When you take the decision, you may not have enough information to know if it's going to be good or not. But when you took the decision and still refusing to know how much it costed you and how it influenced company finances - it's just willful ignorance and unwillingness to face the facts. That is never good. For the sake of Apple shareholders I hope Cook actually knows the figures he was asked for, and refusing to publish them just as a PR move, to gain some fanboy love from bashing an unpopular target. Because if they genuinely spend money and refuse to count them, it's not good for the company.
OS X is case-insensitive in the FS by default, so I guess that's a win? You'll never notice it until one day you lose a file when you're unpacking an archive from another platform that has different files named Makefile, makefile, and MAKEFILE (not that I'm condoning that practice).
More importantly, case folding is complicated or ill-defined in some non-English languages, and there are presumably edge cases in the algorithms. So it gets harder to tell what any given code will do.
Sure, it's fun to write code like this: Circle circle = Circle.CIRCLE; But were I to use a case-insensitive language, I'm pretty sure I'd get comfortable not being able to do so.
Sounds like the kind of thing you should try before advocating it.
If I save someone a million dollars and they give me $10k,
just to pick a random example, it doesn't matter how "skilled" I am. I created a whole ton of value that's easily measured in dollars (in this case), and I take home a piece of it. You could say I must be skilled at something; making money, if nothing else.
As long as an individual can own a company or part of a company (capitalism), and given that companies regularly create a huge amount of value out of thin air, some individuals will be entitled to a fraction of the value created. It's that simple.
Mtgox is the giant raging zit on the face of Bitcoin. The software and service are so terribly, inexcusably bad, and they have always been that way. The market price on Mtgox has been artificially high ever since I can remember, because no one can withdraw their money. Users wait for their withdrawals for weeks, and sometimes months. As a result, a dollar in your Mtgox account is worth less than a dollar. Now it is artificially low, because people can't transact Bitcoins either! The other exchanges, meanwhile, tend to agree pretty closely, because it is actually possible to move bitcoins and dollars between them.
Imagine if ETrade, say, was so bad at moving money that you had to pay an extra $100 for a share of Google stock. That's what it's like. Or if everyone used Google's DNS servers but they typically took 3 seconds to respond. And yet people use Mtgox, and talk about it, and it's listed on all the sites and apps that track the market price on different exchanges.
At first, everyone chalked up Mtgox's problems to the sheer difficulty of running a Bitcoin exchange, and then, to the difficulty of running the biggest. Well, now it's no longer the only or the biggest exchange, and no one else is having the same problems, at least at this service-destroying level. I can't comment on the difficulty of establishing relationships with banks to move millions of dollars -- I'm sure it's hard -- but Mtgox has also had a lot of plain old scaling issues, and the transaction load is not even that high by web scaling standards. Last time I checked it was 30 per second or so. Their security is nothing special; they've been hacked before. I have heard only negative things about their engineering competence.
I'm a casual fan of Bitcoin but a big hater of bad software, bad customer service, and companies that act in a sleazy manner. I hope Mtgox dies.
PG's essay and this one are complementary. PG adds a valuable piece which is to question the idea that work is generally or largely unpleasant by nature. Both authors agree we must get over our momentary discomforts and press ahead to lead a fulfilling life. PG doesn't really say how, only how to recognize intellectually that it's necessary. Extrapolating what he says into procrastination advice, you might end up with "remember your goals" and "be able to delay gratification."
"Letting go" is a particular in-the-moment experience that is very valuable to understand. It sort of looks like "sucking it up" but it's a release rather than a bottling up, so it's right at the heart of the issue of managing your energy and willpower well rather than flailing around and beating yourself up in response to the pressures and goals you are laboring under.
I hope people invent lots of new ways to do things, and I hope the go-to software of five years from now is not the go-to software of today. I hope we aren't using jQuery and Mongo in ten years.
There are much more clear-cut examples of math in programming than this.
3D graphics requires matrices, and more. You'll find blog posts all over the Net of game programmers teaching themselves quaternions. You don't have to be writing a physics engine to need them, just using one. Even 2D graphics often requires pretty fancy high school math, like testing whether a point is in a polygon.
