Rapid prototyping works well in engineering, because you can test for faults quickly.
But transferring engineering practices into politics - which is not really new, "social engineering" has emerged again and again since the Enlightement Era - is usually a disaster.
In social contexts, people often cannot agree on what even constitutes a "fault" and how to measure outcomes. Individuals will adjust their behavior (unlike, say, a valve in a rocket engine, which can't consciously decide to sabotage the flight) and the systems tend to have long feedback loops.
This is a great example, an object lesson in something that is deeply misunderstood.
Running a company and running a government are fundamentally disparate things to the point of one set of skills being antithetical to the other, even though there is overlap in orthogonal skillsets
A company operates to extract value from employees (labor,automation,process, knowledge ) and concentrate and deliver that value to a minority set of individuals. Debts are costs to be paid. Cash surplus is power to act.
A government operates to -deliver- value to its constituents through redistribution of resources towards goals that are inherently cost centres. Debts are confidence in future economic growth and are not really ever paid in any real sense of the term, the monopoly game set doesn’t get richer or poorer when you move money around or print more bills. It only gets richer or poorer when you add or take away players, burn or draw in more properties or utilities, or melt or 3d print more houses and hotels. Cash surplus is useless and counterproductive.
The idea that business leaders will be effective political leaders is catastrophic. There is no more hopeless place to live than a country operated as an efficient and well planned business. At least in the chaos of Mogadishu or Haiti you can find the fetid seeds of opportunity to make something worthwhile, chaos creates pockets of opportunity and ad-hoc fiefdoms. Chaos is a ladder. A well oiled machine is a stifling factory farm, but for people.
Obviously you don’t want Mogadishu or Bechtel as your governance model, but the sweet spot is closer to Mogadishu, at least insofar as mandatory structures determining your life trajectory goes. Mogadishu is closer to a democracy than Bechtel. At least in Mogadishu it’s not a centralised power that threatens your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, just your neighbours. It’s at least conceptually transcendable.
This comment is harmfully lazy. Is your position that a three word prompt is equivalent to armchair trolls goi g through the funnel - finding a way to obtain DRM-controlled software, learning that software to sufficient levels to understand the tools required of how to perform something akin to a deep fake, and then somehow gaining the art talent and experience required to put it into practice? Did I just get baited?
The answer is that it's not okay and never was. Do you really think you're pulling a gotcha here?
Photoshopping nudes of your coworkers was always seen poorly and would get you fired if the right people heard about it. It's just that most people don't have the skill to do it so it never became a common enough issue for the zeitgeist to care.
I am not trying to pull a gotcha and I made no claim that it is okay or not okay. Don't suggest otherwise. I also wasn't talking about coworkers or any other particular group.
My argument is that it is either okay or not, regardless of the tools used.
Creating CSAM or non-consensual sexually explicit images of others in photoshop is immoral. If you can’t see that then you need to take an ethics course.
I think the main reason it isn't recommended for all ages is that it wears off. If you get it before 50, when your immune system starts declining, you might end up getting shingles when you're 60 or 70.
Insurance companies used to only pay for the vaccine at 60. They've reduced it to 50 now because people (like me) were getting it in their 50's. I got it in my left eye and because my immune system is kinda shit, I still have it, though it doesn't give me too much grief now. But it did trash my cornea in that eye, so it's messed my vision up pretty good. And since there's still an active infection (after 8 years), I can't get a cornea transplant.
My PCP actually recommended holding off until later in the 50s for this reason. There's not currently a booster so his suggestion was to play the odds & delay a bit in order to get longer protection in my elderly years.
Beg for forgiveness, don't ask permission. I got Shingrix when I was under the age of 40, and at no cost to myself even, simply by scheduling a Shingrix vaccine at CVS. It wasn't until I went back for the booster shot months later that the nurse was like "Wait, aren't you too young for this?", but they nevertheless gave me the second dose to complete the vaccine course. You can just so things.
I was unable to get a first dose just by asking the pharmacy -- they were happy to enforce the arbitrary 50 year age rule. But my PCP was happy to just prescribe it off-label. Do it; shingles is terrible and there's no reason to suffer it under 50.
Your average HN reader can absolutely afford paying a few hundred bucks to avoid getting a potentially life-changing disease, and should. I know multiple young adults who got messed up by shingles.
I do early returns in code I write, but ONLY because everybody seems to do it. I prefer stuff to be in predictable places: variables at the top, return at the end. Simpler? Delphi/Pascal style.
Early returns makes the code more linear, reduces conditional/indent depth, and in some cases makes the code faster. In short, it often makes code simpler. The “no early returns” is a soft version of “no gotos”. There are cases where it is not possible to produce good code while following those heuristics. A software engineer should strive to produce the best possible code, not rigidly follow heuristics even when they don’t make sense.
There is an element of taste. Don’t create random early returns if it doesn’t improve the code. But there are many, many cases where it makes the code much more readable and maintainable.
The "no early returns" rule came about because was a good rule in context, specifically C and FORTRAN code before roughly 1990. It was part of "structured programming", contemporary to "Go To Statement Considered Harmful", Dijkstra, 1968. And it became received wisdom - i.e. a rule that people follow without close examination.
