Strange, for you to say this in the age of transformers. They are obviously not there yet, but it seems inevitable to me that e.g. gpt 'understands' things better than a markov chain, and that future systems will understand more.
If you want logical separation, add sub-blocks to the function. You can see things as being a spectrum from fully inline code, to code blocks, to anon functions defined in the function, to true functions.
The argument continues to say that the 'clean code' version isn't actually cleaner/more legible/more understandable.
I, for one, am royally sick of spending 5 minutes trying to figure out which virtual function implementation was actually called!
This is a fully general counterargument for why anything that is bad is actually good because it doesn't matter. "Places where air quality matters it is never sacrificed".
I think he bought in more people at one point, then sent them away again when he realized he wasn't able to keep the project on track with that many chefs making the soup. The problem with more people is that the project can very easily degenerate into design by committee.
If you read TFA, you'd know that the headline on the link isn't the headline of the article itself, which has no question mark. Presumably the mark was added here to assuage blue-tribe people.
Building capital and controlling things is good for individuals or families, but less so for large, uncoordinated organisations, especially governments. If I, an individual, own a shop, I'm incentivized to make it profitable- in this small town case, I'm incentivized to stock things people want to buy, to reduce waste, and so on. (Or to bail out and sell the premises if the economic conditions don't make sense anymore). Making the shop better makes me richer.
If I'm a wage-paid employee in a large shop (or any organization), then I'm looking to a) not get fired b) get a raise c) get a promotion. The bigger and more bureaucratic the organization, the more personnel decisions tend to become disconnected from ground truths and the more it becomes possible to rise through politics, whether or not the shop gets better. The people at the top, e.g. the owners of Walmart, want their shops to be more efficient, but if line worker #529 doesn't think he'll be paid more for making his local shop 5% more efficient, then he won't- and if there are more reliable ways up, he'll take those.
When a government owns/runs the shop, even the people at the top don't care about it making money- it's not their money to lose! The shop is probably useful as a political tool/division point, though. Imagine left-right debates about whether the government store should stock condoms, or meat, or whatever.
If I'm going to eat vegetables, I want to eat real vegetables, not an assortment of pea protein and flavorers slathered in preservatives that doesn't even taste as good as the thing it's imitating!
The disagreement here seems to over whether Cloudflare is more like a restaurant, or more like a utility company. Given the ubiquity of DDOS attacks online, (and the fact that KF seemingly can't stay online without DDOS mitigation), I think there's a good argument to be made that DDOS mitigation might be more like a utility.
Individuals have sued them repeatedly and lost; the case I remember best is a woman called Melinda Scott. Here's an explanatory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iqkpN9a6q8
The 'bad guy' is whoever is the aggressor. Everyone has a right to life; if someone starts shooting at you, or swinging a bat at you, you have the right to defend yourself, and if you kill the aggressor in self-defence, so be it.
I've heard from an internet lawyer that it's possible in principle for two people attacking each other to both have grounds for self-defence, too, if both were in reasonable fear for their lives. Whether A kills B, or B kills A, either may be able to argue self-defence given the right (wrong) circumstances. But that's just some internet theorycrafting I heard.
There's usually more than one server per minigame. You could see it in the url you were redirected to; they had more servers running the more popular minigames.
Each minigame has a player limit, so the maximum load on any given minigame server is known (within the bounds of the minecraft sub-superset that makes up that minigame- but usually the minigames are deliberately limited/bounded in how much computation they need, as opposed to vanilla Minecraft). Extra players get sent to the next available server. If there's consistent overflow, at that point you might turn on a whole new server, or change a server's gamemode (I don't know to what degree Hypixel actually did/does this, or how often it's actually necessary).
The game servers don't restart after the end of a round, though, do they? I'd imagine they kick the players back to the lobby, reset the in-server game, and then tell the lobby to send the next batch of players.
Biology kills us first, and in a manner that's contingent, not necessary; there are universes with physics similar to ours where life could continue forever. (Just add some rare non-energy-conserving interactions to be exploited).
Eventually, over 10^100 years of operation you get into interesting problems with the number of possible states a mind of a given size has being finite; but if you can continually add more matter via non-energy-conserving interactions, you could add more memory/processing up to fundamental physical limits:
you can only fit so much information in a given volume before it collapses into a black hole;
you can only communicate at c, so if you make your mind bigger, it has to parallelize or slow down;
Given the expansion of space, at some scale, light signals from one end of your mind can't reach the other (the space inbetween expands faster than C), which would be the the fundamental limit... except that gravity counteracts the expansion of space, and I'm not sure what the expansion properties of a visible-universe-filled volume of just-barely-black-hole-subcritical computronium is. I imagine you're in a big crunch regime at that point, except... Isn't that the same thing as a black hole collapse?
Nonetheless, there's presumably some balancing density that perfectly avoids both expansion and contraction, though it's presumably unstable. Ignoring the instability-difficulties, though, that means you can continue growing the amount of memory you have by slowing down your processing speed to one clock cycle every ~2*the diameter of your mind in light-years years. I'm not sure what the ultimate limiting factor is here, given infinite time; does the amount of computation of this system in infinite time go to infinity as your scale goes to infinity, or does it asymptotically approach some finite upper bound?