Ok, if you get into Harvard, go to Harvard. Your opportunities in the long run should outweigh any sort of student loans you have to pay back. If you're going to NoName Private College that's 90% of the cost of Harvard, go to state school instead.
And apply to scholarships. Lots and lots of scholarships.
JavaScript is a dynamically-typed language. Parallelizing the type checking with bundling gives you the best of both worlds: the speed when writing in a dynamic language and the type safety that comes with a static-typed language. For me, I like to write my code and not too concern myself with types until I’m close to committing; that’s when I fix type errors.
That “sink or float” metaphor was clumsily written and reminded me of someone wanting to convey something important, but didn’t know how or what to say. I’ve only watched one episode, but that episode was not good.
In contrast House of the Dragon is better written, equally gorgeous, and is far more interesting. At least it is 3 episodes in compared to the 1 RoP I’ve seen.
Yes, LaMDA is not sentient. But this begs the question: as these models become more sophisticated, and we did end up creating a sentient AI, how would we know?
Actions speak louder than words. If she were truly sorry, she would’ve reverted the PR and have it go through the normal process. Instead she wrote a really long message about how the .NET Foundation owns your project.
As someone who has a liberal arts background, software engineering has a lot more in common with writing than most admit. Sure there is grammar and syntax but good writing can be as varied from William Shakespeare to Stephen King. Same with software writing.
I was an early employee (#20-something) of a startup that was acquired. The founder received 1 billion, the 2 other founders received 100 million each.
I got about 80 grand that took 4 years to vest.
You have to be grateful for the opportunities and experiences you’ve acquired and be honest with yourself—-I didn’t take the risks they did and since I was pretty junior at the time, wasn’t as influential as others.
Because it’s assumed those private methods’ usage happens within public methods, which should be tested. By testing the public methods and all of its use cases you are also testing private ones. That way you can arbitrarily modify private methods without touching the tests (presuming you’re refactoring and don’t need to modify behavior).
I agree with so much of this! I think it stems from so many software engineers have a quantitative background, where solving for x is either right or wrong. Much of “good” software engineering, however, is subjective and I think many of these folks have a difficult time reconciling that. So you get into these battles on which is the best way when, unless it’s something egregious, is probably good enough.
I have a writing and liberal arts background and so while bad writing is obvious, good writing comes in many stylistic forms. I think this has allowed me to see varying perspectives on “best practices.”
The author uses a small subset (positive psychology and its nebulous definition of happiness, although the he doesn’t address that those psychologists do define that term) of psychology to denounce the whole field as “not science.”
String theory deals with measurements that are mind-boggling small to the point where experimentation is impossible. String theory cannot be tested in a lab or in any sort of tactile experiment. Experimentation is a critical piece of a science and so since String Theory cannot be tested with the scientific method, all of physics is not a science.
Of course that argument is absurd and so is this article.