sebastialonso

> Ask questions > When showed different opinion, complains like a bitch

HN is very cesspool-ly indeed

Uh, so you Brits have this kind of chaps too?

Honestly expanding this point for the joy of debating.

Granted, grandparent comment used _charged_ words. Let's rephrase: labor is used to ultimately provide owners more money than they put in.

Is that not a fair assesment of the real world? Who starts a company to lose money? Who starts a company solely for "creating jobs"?

What exactly is the beef with grandparent comment? Is it just the negatively charged words? It's the rephrased version beef-inducing as well?

This is the way. If the C-suite idiocy is inevitable, as I believe it is, the more moral thing to do is to take advantage of such idiocy.

I believe this provision already exists in screen media. That's why you get some awful movies, like 2015's Fantastic Four.

Catch is perhaps a strong word. Trade-off would be more accurate.

Every action in the known universe (and surely in some unknown ones too) results in a trade-off. This is maybe the only precept on software architecture that doesn't "depends" on anything and is closer to natural law.

The only correct answer to the question asked is "I don't know the context, I need more information". Anything else is being a bad engineer.

Man, more than two decades of open source and people still don't understand what free as I'm freedom means. It's depressing.

If this is correct, which I partially believe it is, it's even worse.

It's not measuring the "useful" kind of stress, like when you're on-call or in active incident handling.

It's just measuring how you approach problem solving and coding while being judged and looked at, on the spot, which is *hardly* a common scenario in real life!

Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd. The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match.

As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths.

Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.

Another misconception I'd say.

"Time is not a thing in math" is not understanding what math is. Time is another ideal object following certain rules under a given domain. Programming is coming up with objects of different size, with different characteristics, with interact at different points in time, i.e. following certain rules.

Got it, thanks for the reply

A lot of people in this type of threads always makes the same mistake: confusing what math is with branches of math, or rather, ways in which math is used. The way the education system is built certainly contributes to this.

I've always found the car metaphor to work very good to understand this: A car is a machine that can transport itself to point A to B (some other rules apply). There are different types of cars, but you certainly haven't understood the definition of you say that something is not a car because is not a Volvo, or because it doesn't look like a Ford, when it's clearly able to transport itself.

Math is the study of ideal objects and the way they behave or are related to each others. We have many branches of mathematics because people have invented so many objects and rules to play with them. Programming is nothing if not this very definition. The fact that you don't have to "use math" when programming is not really addressing the point, it's like saying a car is not a car because it has no discernible brand.

Is it possible your mental model of what CS is more aligned with software engineering rather than actual CS? Could you share some examples of what you consider to be CS but lacks any mathematical relation?

I agree is not a useful grouping in practice. I'm just interested in what makes you think like you do.