Ankintol

Slightly adjacent to the article, I don't think Apple cares all that much about the AR metaverse/ecosystem.

My own prediction, using many of the same data points as the author, is that Apple is trying to create a suite of features that act as a sort of Software Personal Assistant. For years Apple has consistently put in better sensors and larger TPUs than strictly necessary for the expected lifetime of the device. We're already seeing some of the results of this with the Health app.

Apple understands the profit potential of platforms, so they'll make some of the data that enables these features to App Developers and that in turn may enable AR, but I doubt any Apple executives are seriously focused on bringing AR capabilities to developers.

As someone who's produced a large volume of educational content in my career, this idea ends up producing content that even most serious practitioners cannot consume.

The problem is that even amongst "serious" programmers people often have a patchwork of knowledge with small, unpredictable gaps in understanding; many of which will surprise you. You will find these gaps even if you've taken the time to handpick vetted experts. Once you account for this patchwork of knowledge gaps in verified experts you'll often notice that you're really close to a tutorial for relative beginners, which most people are, and just go the full distance.

The problem generalizes to a variety of subjects but is particularly pernicious in programming where small details are often of much greater significance.

I've watched several people go through this conversation after a company made this demand. For this to succeed it seems that you need to be indispensable, or be part of an organized group that is indispensable, to the highest person in your management chain who is demanding a return to the office (probably the CEO). If that person isn't aware you're indispensable, you will have to try to convince them.

Best of luck.

> Can you please provide proof that our justice system is failing victims? Do you just mean that the conviction rate is anything less than 100% for accusations?

I'm confused that you think this is something I can prove through citations. The way we adjudicate whether someone is a victim is through the courts, my claim is the courts do a bad job of this. There are only two things I can think to poinnt you at:

1. The numerous written accounts online of women attempting to get justice and being stonewalled. Some of the more famous cases during the beginning of the #metoo era showed this.

2. I can say that the lived experience of every woman I know to have gone through the courts found it unnecessarily degrading (n~=20) and while I believe all of them, only a quarter (n~=5) received a guilty verdict. I know far more women who did not go through the process due to stories from women they know.

I'm personally convinced, if you're not I understand but am not ready to expend the energy digging up cases to try and convince you.

> can you clarify what you mean by "verbally insulting and degrading them"

Literal slurs, misogynistic generalizations about women being temptresses, stereotypically horrible questions such as "were you asking for it?"

> there is a court and criminal justice system for a reason Having supported a few friends trying to push these kinds of complaints through the courts, I think the precise reason this kind of naming and shaming has become so common place is the criminal justice system isn't working well.

Even for fairly straightforward sexual assault case in a liberal jurisdiction with witnesses I've watched a friend struggle with members of the justice system verbally insulting and degrading them as they try to obtain justice for themselves.

Having seen all that when I see a post like this I understand why the author did not go to court, and don't question it. If we took the time to actually fix the courts I'd be much more skeptical of claims that had not been presented to law enforcement.

I feel for people like your brother who are victims of people abusing the trend, but as long as our justice system fails victims so horribly I think this is the least bad solution available.

Those engineers have the good fortune to be working in a fairly constrained space. New materials and building techniques become viable slowly over time.

Software developers are able to build abstractions out of thin air and put them out into the world incredibly quickly. The value proposition of some of these abstractions are big enough that it enables _other_ value propositions. The result of that is that our "materials" are often new, poorly documented, and poorly understood. Certainly my experience writing software is that I am asked to interact with large abstractions that are only a few years old.

Conversely, when I sit in a meeting with a bunch of very senior mechanical engineers every one of them has memorized all of the relevant properties of every building material they might want to use for some project: steel, concrete, etc. Because it's so static, knowing them is table stakes.

I'd say this difference in changing "materials" is a big source of this discrepancy.

Just as a note, the article specifically lays out that you are only a loser in a pure economic sense, you have not maximized monetary profit and have chosen to prioritize something else. Not an idiot at all :)

Does it look like I made a mistake to most people? I've never received a comment in a PR about it and I observe other developers using the same technique, so I'm surprised to hear this, do you feel very confident in this assessment? Just trying to gather feedback here.

I'd be curious to see experiments with variable numbers of line breaks to create additional structure. I find my own code significantly more readable by separating certain "sub-blocks" of code with two line breaks, with their internal structures having single line breaks.

  thing_1_a
  thing_1_b

  thing_1_c

  
  thing_2_a
  thing_2_b

It fits into the framework proposed here but is not mentioned specifically as having been investigated.

I think the author's POV still stands just perhaps needs some massaging the framing.

> When people acquire skills, and that makes some tasks easier compared to untrained people, that difference categorically is not subjectivity. It is not subjectivity because we can reproduce the training effect in person after person, and even measure it with some kind of numbers that we can plot on nice graphs and see things like that similar "learning curves" are consistently reproduced in different people.

It sounds like you're referring to convention. Adhering to conventions a reader is familiar with definitely improves readability, but _any_ style can be improved by adherence to convention, so we want to ask, what is the most readable style before we start layering on conventions?

No, a class is a data type coupled to functions operating on that class. For the purpose of this discussion a module is a way to semantically group types and functions without coupling them (languages like OCaml get fancy by actually typing modules which enables some neat ideas, but is not important to this discussion).