Proofs. Especially when defining new data types, you often want to prove that certain properties hold in a pretty rigorous manner. If you've never had to prove anything before, even at high school geometry level, it seems unlikely you'd sit down and do this. Or maybe that's completely wrong, and proving things about code is just a programming skill like debugging. It seems worth mentioning, however, because proofs come from the domain of mathematics and require a huge amount of creativity sometimes.
Easing functions for animation; being able to reason about binary and modular arithmetic; having enough foundational knowledge to say sensible things about compression and cryptography. If you do anything in robotics, control systems, or simulation -- differential equations.
If you're not doing anything with numbers, graphics, or data structures, you might be safe.
> all over the Net of game programmers teaching themselves quaternions
That's what I did too, but I didn't think of it as math. It seemed like a cool trick for working with arrays of floats — not math.
"Math" I knew from school was always boring and useless. I was told to memorize formulas that did some abstract operations on on other things I had to memorize — nobody told me I could be rotating spaceships in 3D!
The author is the snob, by calling intellectual, creative, ivory-tower sort of work "lovable" and all the rest "unlovable." News flash: Some people prefer taking care of babies to running a giant corporation. In fact, if you happen to love babies and have a real knack for it, hanging out with a baby all day and taking home a paycheck is a pretty good gig if you can get it. Similarly, many Uber drivers I talk to are thrilled with their business, which lets them support their family while being their own boss and setting their own hours, and all they have to do is drive a car around town.
I'm not saying diapers are fun (I have a newborn); obviously not every moment of every job is "lovable," and a little grit and mettle is required. I'm also not saying people who "love" their work would do it for free. Some would, but that's way too high a standard for the present conversation. We're talking about individual career choice, not abolishing money in the world.
Yes, "do what you love" is an ideal, an aspiration, but it's a lot less dehumanizing, more practical, and more empowering than whatever it replaces. (Get a college degree, get a job, follow the rules, and you'll retire rich?) If employers have to at least try to make an argument that they provide an environment conducive to personal growth and that you'll have a positive impact on the world by working there, that's great.
How insulting and invalidating is it for the author to assume "workers" must be miserable, even if the workers themselves don't know it? It's the elitist version of "those poor, miserable atheists." Or: "Those poor, miserable programmers who have jobs rather than starting a start-up. They've actually been brainwashed to think they're happy. They say they like programming!" Or: "Those poor stay-at-home moms, squandering their potential at the whim of the patriarchy. They will never know the true fulfillment that comes from a high-powered career."
Be careful what assumptions you bring to the table. You might be the asshole.
You completely miss what I see as the aim of the article. There are people that want to take care of their kids, as that is what they "love." There are virtually no people that get paid to take care of their kids.
That is, society, especially one that promotes "do what you love" does not value raising your kids. And since we are discussing this in the terms of "do what you love [and you will find success]", the whole bloody point is this odd assertion that people that have not been successful are not "doing what they love" and a deconstruction of it.
To its conclusion, you seem to merely be violently agreeing with the article.
I meant taking care of other people's kids. No one pays you to sit in traffic for yourself, either, or write software for yourself, for that matter. If we lived in some fantasy society with no money, maybe people would take care of their own kids and not other people's, but that's not the question at hand. Also, it's probably false. Watching each other's kids makes a lot of sense with or without money.
The question at hand is whether "doing what you love" will "leave you satisfied." And, further, that this is "as true for your work life as it is your lovers."
Consider that society, by and large, does not put a ton of value in "sitting around taking care of other peoples kids." Nor does it put a lot of value in teaching said kids. Sure you can make enough to survive, but it is a frustrating position that is often rather thankless and not at all acknowledged.
Yet, those people should bugger off because if "they truly loved what they were doing they would be satisfied." Right?
There's nothing particularly novel or unique about holding the belief that a mathematical model of reality is the same thing as reality. Discussions on HN reveal that many commenters hold this belief, arguing, for example, that a "virtual" universe simulated on a supercomputer would be indistinguishable from a real (or the real) universe.