This is true of most strict rules elsewhere: they're there but seldom enforced. Take speed limits, they're strict, but good luck enforcing them. All we do is we monitor from time to time and give tickets. Yet we could enforce this to the manufacturers, right? Why can a car go beyond the speed limit if it's strictly prohibited?
We cannot compare working conditions as is, but they're easy to compare when you take time into account: how where our labor laws a couple of generations ago? Not that different than poor countries today.
The OP made a good point that applies to all poor countries I've lived in: those jobs are the only (even the best) way out for most people to get out of poverty, which they do to help their families/children/themselves.
Maybe you were raised in a family that did not need to go through such hard labor, but that doesn't mean your right in your view of your own world ;)
P.S. I was also born and raised in a poor country.
> from a zero-comprehension state is more likely to get you to a goal than an evolution from a state that has at least some correctness.
I get that starting from a point with "some correctness" makes sense if you want to use such information (e.g. a standard starting point). However, such information is a preconceived solution to the problem, which might not be that useful after all. The fact is that you indeed might not at all need such information to find an optimal solution to a given problem.
> by setting a goal and a context we have already applied constraints.
I might be missing your point here since the goal and constraints must come from the real world problem to solve which is independent from the method to solve the problem. Unless you're describing p-value hacking your wait out, which is a broader problem.
The problem with preconceptions about your parameters is that you might be missing some crazy cool path to your goal, which you might find by randomly exploring your sample space. I remember seeing this same principle in mcmc samplers using uniform priors. Why is this so crazy?
I've got a set of sand timers (1 to 30 min) to handle such interruptions. Depending on how long it'll take me to finish what I'm working on, I'll just use one of those timers as currency to buy me the couple minutes I need to git commit my way out.
Funny, I use tmux all day long because it allows me to navigate out of vim without a mouse. So far I can handle most of my pane resizing needs with prefix + space bar. Otherwise I'll just launch a new window. Maybe I'm just allergic to the mouse.
I've been using nvim for around 5 years for everything I do on a computer other than web browsing. It feels like I'm missing something here, but why would you ever need a mouse within your terminal? I don't recall never ever needing it :/
I didn't think deeply about this back then since my parameter estimates where close/better than the literature I compared to, but now I'm interested in checking the distribution of those NaN/inf. If I recall correctly they were uniformly distributed throughout an adaptive phase.