You couldn't go far on those early Prius batteries. I had a circa-2009 Prius and semi-intentionally ran out of gas to see what happened. I was able to drive a couple of miles to a gas station, but the battery was depleting extremely quickly, and I doubt it would have lasted ten minutes.
These interactions really don't get the testing they need.
When they aren't designed, how do you know how to test?
Over the weekend, I was directed to file a police report with a chatbot and could not complete it because it was asking for information that did not exist and did not apply to my case.
(I'm sure somebody is going to say that this can be solved by having LLMs role play as victims and have an LLM observe and decide what's a failing test case and what isn't.)
This is exactly it. That's why the glasses have the same basic form (stem, bowl, and tapered rim) as wine glasses and snifters. The liquid sits in the bowl, and the aroma is captured in the empty space between the liquid and the rim.
I think it's important to think about architectural and domain bounds on problems and check if the big-O-optimal algorithm ever comes out on top. I remember Bjarne Stroustrup did a lecture where he compared a reasonably-implemented big-O-optimal algorithm on linked lists to a less optimal algorithm using arrays, and he used his laptop to test at what data size the big-O-optimal algorithm started to beat the less optimal algorithm. What he found was that the less optimal algorithm beat the big-O-optimal algorithm for every dataset he could process on the laptop. In that case, architectural bounds meant that the big-O-optimal algorithm was strictly worse. That was an extreme case, but it shows the value of testing.
Domain bounds can be dangerous to rely on, but not always. For example, the number of U.S. states is unlikely to change significantly in the lifetime of your codebase.
Anecdotally, what we found in Austin was a combination of two factors:
First, awareness of the futility and selfishness of "growth elsewhere" as a solution is much higher in younger people — and by younger, I mean currently under fifty. Generational turnover in Austin had been eating away at the NIMBY majority, and conversations about housing in Austin have long been polarized more by age than by left/right political sentiment. There's a caricature, with a strong vein of truth, of the old Austin leftist who has Mao's little red book on their shelves and thinks apartment buildings are an abomination, and Austinites of that generation are experiencing mortality. At the same time, younger people are adopting more and more urbanist mindsets compared to their parents.
However, I think a much much bigger factor was the influx of younger people, especially young people with experience of larger cities, diluting the votes of the older NIMBYs. Austin has been shaped by growth for half a century, but its "discovery" in the 2000s and very brief status as a darling of coastal hipsters (remember that term?) has had a lasting effect on Austin's popularity and its demographics. It's been twenty years since it was the "it" place for Brooklynites to visit, but in that twenty years, it's had a lot of exposure for young urban dwellers, and some of them discovered they liked it and moved here, bringing their comfort with dense living and their appreciation that growth can bring a lot of positives.
Personally, every homeowner I know in Austin has seen their houses depreciate significantly this decade, and I don't think it changed a single person's mind about Austin's housing policy. People who opposed the reforms are bitter about the outcome, and people who supported the reforms say it sucks for us personally, but it's what we set out to accomplish, and we're glad that it worked.
People see lower property taxes as a silver lining for short-term swings in the market, but I don't know anybody who thinks this is a short-term swing that they can ride out.
Nobody is happy about their property values going down long term. It exposes them to the risk of a big loss if they're forced to sell because of events in their life.
> Austinites of that generation are experiencing mortality.
This is such a funny and novel way of saying "old people in Austin are dying" I just had to point it out.
Also, I like the way this comment is written in general. Felt easy to read for its length, and most importantly the tone stayed fun and personal while still being informative and on topic.
I think it's fine and generous that he credited these rules to the better-known aphorisms that inspired them, but I think his versions are better, they deserve to be presented by themselves, instead of alongside the mental clickbait of the classic aphorisms. They preserve important context that was lost when the better-known versions were ripped out of their original texts.
For example, I've often heard "premature optimization is the root of all evil" invoked to support opposite sides of the same argument. Pike's rules are much clearer and harder to interpret creatively.
