jeffpeterson

Because it’s better and users want it.

Risk is important, but the value of something is a function of its opportunity cost. In other words, if you think a role is not worth the compensation, simply found your own company. Presumably, if the founding engineer compensation is mispriced, your new company will have an advantage over the others. I suspect most will find that founding a company is actually much harder than being a founding engineer.

Frankly, one of the satisfying things about a free market is that we don't have to rationalize these numbers at all. If the numbers are wrong, the market will select for better theories.

Very cool. It gets the conclusion right, but it did confuse itself briefly after interpreting `256 * last_byte + second_to_last_byte` as big-endian. It's neat that it corrected the confusion, but a little unsatisfying that it doesn't explicitly identify the mistake the way a human would.

Heh, I did not expect to see this here. I helped create this project! I'm not sure if it still runs, but if anyone wants to try it out and it's not working, let me know.

I'd just like to point out that this line of inquiry is not some unanswered philosophical question. All of capitalism is focused on this question of ownership. Who owns the picture? The answer is always whoever the parties involved agreed would own it. Both options can exist and they'll have different prices.

This same question often comes up with self-driving cars and "fault", and it seems to regress into the same trap. Ownership of _risk_ is one of the primary concerns of capitalism. The question is not, "who should be at fault?", it is instead "what is the cost of this risk?" and then we buy and sell that risk like everything else (which is also how we determine that cost). If the self-driving advocates are right and self-driving is safer, then the risk will likely cost less than your current insurance.

Of course, it's not always clear. If the parties can't agree who owns a thing, they often use some legal mechanism to resolve their dispute.

Well, tying the Ian Knot still requires you to do your starting knot in the correct orientation. Mixing it up will still result in the Granny Knot. From the other responses, it sounds like some are still getting Granny Knots even when using Ian's tying method.

All observation is theory-laden; data cannot speak for itself.

Hah, totally agree. I assume the thinner atmosphere causes the dust to behave as if our view is much closer to the ground than it actually is.

I think you might be remembering this Mythbusters episode backwards; they determined that it wasn't cell phones causing ignition and was in fact static electricity.

Wow! What great timing. I've been working on CRDTs for the last couple years and realized the structure we're settling on is similar to ECS. Last week, I figured I'd dive into ECS and also scratch my game-making itch by trying out Amethyst. I've had a suspicion that the API could be a bit simpler, and well, you nailed it! After an afternoon of playing around, Bevy has been a pleasure! Really great work!

Hah, "literally"