It’s weird to talk about Wikipedia entries having a length in “pages”.

In this thread, so many people who misunderstand the meaning of “Believe women”.

Including OP who said “We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.”

According to OP, there’s no need to know what the Epstein files say because these women’s accusations are enough to convict him on their own. People are reacting to that absurd phrasing, not to the idea that women’s accusations should be taken seriously and investigated.

According to OP “We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.”

So, believing women is proof, and not only proof, but proof so strong that we wouldn’t even need the Epstein files. You might think that believing women doesn’t mean convicting every person who is accused, but OP sure seems to think so.

I wonder what would have happened if someone refused to swear. I’m the kind of stubborn bastard that would refuse to swear to something I didn’t understand. I imagine the university probably just ignored it if someone refused to swear because it wasn’t worth the headache to deal with someone refusing.

Hour to hour and day to day that’s probably true. But, nVidia is actually an example of a company where their leadership made some smart decisions decades ago by understanding their market extremely well and correctly predicting what was going to be happening in the industry 5-10 years down the line. For example, he went all in on CUDA almost a decade before the AI went mainstream, and because of that decision, nVidia is the biggest company in the world today.

I would bet that if a major decision came up and you had to decide whether or not to go all in on X, you couldn’t actually do his job.

It’s also proof that there wouldn’t be major negatives from a wealth tax. These guys love working, it’s not about the money, they all say it. So, let them keep working, but give their earnings to people who need it.

Also, having no work-life balance is different if you own a significant fraction of the company vs. if you’re on salary.

Like, if Jensen Huang spends 12 hours over the weekend working on something for nVidia and increases the share price by 0.01% (with a $4.165 trillion market cap, this means it goes up $416 million), his personal net worth will go up by $14.7m. Not bad for a little weekend work.

Let’s assume that someone who is on salary is on something absurd like $1m per year and gets a 500% bonus for working overtime. Their 12 hours of weekend work is going to net them $28k. That’s certainly nice, but it’s about 1/500th of what Huang gets. And, your average engineer probably doesn’t get overtime at all, and if they did it would be closer to $3k not $30k.

If someone who owns a business wants to have a bad work-life balance, that’s one thing. But, it should never be expected of anybody who’s just on salary.

I’ve seen this a bunch in 3rd party library headers, sadly. So it ultimately doesn’t matter how good my code is.

Yeah, I’ve seen that too. The problem is that once the library starts spitting out warnings it’s hard to spot your own warnings.

A yes, comments.

int flubTheWozat(void *) {
  for (int i=0; i<4; i++) {
    lfens += thzn[i] % ugy;  // take mod of thnz[i] with ugy and add to lefens.
  }
  return (lfens % thzn[0]) == 4; // return if it's 4ish
}

So, did you get it down to 0 warnings and manage to keep it there? Or did it eventually start creeping up again?

I know that should be the philosophy, but is it? In my experience it seems to be normal to ignore warnings.

I know, that’s why it bothered me that it seemed to be “policy” to just ignore them.

It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. It can just be that the editors know that people are likely to click on Trump - Epstein stories now.

Any journalist who had a story turned down at some point in the past because there were bigger stories is going to be pulling it out and trying to get it to run again. Archivists are going to go through every Trump - Epstein story that already did run once and trying to run it again.

Not only that, but everyone who sees that code later is going to waste so much time trying to understand it. That includes future you.

“C++ compilers also warn you…”

Ok, quick question here for people who work in C++ with other people (not personal projects). How many warnings does the code produce when it’s compiled?

I’ve written a little bit of C++ decades ago, and since then I’ve worked alongside devs who worked on C++ projects. I’ve never seen a codebase that didn’t produce hundreds if not thousands of lines of warnings when compiling.

Yes, and?

I’d rather have bikeshedding over terminology that eventually results in a single word than just have free-form commits where you can never tell what the primary motivation between a commit is.

I’ve always thought movies like Terminator where the AI becomes sentient and takes over are complete BS. We still don’t understand sentience, and we have no hope of making a sentient computer, at least in my lifetime.

But, what’s scary is that you don’t even need a sentient AI. You just need people to hand the keys over to “spicy autocomplete”. Spicy autocomplete has been trained on the scripts of Terminator, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wargames, etc. It has no desire to take over the world, it has no desire at all because it’s not conscious. But, it knows how to generate text as though it were playing a part in one of those movies. If you actually do hook it up to a computer that can launch missiles, it’s perfectly able to pattern match its inputs to the expected outputs based on those movies, and as a result to play the role of the evil AI taking over and wiping out humanity.

I can’t even believe that people are willing to let LLMs hit the “commit” button for them. But, that someone is willing to give admin access to a database to a bullshit generator, that’s just perfect.

I get the hesitation that things can turn into lies, but that’s a sign that you’re doing things wrong. That also tends to happen to comments that are far away from the relevant code, like the documentation of a 100 line function. The function can change while the comment is no longer visible on the screen, so it’s easy to forget to also fix the comment.

But test strings like that are designed to avoid that problem. They’re right there next to your tests for a reason. You should always be right next to them when you’re changing the test.

Fundamentally, this is something that has to be addressed with code reviews. If someone can commit their changes to a group repository without anybody else seeing them, you’re going to get stuff like this. As soon as you get decent code reviews, you can just reject a change where there are tests without documentation, the same way you can reject a change to a test where the documentation is now out of date.

See also semantic commit messages where you tag every commit with the type of commit: feature, fix, docs, refactor, test, etc.

My only beef with it is that they chose “feat” as a way to shorten the word “feature” when “feat” is already a word that means something different. Not every feature is a feat, and a lot of the biggest feats are actually bug fixes.