t8sr

I’m really not a fan of the therapy speak and everyone trying to diagnose everyone. Historically, this kinda medicalization of everyone you disagree with has not led to good things.

Emphasis on global blocks. Meaning everywhere in the world.

I read the tweet twice and I don’t see any mention of free speech. What he’s describing, when you look past the rhetoric, sounds ridiculous: a single medium sized country is demanding power to institute global blocks of content on the internet? If that’s an accurate description, that’s deeply concerning for the long term viability of the internet.

Something about the way the author expresses himself (big words, “I am so smart”, flowery filler) makes me unsurprised he finds it hard to have satisfying conversations with people. If he talked to me like this IRL I wouldn’t be trying to have a deep conversation either, I’d just be looking for the exit.

Lacking a theory of mind for other people is not a sign of superiority.

Two things:

1. I basically agree with everything you say, I only think the limit should be ~50-100% higher. Not 10x, but 1.5-2x.

2. For some reason, concise writing is the hardest thing to teach and demand consistently. I think a part of is that people try to hide incompetence behind a word salad, but also I think non-native speakers use more words than they need. It gets to a point where you either have to become everyone's English teacher or accept some amount of word salad.

No, I think a reasonable limit is around 100 with the mode being around 80. 50 is not a reasonable limit for a commit message in English.

Yeah, I specifically think 50 is too short. I am a big fan of brevity, but I think the sweet spot is somewhere around 100. Consider that all of these messages exceed the 50-character limit:

  [startup] Don't drop uid until all controller fds are open
  [bpf] Fix the exec exchange hitting verifier limit on Fedora
  [controller] Optimize partial policy updates with delta

They're as short (IMO) as can be without omitting useful information, but git says they're all illegal by some margin.

I agree on the value of concise writing and dislike word salads, but if you're a junior engineer, then I have maybe 1 hour with you per week and I probably shouldn't spend that time being your English teacher.

It surprises me how many people working as software engineers absolutely despise programming. Consider that if you must “grind” through leetcode questions, maybe you will be unhappy in the job itself. There are other roles, technical roles even, that don’t require algorithms. Why not pursue those?

My friend, it renders at 15 fps on a literal supercomputer. It takes 30 seconds to load. The time between clicking a button and something happening is measured in seconds. It may be successful, but it is not good.

The problem is that you’ve (and we all have) learned to accept absolute garbage. It’s clearly possible to do better, because smaller companies have managed to build well functioning software that exceeds the performance of Google’s slop by a factor of 50.

I’m not saying RETVRN to plain JS, but clearly the horrid performance of modern web apps has /something/ to do with the 2 frameworks they’re all built on.

Abstraction for its own sake, especially with js frameworks, doesn't make anything more readable or maintainable. React apps are some of the most spaghetti style software I've ever seen, and it takes like 10 steps to find the code actually implementing business logic.

The problem with React apologetics is that you need to only take a cursory look at literally every production app written in React to see it's terrible and must be abandoned in the long-term.

To see how fast a properly engineered app can be if it avoids using shitty js frameworks just look at fastmail. The comparison with gmail is almost comical: every UI element responds immediately, where gmail renders at 5 fps.

1. Your argument is about the grammar of a sentence about black holes on Wikipedia? This isn’t some kind of gotcha.

2. I missed the dwarf part, but think about what you’re arguing: the mass range of a loosely defined category (the lower bound of a few thousands is not one I’ve ever heard, btw) that has nothing to do with the paper in question. Collections of stars of any kind produce light. This doesn’t. What are you saying?

What do you think physicists do all day?

I’m admittedly a few years out of date in this, but weren’t those already kinda ruled out? I’ve never met anyone who took MOND seriously - it looks like it’s a pet project of a small number of people who cite each other, and people in different subfields have always been saying it doesn’t work for them (diffuse galaxies, etc.).

I know the current models favor cold DM, I thought the hot DM model was abandoned already when it became clear that clusters of any size exist?