pphysch

I'm talking about heterogenous legacy hardware that isn't owned by Cisco, not complex topologies.

See also "defensive bureaucracy"

The first and last bullets are extremely optimistic. How do you possibly simulate all the weird interdependent behavior in real world networks?

Bigfoot and aliens don't exist. The human trafficking industry is very real. Don't be so dismissive.

For each of your 80 stories there are probably a dozen stories of former frat boys and Trump/Epstein types also being in compromising relationships.

I think it has much less to do with any individual's sexual history and much more to do with the rapacious/hypersexual elite culture in USA and elsewhere.

Large codebases are bureaucracies of their own, that is, the complexity of extra layers starts to bog things down at some point.

In this case, it seems like the human bureaucracy made wise and measured decisions to contain the software bureaucracy. They made reasonable requests to clarify the scope and impact of a major, major core feature. The proposers didn't feel like that was doable, so a complexity nuke was avoided.

Those are closer languages but my broader point is that these application-level languages are more or less interchangeable from a professional standpoint. A Java or C# pro should probably not spend time becoming a Python pro because they could have spent that time producing equivalent value in the languages they are already experts in.

Who is cultivating a "favorite language"? I missed that part. Agreed that this should not be an emotional issue, that is unprofessional.

Problem with any popular language is an outsider sees one or two statistically-likely codebases that are total turds, and then gets one-shot by the Goomba fallacy.

Numpy is over 2 decades old. Pytorch is a decade old. Python devs know what "right tool for the job" means and focus on solving problems instead of being language purists.

They are a heavy C# user. Coke/Pepsi situation.

Okay, describe one quirk of Gemini-ese that makes it stand out?

> My mental model for UUIDv7 is that it’s a mash-up of a bunch of different ideas which implementations are free to choose as they see fit. There’s a wide variance of properties that UUIDv7 implementations can provide, with varying degrees of certainty they can successfully provide those properties.

I think this is good. A proper UUID that has specific significant bits dedicated to (approximately) monotonic values is useful. I don't want it over-specified beyond that, and I don't want to just use UUIDv8.

I agree it's confusing, but that's the point, it's a weasel word.

No court of law is going to accept an argument that indefinite == infinite, especially after it stops being indefinite (like TFA).

Indefinitely doesn't mean infinitely, it just means there is no defined end date at this particular moment. But that could change in the next moment, as it did.