For example of the rule, a function might allocate, do something and then de-allocate again at the end of the block. A second exit point makes it easy to miss that de-allocation, and so introduce memory leaks that only happen sometimes. The code is harder to reason about and the bugs harder to find.
source:
> A problem with early exit is that cleanup statements might not be executed. ... Cleanup must be done at each return site, which is brittle and can easily result in bugs.
About 90% of us will now be thinking "but that issue doesn't apply to me at all in $ModernLang. We have GC, using (x) {} blocks, try-finally, or we have deterministic finalisation, etc."
And they're correct. In most modern languages it's fine. The "no early returns" rule does not apply to Java, TypeScript, C#, Rust, Python, etc. Because these languages specifically made early return habitable.
The meta-rule is that some rules persist past the point when they were useful. Understand what a rule is for and then you can say when it applies at all. Rules without reasons make this harder. Some rules have lasted: we typically don't use goto at all any more, just structured wrappers of it such as if-else and foreach
> And they're correct. In most modern languages it's fine. The "no early returns" rule does not apply to Java, TypeScript, C#, Rust, Python, etc. Because these languages specifically made early return habitable.
Early return is perfectly manageable in C as long as you aren't paranoid about function inlining. You just have a wrapper that does unconditional setup, passes the acquired resources to a worker, and unconditionally cleans up. Then the worker can return whenever it likes, and you don't need any gotos either.
> In C, you just have a wrapper that does unconditional setup, passes the acquired resources to a worker, and unconditionally cleans up. Then the worker can return whenever it like
Right, so you allow early return only in functions that do not have any setup and clean-up - where it's safe. Something like "pure" functions. And you describe a way to extract such functions from others.
I remember having this argument with my professor at the school, who insisted that a function should have only one "return" clause at the very end. Even as I tried, I could not get him to explain why this would be valuable and how does this produce better code, so I'm interested on hearing your take on this?
It helps prevent bugs with state. The apple login bypass bug comes to mind.
Basically, you have code in an "if" statement, and if you return early in that if statement, you might have code that you needed to run, but didnt.
Forcing devs to only "return once" encourages the dev to think through any stateful code that may be left in an intermediate state.
In practice, at my shop, we permit early returns for trivial things at the top of a function, otherwise only one return at the bottom. That seems to be the best of both worlds for this particular rule.
> In practice, at my shop, we permit early returns for trivial things
Are you also writing C or similar? If so, then this rule is relevant.
In modern languages, there are language constructs to aid the cleanup on exit, such as using(resource) {} or try {} finally {} It really does depend on if these conveniences are available or not.
For the rest of us, the opposite of "no early return" is to choose early return only sometime - in cases where results in better code, e.g. shorter, less indented and unlikely to cause issues due to failure to cleanup on exit. And avoid it where it might be problematic. In other words, to taste.
> Kent Beck, Martin Fowler, and co-authors have argued in their refactoring books that nested conditionals may be harder to understand than a certain type of flatter structure using multiple exits predicated by guard clauses. Their 2009 book flatly states that "one exit point is really not a useful rule. Clarity is the key principle: If the method is clearer with one exit point, use one exit point; otherwise don’t".
For me it's mostly about indentation / scope depth. So I prefer to have some early exits with precondition checks at the beginning, these are things I don't have to worry about afterwards and I can start with the rest at indentation level "0". The "real" result is at the end.
Those who hold the money hold the power. Is rule by billionaires really democratic? Have you seen how easily they are wiping their asses with our democracy now that it’s convenient?
That’s a stretch. The billionaires weren’t democratically elected to anything, not even by our system where money buys influence and propaganda. No, they’re just rich.
No I am saying that the people wiping their asses with democracy have the support of the people and billionaires which suggests its not just billionaires overriding what people want. People have chosen this.
Roughly one third of eligible voters voted for Trump, one third for Harris, and one third abstained, presumably because they felt neither candidate represented them. In a government where money buys power that’s not a totally unreasonable take. Democrats for their part have blamed voters for their supposed stupidity - not themselves for failing to field an appealing candidate. They could have won on a left populist platform to counter Trump’s right populism (left wing populism has proven itself popular), but leftwing populism doesn’t sit well with Democrat financiers. Oligarchs like rightwing populism though. Populism (left and right) is itself an expression of the growing distrust people have toward their institutions and the sense people have of being squeezed economically. The ultra-wealthy are successfully capitalizing on this by using rightwing populism to dismantle democracy and consolidate power.
The wealthy wouldn’t spend their riches on propaganda if it weren’t effective. Trumpism appeals to primal emotions around family, religion, pride, safety, belonging.
Social media is tribalism and echo chambers. The “other side” appears ‘insane’ to each side when there’s no empathy.
I don't understand the downvotes - parent's right. All regimes today like to trumpet themselves as (exceedingly!!) democratic, the question is: are they? In my estimation, overall, communist countries have done significantly worse in this department. And yes, rule by the many people is the definition of democracy.
Same with monitors.
Either you stack huge piles of papers and work through the piles (with everything in the way all the time) or you spread them out in front of you.