souldeux

my model goes to a different school

Respectfully, the documentation makes it clear that the author is incorrect.

And gRPC with reflection, yeah?

> certainly not how one would want sexual interaction

speak for yourself

A distinction that is unfortunately as important as it is meaningless

As a former engineering manager: no, I don't want to have a discussion about the hypothetical emoji. I want the engineer to put a rocketship in their commit message to have a slightly brighter day, and I want to acknowledge that someone else made a positive comment about it.

If you are genuinely at the point in your life where "people saying they like things" is the same as ... what you're describing ... please be aware of the emotional impact you're having on the people around you.

> All those small discussions were essentially pointless

Were they pointless, or were they positive feedback about a thing you personally disliked?

Only a dozen but same. Just ship the shit. Quality never mattered.

I'm sorry, but to my layman's eye this doesn't appear to be a proof. This feels like a disconnected series of assertions more than anything else.

May I ask how?

duckDB is one of the built-ins for count.co, which i've come to love

I feel like this starts with an agreeable premise. Some fraud is egregious, costly, and/or easy to detect. These low-hanging or high-impact cases are most worth pursuing. At some point you reach diminishing returns, where the amount of time / effort / capital you're putting in to eliminating fraud outstrips the losses from the fraud itself.

I don't know that I agree with the ethical conclusion that the optimal amount of fraud is therefore non-zero. The leap from "anti-fraud efforts are expensive" to these sentences in the final paragraph was not, in my opinion, convincingly made here:

>We should, as a society, accept non-zero amounts of benefits fraud. We should accept non-zero amounts of cheating on taxes.

This is awesome, I had no idea you could do this. And with gRPC built right in!