Also, it's amusing that you don't hear this anymore:
> Rule 5 is often shortened to "write stupid code that uses smart objects".
In context, this clearly means that if you invest enough mental work in designing your data structures, it's easy to write simple code to solve your problem. But interpreted through an OO mindset, this could be seen as encouraging one of the classic noob mistakes of the heyday of OO: believing that your code could be as complex as you wanted, without cost, as long as you hid the complicated bits inside member methods on your objects. I'm guessing that "write stupid code that uses smart objects" was a snappy bit of wisdom in the pre-OO days and was discarded as dangerous when the context of OO created a new and harmful way of interpreting it.
I guess what I mean by that is that Rob Pike was obviously aware that his rules were not as catchy and pithy as the aphorisms he credited, and his only reason for writing his rules was to improve on them by making them more explicit and less prone to user error. But presenting his versions alongside the more catchy ones means that every time people read them, the catchy ones distract attention and remain more memorable than the improved versions.
The other reasons given make sense to me, but I bet there is also some psychological benefit in having a regularly scheduled escape from home, and having a guilt-free excuse for it built in, which partly compensates for being forced to come in a few days a week. The contrast makes it easier to appreciate the company of your spouse and probably makes child-rearing seem less oppressive. People theoretically could manage this without work imposing it on them, but in practice, having to make and justify the choice creates stress.
Escape from home is healthy. But not when you are escaping into the office. It’s healthy to escape for a hike, for groceries, to take a walk, go to the gym, etc.
My degree is in math, I love Dijkstra, and I think a lot of my colleagues have often created more work than necessary for themselves by treating pieces of code empirically when they could have got a more precise understanding by spending an hour reading it carefully.
However, I think the most fascinating thing about Dijkstra is how wrong he turned out to be in his prediction that an empirical approach would not scale.
I suspect that approaching programming like Dijkstra might have paid off long-term, but it was rarely a good deal in the short term, both for bad reasons (the empirical approach is a quicker and cheaper way to create buggy software that we can sell and claim as achievements on our performance reviews) and valid reasons (the unreliability of humans and hardware ultimately forces us to approach real computer systems, which are always a composite of hardware, software, and humans, empirically anyway.)
Bullshit is so dangerous because it could mean something. That VP could mean, it's time to look beyond the set of mature technologies we've been considering and look at newer technologies that we would normally ignore because they come with risks and rough edges and higher cost of ownership.
So it might be a substantive decision that affects how everybody in the room will do their jobs going forward. Or it could be a random stream of words chosen because they sound impressive, which everyone will nod respectfully at and then ignore. And like an LLM, he might have made it into his current position without needing to know the difference.
Correct, and in my opinion we seem to have a cutting edge machine, the best available. So it was BS. What was really troubling them is that for years the operational delivery part of the business has saved everyone else by finding more and more effiencies. I had stated that it was no longer cost effective to spend the money on the diminishing returns of squeezing tiny %s more out of it. The room took on a complete silence, because their strategy (of leaving it to someone else) has gone. Much harder tasks, what goes through the machine, how it is sold, need to come to the fore... and that is terrifying for people who PowerPoint for a living... so instead, they break the silence with BS, nod, pretend it's not happening.
Most anime is either a guilty pleasure or a guilty displeasure for me. The stuff I like, I feel embarrassed of the part of me that likes it, and I feel embarrassed about what I'm willing to overlook to enjoy it. Then the stuff I don't like, I feel closed-minded about it, like what's wrong with me that I'm too stuffy to enjoy it or too dumb to get it. But I don't have friends or acquaintances who are into it, so it never comes up with other people, and I generally don't think about it.
Oh I understand this one too much as a fan of the Isekai genre. So much slop and poorly done power fantasies. But some amazing content in there. Then I look at something like One Piece and not really vibing with it at all despite being overwhelmingly popular.
reply