a power shift at Apple toward management, marketing, design.
Good for Apple. It served the company and the brand well. No one can argue with the stock trajectory.
I, on the other hand, miss the cowboy programming days.
It's true that teams had to grow in size as software got more complex. Was commoditization the best way to do it? It certainly aggregated power in the hands of management. That was probably an intended consequence.
One unintended consequence is that tech leads and staff engineers became increasingly selected more for political than technical merit. That in turn decreased the per-capita merit of the workforce as a whole.
Post-ZIRP and post-AI, a lot of layoffs are still ahead IMO.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
The rich can afford the risks associated with leveraged crypto and AI stocks, the poor can only afford VOO or (worse) Treasury bonds because their life would be on the line if they lost money.
If you actually have money to throw away, you'd be an idiot to not have a pile of BTC right now. If you don't have money to throw away, BTC is dangerous as fuck.
The markets are designed to continually widen the gap between rich and poor.
I do agree with your overall take that there is a recent trend towards de-democratization of investment opportunities. The invention of the stock market was a huge deal because it massively moved the needle towards democratization.
BTC ain't it, however. Good luck proving the hypothesis that BTC is not tulips.
Personally, I see two major outcome sets. Either Russia "conquers the planet" or it doesn't. If it does, BTC is no longer any use to Russian-aligned oligarchs to bypass sanctions. If it doesn't, the West will eventually wisen up and hamper BTC transactions to the point that the alternatives win out.
Those are two likely crashpoints. There are 10000 possible others. Musical chairs always ends, it's just a matter of when.
The original study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4375620