The opposite is also true,traditional optometrists seems to do everything possible to try and find a reason for me to wear glasses (i don't, I see fine). They always want to upsell me glasses.
By good code people mean extensible usually (growth), not performant.
Performant code has different value,often lower than extensible in eneterprise saas.
I don't know, she is not terminal, she is in the part where the knowledge is lacking, so what he is doing is actually reasonable.
Nobody knows anything, giving a shot to save the love of your life, with their approval, might be good, assuming you still spend time with them.
The symptoms if they came back would kill any hope for traveling anyway
Not intrinsically or commonly deadly. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... says "1 in 10 people will develop a pituitary adenoma in their lifetime" - pituitary adenomas is the more general class of these benign tumors, as the pituitary gland produces multiple hormones.
I haven't reduced my thinking! Today I asked AI to debug an issue. It came with a solution that it was clearly correct, but it didn't explain why the code was in that state. I kept steering AI (which just wanted to fix) toward figuring out the why and it digged through git and github issue at some point,in a very cool way.
And finally it pulled out something that made sense. It was defensive programming introduced to fix an issue somewhere else, which was also in turn fixed, so useless.
At that point an idea popped in my mind and I decided to look for similar patterns in the codebase, related to the change, found 3. 1 was a non bug, two were latent bugs.
Shipped a fix plus 2 fixes for bugs yet to be discovered.
I think my message is doing a disservice to explaining what actually happened because a lot of it happens in my head.
1. I received the ticket, as soon as I read it I had a hunch it was related to some querying ignoring a field that should be filtered by every query (thinking)
2. I give this hunch to the AI which goes search in the codebase in the areas I suggested the problem could be and that's when it find the issue and provide a fix
3. I think the problem could be spread given there is a method that removes the query filter, it could have been used in multiple places, so I ask AI to find other usages of it (thinking, this is my definition of "steering" in this context)
4. AI reports 3 more occurrences and suggests that 2 have the same bug, but one is ok
5. I go in, review the code and understand it and I agree, it doesn't have the bug (thinking)
6. AI provide the fix for all the right spots, but I said "wait, something is fishy here, there is a commit that explicitly say it was added to remove the filter, why is that?" (thinking), so I ask AI to figure out why the commit says that
7. AI proceeds to run a bunch of git-history related commands, finds some commit and then does some correlation to find another commit. This other commit introduced the change at the same time to defend from a bug in a different place
8. I understand what's going on now, I'm happy with the fix, the history suggests I am not breaking stuff. I ask AI to write a commit with detailed information about the bug and the fix based on the conversation
There is a lot of thinking involved. What's reduced is search tooling. I can be way more fuzzy, rather than `rg 'whatever'` I now say "find this and similar patterns"
Thanks for expanding your comment. But to what you explain here, I think your knowledge and comprehension has only slimmed down a notch. It seems to me that this argument equates thinking to be on the vertical vertices only, but may I say there is a horizontal/broad aspect to it? e.g. You lose grip on what is a good combination of framework/language/standards, you remove the abstraction of multiple layers of external and internal APIs, you leave to study the right software pattern for the job, having the AI comprehend the large chunks for you (thats all loss on thinking). You've lost simple querying and digging through codebase. Gosh, lets even say you lost a bit of git command knowledge. You catch my drift here? I am completely for using AI as a tool to do a lot of the boilerplate work with the right directions. Though remembering some changes in codebase before and letting LLMs do the work, is not the same to me as fully owning up to your system as you know, you actually know.
Old man shouting at screen so, to each their own of course! Cheers
Yeah, that seems curious. But nowadays, you can just ask. So I asked ChatGPT and it listed a wide variety of factors.
> Researchers generally group explanations into (1) cause-of-death differences, (2) exposure/behavior differences, (3) healthcare-use differences, and (4) biological differences.
>That 5 years difference between men and women keeps being biologically weird
The implication is that the "biological" expectation would be that men and women have the same life expectancy, absent medical intervention and societal standards and whatnot.
But it is possible that, due to having different biologies, men and women simply have different life expectancies. Similar to how men and women have different muscle mass and bone densities and height and yada yada.
Obviously, external factors could also be a factor, but my point is "internal" factors are also in play.
Ironically, the above link is a good discussion on biological differences in morbidity, which was the parent comment’s point, and not what I was trying to show.
I'm ignorant on the matter, but "vastly" seems a bit too much, given that a good chunk of medicine applies to both.
They are different, no doubt, but not the difference between a human and a crab.
5 years life expectancy difference is a lot. As a man, it is frustrating and I want to make sure I get the most out of my life (which I enjoy)
"A lot" is arbitrary, as would be the expectation that men and women would have the same longevity (absent medical intervention).
It seems evident that the taller you are, the less life expectancy you have from the simple fact that the heart has to work harder.
Hence, since men are usually taller than women, it might also be expected for men to die younger.
I am making the following scenario up, but what if a difference in men and women's bodies causes men to process cholesterol differently, and increases the probability of atherosclerosis and/or arteriosclerosis. Perhaps it happens simply because men eat more than women, and this compounds over decades of life, eventually resulting in the difference in average age at death.
Yeah, I personally believe women's longer lifespan mostly stems from a lower caloric intake. Studies have long suggested that reducing caloric intake can be one of the best things you can do for health and extending lifespan. And this has been shown true across many species including: yeast, worms, flies, mice, monkeys, fish, and others.
We also observe that larger animals tend to live longer than smaller animals, but intra-species it tends to be the opposite (e.g. small dogs tend to live slightly longer than large dogs). It also makes some sense biologically speaking, as we now know that most genetic mutations and errors happen during cellular reproduction when DNA is copied, and cellular reproduction rates correlate with nutrient uptake, alongside mutations with age.
Of course too much caloric restriction can be detrimental, but seems to me this could explain much of the difference in life expectancy between men and women. That and perhaps the genetic advantages from having two X chromosomes.
reply