> The Koolhaasian moment in design began to fade, as one might expect, with the coming of the 2008 global economic crisis; since everything in architecture takes longer than in any other field, the full-on rejection is only getting underway now, but already the accelerationist paradigm has been replaced by another: a meliorist one, eco-conscious and modest, international in outlook but more focused on firms working within their communities, especially those in developing countries.
> But, while technically innovative, with a carbon-fiber body, the i3 is essentially a very expensive hatchback.
Yep. When people buy high performance or luxury cars, part of the mystique is that it is the latest evolution of some sort of classic. It's going to be hard for BMW et al to position electric vehicles as belonging to any existing lineage. This puts their brand at risk unless they can figure out how to make a remarkable electric car. But nobody really knows what that would be.
It is free money until Lambda School actually gets it back. It's up to Lambda School to decide the if money and/or the precedent are worth the public relations cost of fighting about it.
> That's hardly symmetrical to the fear of losing the money that you have already invested...
It's pretty symmetrical. Choosing not to buy is not as easy as it looks, when you are under pressure to do so. Madoff took advantage of this. The crash of 1929 was preceded by unhinged buying.
I get the impression that the people running Robinhood actually don't understand how difficult it is to implement what they want to offer, both on the reliability side (outages) and on the logical side (infinite margin).
> Industry isn't a culture, it's a combination of skill sets and infrastructure. China is the world's second largest economy...
It's interesting to see those two statements adjacent to each other. China is a tremendous world power, but if I understand the history correctly, it arrived at this point after a series of (sometimes extreme) cultural and economic upheavals that prioritized modernization over traditional culture.
Just because it is common doesn't mean it's not shady.
And depending on what the "pseudo-activist role" entails, that could be a massive conflict of interest. If a person at Company A is steering business toward Company B because they have an investment in Company B, that could easily conflict with their obligations toward Company A.
My point is not that I'm better at it than some specific library, it's that choosing a library would take more effort than writing some straightforward code.
EDITED TO ADD: In fact getting LAPACK into the build if it's not already there is more of a maintenance imposition than just writing a couple of lines of code for this.
> Your handrolled solution is likely worse than the library anyway
This assumption led to a lot of O(n^2) left-padding happening over the years, via left-pad from node.js.
Ideally libraries would be well-tested and of high quality, but at this point there may be too many of them to vet.
My own 2 cents is that if it's easier to implement the code from scratch than to evaluate and choose a library, perhaps the invent-it-here choice works best.
I don't know why everyone is eliding the gunfire here, to me that's the most important aspect of the story. If he was merely a shoplifter, there would be little harm in just issuing a warrant and looking for him later. But once he started shooting, preservation of property became a secondary concern.
I don't think the two situations are comparable at all. In the ATV case, it was the police who escalated, inappropriately, in pursuit of someone who was mainly a danger to himself. In the destroyed home case, it was the suspect who escalated (repeatedly), from shoplifting to entering a home to shooting at people.
Waiting out a suspect who has already shot at the police is dangerous. Any mistake that left a person exposed to be shot at could be fatal. Protecting life is a higher priority than protecting property.
What is this writing style?