This is great. If you enjoyed it you should check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IEGmD_aV3w . Next to that it’s child’s play. That’s a whole trasatlantic’s engine room from scratch.
I'm not a go developer and this kind of thing is far from my area of expertise. Do you mind giving some examples?
As far as I can tell skimming the code, and as I said, without knowledge of Go or the domain, the "shape" of the code isn't bad. If I got any vibes (:))from it, it was lack of error handling and over reliance on exactly matching strings. Generally speaking, it looks quite fragile.
FWIW I don't think the conclusion is wrong. With limited knowledge he managed to build a useful program for himself to solve a problem he had. Without AI tools that wouldn't have happened.
There's a lot about it that isn't great. It treats Go like a scripting language, it's got no structure (1000+ lines in a single file), nothing is documented, the models are flat, no methods, it hard codes lots of strings, even the flags are string comparisons instead of using the proper tool, regex compiles and use inlined, limited device support based on some pre-configured, hard-coded strings, some assumptions made on storage device speeds based on its device name: nvme=fast, hdd=slow, etc.
On the whole, it might work for now, but it'll need recompiling for new devices, and is a mess to maintain if any of the structure of the data changes.
If a junior in my team asked me to review this, they'd be starting again; if anyone above junior PRd it, they'd be fired.
This is the stuff nightmares are made of. We already live in a you have nothing to hide society. Now imagine one where mega corps and the government have access to every thought you have. No worries, you got nothing to hide right? What would that do to our thought process and how we articulate our inner selfs? What do we allow ourselves to even think? At some point it will not even matter because we will have trained ourselves to suppress any deviant thought. I'd rather not keep on going because the ramifications of this technology make me truly sick in the stomach.
I read this and of course couldn't believe it. Isn't 14.7B enough to be considered extremely rich these days[1]? In the the Forbes real-time billionaires list is quite easy to find _many_ such examples.
The Moon also plays currently a very special role in my life and my work days are dictated to a large extent by the current Moon phase :)
It's not discussed in the article but we have detailed models (ROLO[0] and LIME[1]) for how much light is reflected from the Moon and can be captured by a telescope. Like this one can radiometrically calibrate a telescope, that is, find a mapping between the digital numbers coming out from the sensor and actual radiance values.
At my current employer, Kuva Space, I'm among other things responsible for the commisioning and in orbit calibration of the payload. The Moon is a major calibration target for us, and between waxing and waining crescents I spent a lot of time analyzing Moon shots to perform radiometric calibration and camera parameter optimizations. The Moon doesn't know about weekends and images are not always downlinked at the most convenient times so that makes my life a bit more hectic.
My wife is a social worker at the county welfare office and swears there is a strong correlation between phase of the moon and the nature of her work with the homeless. To the point where where she checks the calendar to schedule more time for crisis handling around the time of the full moon.
No, this is not correct. WLOG means: I assume one of the possible cases, but the proof works the same way for other cases. But that's not true here. The proof, as shown, only works for a>b>0, it does not work (without extra work or explanation) for a<b. The proof for a<b is similar, but not the same.
[And it certainly does not show it for a,b element of C]
WLOG just means the other cases follow from the one case. There is no implication about how hard it is to get to the other cases, although generally it is easy and you don't bother spelling it out exactly.
This is not what I meant. What is being proved is: a^2-b^2 - (a+b)(a-b) = 0. If you swap a and b you end up with a sign switch on the lhs which is inconsequential.
That is not what the proof proves. The proof proves the equivalence how it was originally stated, and assumes for that b<a.
Your rewriting is of course true for all a,b and might be used in an algebraic proof. But this transformation is not at all shown in the geometric proof.
> is that you can swipe left and right on the space bar to quickly and accurately scroll left and right in a text field. I find this about as fast as tapping at a position in a text field, but much more accurate
I recently learned about a hidden iphone feature. If you hold the spacebar for about halve a second you can move freely the cursor around any text field.
reply