I agree with this. I would add that the important part of the practice of writing is not the tools, but once you are writing you can try tools that help you continue. For my creative writing (that I do mostly as a hobby) I have a nice notebook with a nice pen that I use to write short stories and world building excercises, and characters, etc. I don't need the nice notebook, I did not get it before starting, but it does feel nice to come home having thought of what to write and have a pleasant notebook and pen.
My job includes writing technical documents but I use latex and emacs because that's what I have always used.
As I understand it, Intel's strength was in manufacturing their own design in their exclusive (and most advanced) process. So the advantage was being vertically integrated.
State of the art processes are too expensive these days. x86 CPUs alone cannot sustain them. Specially, when AMD builds their CPU also with state of the art processes.
So by becoming a foundry, Intel may be able to have state of the art fabs and use it in their own designs of x86 CPUs, GPUs, etc.
The use of standard cells for a process somewhat opens it for outside users.
The 80386 was the first use of standard cells for x86, which also introduced "automatic place and route" via a graduate student project named "Timberwolf."
I feel the statement "autistic people will never write a poem" may be trivially true, because (I suspect) many people will never write a poem. The implication that this is invalid or wrong is perverse. And the fact that now we have to argue for the dignity of autistic people by saying that there are autistic poets is also non-sensical.
These are all cruel suggestions about people, we should challenge why RFK makes statements like this. Not take them at face value, as if they merit being answered.
"And these are kids who will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job, they’ll never play baseball, they’ll never write a poem, they’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted." ... "Most cases now are severe. Twenty-five percent of the kids who are diagnosed with autism are nonverbal, non-toilet-trained, and have other stereotypical features."
Then pbs fact-checking is questioning the "twenty-five percent".
But he was talking about severe autism, and yet this seems to be morphing somehow into "RFK Jr says George Bernard Shaw didn't exist".
Thank you. Read the whole quote. He's just listing everyday things most people take for granted. Pointing out that these people won't be able to do them. Stupid to zero in on "write a poem". BTW, George Bernard Shaw did not have level 3 autism.
I'm pretty sure it's the opposite, and the rise in autism diagnoses is almost entirely people who overall function well in society and wouldn't have been diagnosed in the past.
So to me it would be very surprising if the ratio wasn't shifting away from serious cases of autism.
If that wasn't the case, and cases of actally disabling autism were on the rise, I'd think actual scientists would be trying to find the cause, yet all we ever hear from is conspiracy idiots trying to blame anything from vaccines to "the Jews" for autism.
Institutional knowledge stays in the institution and builds up after people have moved from those roles even.
Consulting companies bring the operational knowledge to help with a specific situation.
Sometimes you may need the institutional knowledge (if it aligns with the mission of the organisation) and sometimes it is better to concentrate on your mission and use the consultancy's knowledge to help you.
Blanket statements are problematic. Particularly for something as complex of the goverment as a whole.
The argument that it is tested 10 trillion times a day is a fallacy (because it can't be that only the most popular option should be the best forever).
And furthermore, in this context "tested" is a bit of an overstatement, I would say "used" many gazillions of times a day.
It is used so much across the board for FE and BE and CI and config.
Despite the heavy usage I
it hasn't been canned and I have never heard anyone at work complain about JSON for any reason.
You could say it is network effects but if it were crap you could replace it much more easily than say moving from Python to Java or whatever. Especially for internal microservice stuff and perhaps front end.
JSON and the tooling is basically solid. It is a non-concern.
Using is testing. The whole point of automated UI tests is to mimic usage.
A random click on a website might not be a great test, but it is a test nonetheless. And if it fails enough times, someone somewhere will be held accountable.
While I think (as others say) we should not police op's time, I would like to know what is the reasoning the used when choosing between focusing and not having all your eggs in one basket.
I think arguments by people making these choices would be very educational to me (as a person with a bit of a scatterd brain).
- A company I worked for wanted to be 100% focused on doing one thing. It was spending 10x more than it was making revenue. It went bankrupt.
- Another company I worked for always insisted on not having all eggs in one basket. There was one big revenue maker that dwarfed the others though. The company is still around and doing well.
I have quite a scattered brain too so I get the appeal of "choosing to focus". But looking others do it I see the risks : refusing to experiment and learn new stuff, or find new opportunities.
EDIT: I'd like to add that focusing or not focusing is not a useful dichotomy, it's more about finding the right "exploration vs exploitation" balance.
and furthermore, "families that are a bit off" are still plenty today, and people still do the best with what they got.
I don't see the need to say that was that way then...
Agree, and the bizarre things that the family members were into have simply been replaced with a new set of things. Arguably the only difference is back then they weren't thrown out on the streets due to high rents
Yes, but they tend to be 'off' in quite different ways. Crumb's father was the kind of hyper-repressed figure who for most of us nowadays only exists as a boogeyman character in fiction, but who was much more of a reality in the pre-1970 world.
The MVP shows if the idea would get traction. But what good is an idea that gets traction if it is unfeasible to scale, or the organisation is not willing to support it. I think this is what google does with many of its products that end up cancelled. They tested the MVP, people bought in, but the organisation already moved on, so there is no will to support and further develop it. We should be responsible and do an MVP only after deciding if the organisation would be able and interested to scale a product and support it. Otherwise, the downsides are a toxic crunch to support the product, customers are unhappy with yet another product dies, etc...
What do you mean? The article is about how they got FDA approval... Isn't that the way to go? As in, it's a much higher bar than having a medical license and insurance no?
My job includes writing technical documents but I use latex and emacs because that's what I have always used.
But practice > tools!