djfm

they have no doubt been doing it, they're just using the panic of a brainwashed population thinking they're on the brink of Islamic revolution to normalize it

Random audits in data brokers' data centers?

Software on consumers' devices that records ads seen and file complaints if consumers are still being tracked? It's very easy to detect algorithmically that you're being shown personalized ads.

This should be open-sourced so that the probability of creating a dangerous true AI is lower. I fear there may be something very wrong in this but I'd love a DIY grow-your-brain kit with a USB interface to experiment with. This machine would have an awesome "hello, world" program.

I was gonna comment the same, so thanks for getting all the downvotes :)I think it's not that sexist but at first I was shocked. Now I think it is just using way too many stereotypes in one sentence. I think they realized it was sexist but thought "but we're the BBC, they will know we don't mean it like that" (which is probably true).

Isn't the title a bit misleading?

> Hence, our attempt to convert high-level code to assembly code takes us one step closer to completing the dream of making a chemical compiler.

I would add mindfulness meditation to the list.

As a developer I don't estimate work based on number of lines I expect to write, so while this metric is interesting I do not think it explains why we miss deadlines. It does indeed show that things usually are more complicated than we think. But with that knowledge, I'm pretty sure I'll keep missing deadlines.

Also, commenters to this thread won't be let through.

No offense taken.

I said I like to write it this way, not that I always do it.

> why code like that

It's a fun exercise.

> it would be a huge waste of time and energy

I don't fully agree on this: from the name and signature it's pretty clear what the function does, so you don't need to waste time "parsing" the details. And with unit tests it is also very low-risk.

But that's speculative, in a real project I'd just use lodash.

Shouldn't it be ".map(([prop, value]) => ...)" ?

I like to write it this way, using as much syntax sugar as possible:

const mapObject = fn => obj => Object.assign( ...Object.entries(obj).map( ([key, value]) => ({ [key]: fn(value) }) ) );

it's very unlikely this is going to be the bottleneck in your application

My thoughts exactly!

The amount of things you need to know in order to use react and redux is ridiculously low.

You're basically just composing functions of two types "(state, action) => state" , and "state" => html.

The boilerplate consists of a few functions (really mostly createStore and connect) that are incredibly well documented.

There's almost nothing to understand and redux itself is almost not a lib (only 318 LOC). The whole thing is a pattern and redux is just a small, very well written key component of the pattern.

When people debate redux they debate about programming, not about a tool. That's why it's interesting and why it will never end.