commonlisp94

I bet you did.

It's not about hard drive space, it's about start up time.

The 10x LOC (despite being a huge exaggeration) is also the fixed cost, not the marginal cost. You're only forging main loop and includes, not any fundamental complexity.

This is also a funny argument coming from a Go programmer considering that Go trades off conciseness and expressivity for simplicity. Show me some of your favorite Go and I'm sure we can replace it with some concise C++.

It's a tradeoff. You lower stability and increase earning potential (and stress).

I just mentioned this elsewhere. But everyone in freelancing and agency feels the same way. If only they could get that sweet passive income they could relax and have a stable buisness. Here are some things to consider:

- have you ever built and maintained a large codebase/project over several years?

- have you ever sold or marketed a product rather than a service?

- are you ready to compete with the whole world, as opposed to locally?

In my experience they are completely different skills, that agencies and freelancers do not have.

One approach is to develop internal "products" that make you more efficient. The bar drops from being something a customer can buy and enjoy right off the shelf, to being a productivity multiplier.

I persnally actually accepted the opposite. If everyone is obsessed with passive income and not doing work, to the extent that they are accepting tiny margins with artificially low discount rates, I want to maximize the value of the time I do concrete work.

> switched to products

This is always a temptation for agencies which almost never works out. They underestimate the effort to build a product. They also typically don't have the skill or experience to build a high quality product that can compete with the whole world.

It's also often sexual or suggestive content.

inb4 it's just showing me what I like. In icognito mode go to YouTube and watch a single video that might suggest you are an 18-45 year old male, and then look at your suggested shorts.

> Relations are functions.

That is how they are defined in set theory based math. The mathematical definition is not the only meaning of a word. When when start to talk about the physical world, we need additional concepts. You are welcome to read the wikipedia page about correspondence theories of truth.

Both of those examples have weaker unions that play less of a role. Also the poster above suggested that the union as opposed to the management could measure performance. That doesn't happen in sports or TV.

> one possible union architecture

It's the one used by all the major ones: airlines, auto manufacturers, and teachers. What institution do you know of that has a greater emphasis on measuring performance?

unions don't measure productivity. They group people based on credentials + experience, and treat everyone as interchangeable within those buckets.

No, the comment above mine is the one being pedantic. We can absolutely talk about physical correspondence of mathematical concepts, even though there are multiple equally good logical systems for describing them.

Let's recall your original comment. You said we can't talk about reality correspondence of math because multiple logical systems can describe physical space equally well.

A triangle in a euclidean system is not the same shape as a triangle in spherical, etc. They are only equivalent in that they have an analogous logical definition in their separate systems.

They don't look the same. They don't describe the same physical phenonoma either. In other words, the physical correspondence is not the same, so there is no contradiction.

This is not true.

They are incompatible sets of axioms, but they can describe the same set of shapes, although one system is going to be a lot more inconvenient than the other. The differences are logically interesting, but about as incompatible as choosing to make the origin of a euclidean system one corner of the room instead of another.

In contrast physical theories contradict each other by making different predictions which can be falsified.

> Climate change is killing it.

How so?