I'm not the same person. But a vaccine which doesn't actually provide lasting immunity is a really shit vaccine. And while I wouldn't say that means it doesn't deserve to be called a vaccine at all, certainly many people think that.
No, it’s not. The tetanus vaccine saves lives and must be redone every so often. The cholera vaccine as well. There are many excellent vaccines that save lives that require boosters.
I am obsessively pedantic about grammar and spelling, in code and in English. I have a firm personal preference about how to spell "cancelled"--I like two Ls.
The only reason I'd ever consider telling someone that "canceled" is wrong is if the other spelling was firmly established in the actual codebase. Not in comments. And absolutely not with the ridiculous claim that the language you're coding in has opinions about how to spell your comments.
> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
Most of us job-hop because we have to, not because we want to.
There's a class of people in the tech industry who like to write blogs about how fun and fulfilling it is to constantly change jobs and roles. Those people are highly visible but not representative. Most humans find constant change and uncertainty stressful, not exhilarating.
I can't get past the second paragraph, where he introduces "Chiang's Law." I click through for the definition:
> This law can be stated compactly as: science fiction is about strange rules, while fantasy is about special people.
Anyone who believes that has not read much of either. And the writer admits this immediately:
> Whether the story is about spaceships or dragons is irrelevant.
I have a hard time listening to someone who use established terminology to refer to some completely orthogonal concept, in a context guaranteed to cause confusion, for no reason except to snipe at a genre they don't like, for reasons they know are neither fundamental to nor unique to that genre.
Reminds me of a few years ago, when a bunch of people were breathlessly claiming that blockchain was the future of videogames, because it would let you transfer items from one game to another. Take your favorite Skyrim sword and use it in Minecraft, or whatever.
So I'd point out that that had been technically possible for decades, no blockchain necessary, and the reason it hadn't happened was that no developer actually wants it. And then they'd get super mad and call me names.
I'm afraid the AI bros are going to do more real-world damage than the crypto bros did, though.
