nothrabannosir

That doesn’t answer the question at all, and I wonder if it’s actually true? A cache is not magic; it is, itself, just a static file server in the end. If I self host a static page website on an nginx box, do I actually need cache to serve today’s crawlers?

The screenshot in the image says 3k req/day. That’s 2 requests per minute (amortized). At that rate, you can serve it with cgi and Perl.

Cache is only relevant if you have a lot of traffic AND dynamic pages, or if you care about latency (which is only relevant for humans).

You’re right, I was wrong. Thank you for your patience and for teaching me something new.

Everyone can be lying. But I’ve been around human beings long enough to know that there are two very different types of self delusion: valiant assumptions about what you will do in a never before seen situation, and observations about what you have done. GP’s was an objective statement:

> I've worked with people who were super productive with high quality work, and my reaction was to... gravitate toward working more with them.

Neither type of statement is perfectly trustable (nothing is) but IME there is a categorical difference. Your paper (and first comment, “don’t be so quick to judge”, which imo was ironically prescient) are about the former type.

Of course if you disagree with me on this fundamental distinction then we have found our contention :) which would be a nice end to this debate. Don’t you think?

You use research as an argument, which is valid in a conversation where nobody has any information about specifics. E.g. in the pre-life, before a soul is about to be incarnated, you can point to that research and say: you are more likely than not to behave this way. Were the soul to reply, “no I am not, I know myself”, you could call them delusional.

But you’re talking to a person who can point at their actual life and say: I have been in that exact situation and I can confirm that I did not behave that way.

That’s a new observation, and afai understand Bayesian statistics, this is the moment where we must update our priors: how likely is someone who has observed themselves in the past not to behave that way, to behave that way?

Your argument is now incomplete.

Maybe someone with real understanding of Bayesian statistics can frame this better, or tell me why I’m wrong XD

Steelmanning the other side: a counter example would be if competitors use the same tools to achieve the same productivity gains.

> In practice, most programmers write shit.

I mean…………

> blew right past you.

This thread is a train wreck

> > I don't understand

> We really need to retire this phrase, it’s become a humblebrag way of calling the other party delusional without even trying to understand.

My dear friend I thought I was alone on this hill. It brings a tear to my eye, to learn I will not die alone.

Because the article for masculine and feminine are the same (“de”) so absolutely nobody knows the gender of anything.

Source: am Dutch. Can’t wait for us to just ditch gendered nouns.

I preferred GPs poop joke version but to each their own.

Wait until you hear about Bukowski, Faulkner or Kerouac.

I used to see far more references to Postel’s law in the 00s and early 10s. In the last decade, that has noticeably shifted towards hyrum’s law. I think it’s a shift in zeitgeist.

Nice thanks, is there a single-HTML-page view available by any chance?