thwd

It's a write-only language.

Agreed. Once long (10+ years) ago, google3 may have been peak codebase. Nowadays, not so much.

Edit: I guess it also depends at what level of abstraction you work. High: can be easy breezy. Low: oh boy.

Well, I can't speak for you, of course. I also haven't seen that code you reviewed. And I won't try to evangelize you. I'd say, in a nutshell, that Go is readable and reviewable because its grammar consists of the C-style basis that most every imperative language has, and not much more. It's the lack of features that makes it very 'WYSIWYG'.

Huh? Go has its tradeoffs, some people don't like it and that's fine. But nobody can deny that it is by far one of the most 'readable and reviewable' (the argument in question) mainstream languages.

Merging as a one-keyword feature for all flavors of SQL is almost impossible.

It gets hairy when you have columns with composite types. E.g. depending on database, records can be JSON objects, protobufs, structs, or other composite types, like tuples.

It is possible to define semantics to merge each of these, but they vary and the merge operation becomes verbose to allow to handle each weirdness of each of these underlying types.

Merging is also sensitive to NULL vs 0 vs a DEFAULT, plus in some databases, NULL is still allowed even when a column is marked NOT NULL.

You'd almost need a sub-language for the merging operation, specifying how to handle each corner case.

Gravity is infinite at the singularity (the middle of the black hole). Everything gravitates towards that point. Our best understanding is that no information can exist here.

Black holes "evaporate" over time -- by emitting Hawking radiation. This is probably where the information goes, in my layman understanding.

Go solves 99% of the problem quite nicely. You don't often deref pointers in Go, because of auto-addressing. E.g. there's no arrow operator as in C, the dot derefs when necessary.

I would say `v := (p.)` could've been the deref operator, but what do I know.

I understand and agree but read carefully. The assumption _is_ the (entire) hypothesis. It is not existentially quantified or set in the base-case. It is the entire hypothesis.

> We will show, by induction, that [for all sets] of n horses, every horse in [each] set has the same color.

> Now [assume that] for all sets of n horses, every horse in [each] set has the same color.

QED.

This is just tautology. No further analysis needed, really.

(If your proof includes your hypothesis as an assumption, then it must be a proof by contradiction.)

EDIT: Before you refute, read again carefully. The assumption _is_ the hypothesis. It is not existentially quantified or set in the base case. It is the entire, universally quantified hypothesis.

That's only if you equate the recruiter to a minimum wage worker and yourself to their customer. There's a superiority bias in that rhetoric. The recruiter is a well-employed tech worker. And you're not their client or superior.

Personal opinion: Google carefully treads the gray lines of legality and morals/ethics. Facebook leadership, on the other hand, decided a long time ago that they care about legality only. They seem very proud of that decision, too.

You have a box with random garbage in it. I have a box with a football in it. We entangle the football and the garbage. You stand far away from me. If you randomly open your box now, you may either see a football or random garbage. If I call you on the phone (classically) and tell you to open the box tonight at precisely 8:12pm, you're guaranteed to find a football then and hence, I will have the garbage.

There's no parsing; it's all or nothing.

"The Bank Behind High-Interest Loan Apps"

Good prose often involves misdirection. Making the reader believe something to be one way, while it was something else all along. Then, in a built up climax, undo the knot in a single pull to blow the reader's mind. That, to me, is the antithesis of the article's argument.