Youtube comments of Muizz (@muizzy).
-
2300
-
IMO syntax is the least important skill in programming, and your ability to quickly look up and understand documentation is one of the most important skills. (Being good at algorithms helps too)
Sure, knowing all the syntax you need makes you faster, but most of the time I can't even remember the syntax of my own functions and objects. Yet if I remember the syntax of the, say, 20 things I use most, then there's no issue.
Also, whenever I switch from something like Python to C or the other way around, I'm going to make mistakes in bracketing if statements or (not) ending in a semicolon. The way I see it, anyone trying to argue that this is a necessarily bad thing hasn't got enough experience with current day programming.
All of this is to say that even though I agree with many of your points, the focus on syntax seems rather pointless to me.
523
-
164
-
156
-
83
-
77
-
59
-
57
-
@treatb09 There are a few questions here, which I'll try to answer.
* The clay is unique to the area and noone has been able to replicate the unique minerality of it. However, there are more clays which are very popular, such as Jianshui Zitao, Chaozhou, Qin Zhou Nixing and Zini clay. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, and each has its own unique properties and effects. Some potteries also blend clays for a profile unique to the pottery.
* The pour of a tea-pot is a refinement which is impossible to perfect. Especially with water being such a small molecule, bumps which are just a micron in size introduce some level of terbulence. So the artisan can only get asymptotically close to perfection, which means dealing with the law of diminishing returns, which skyrockets the price when you get to the very high-end.
* Many of the best pots come completely void of engraving. Many people (myself included) prefer that and consider engraving to be unnecessary fluff.
* The prices quoted in this video are a little misleading. China knows an "Elite" which spends inordinate amounts of money on tea (think $100 / gram --> $1k+ per session). The prices quoted here are specifically for tea pots catering to that particular group. For the more sensible amongst us, though (generally $0.15-$1 / gram), there are plenty master craftsman options around the $200 price range.
46
-
37
-
34
-
33
-
29
-
28
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
17
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think you're on very slippery ice when you have any sentence of the form "X is just Y"; it is bound to oversimplify the relation you're trying to establish.
For example, I have been committed to the same partner for 6 years and haven't had any secondary relationships, yet strongly identify as poly. Why? Because I value my agency to the point where I feel uncomfortable in any setting where my actions are (implicitly) restricted.
You do note a few statements in this discussion that I would like to also touch on:
"sex should just be a perk in a relationship":
I'm not fully sure how to interpret this, but what jumps out about this comment to me is the phrasing "should just be"; why should is be that way? Is there any physical reason for this, or is it something mental? If it is something mental, why would it be universal? This phrasing often (though not always) indicates that the exclaimer hasn't spent their time thinking about the implications and hence assumes the status quo.
"And if it’s loving multiple people, then yes, being polyamorous is not wanting to commit.":
I have to assume you mean romantic love here, because I find it hard to grasp that this includes the love one feels for friends. This sentence points to a very narrow definition of commit though, so I want to highlight this. If you mean commit as "committing to exactly one person", then you are right (though it would be rather crudely phrased). However, the way most people read the word commit is as "committing to a relationship", in which case there are a plethora of cases where people commit long term in poly relationships, marrying is not out of the ordinary, nor is having kids. If neither of those are clear commitments to a relationship, then nothing could be.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Everyone's in it for the money, that's how the world works.
If you have a solution to climate change that costs more than it gains in direct value, it's a bad one. After all, we see noone walking around telling people to not use cars, lights, computers, phones, electricity, heating etc. It's just not worth it.
The challenge lies in researching and designing products and methods that are economically beneficial. If a company can spend 2 milion on fitting their roof with solar panels and they pay themselves off in 25 years, most large companies will want them. Decrease the cost to 1 milion and the time to pay themselves off to 10 years and almost all companies will want them.
But if you get the panels for free, and only pay a yearly maintenance cost of 10 000 even though they only save you 8 000, you won't want them. I know I wouldn't want them.
The key lies in designing solutions that are cheaper, more efficient and have no downsides. If you can't achieve that it's mainly a symbolic gesture. That philosophy is what makes Tesla such a big deal in combating climate change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I watched the whole video, and I understand your argument, but it's also mute. Here's why:
1) You explicitly say that you shape recipes around "chunk" ingredients like how much pasta there is in a box of pasta. You then argue that the fluid ingredients change based upon this and make a song and dance about how rounding would screw with the proportions. What you forget to include in your analysis, is that you can just scale a pound to 500 grams and scale all the fluid ingredients by the same amount, without rounding. Suddenly, this argument is fixed.
2) At the end of your video, you mention that a tablespoon in different countries means something else. I'd like to point out two things here. First, this means that for anyone reading your recipe and following along in, say, Europe, who has imperial measuring tools, will still mess quantities like a tablespoon up. Second, these quantities (like the entire imperial system) is already defined in terms of the metric system.
3) Beyond point 2, a much more important argument against imperial recipes is that they are unreliable by virtue of being based on volume. Say we were making brownies and the recipe asks for 1 cup of cocoa powder. If my powder is ground finer than yours, I will be adding more cocoa to my brownies than you will. This also goes for things like rice and pasta, or anything which either has variable size, or variable density. Another example may be brown sugar: Do you just loosely pour it into the cup, or do you compress it? Both are exactly a cup, but both have wildly differing quantities. This is why even US bakers have standardized on the metric system: Expressing ingredients in grams ensures that your brownies and my brownies are exactly the same, even if our ingredients may differ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Which is why it's not an interval. An (open) interval (a,b) is a collection of points x such that a<x<b. S^0 just has 2 points, -1, and 1. Not the points in between. So he's not right as it is not an interval but the set {-1,1} (pick x = 0, then x does not lie in S^0 but x does lie in [-1,1])
The line segment you seem to have in mind would be the half open line segment [0, 2pi) (or (0, 2pi] ) which in topology may be glued together under an equivalence relation that equates in the following way: x and y are equivalent if and only if x mod 2pi = y mod 2pi. This would result in a space that is topologically equivalent to a circle. That said, it is not actually a circle, but just something that can be made to look like it. (You need distance for a sphere which is not a priori present in a topological space.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Usually, you have very strong arguments for things, but these sound fairly weak to me. Most of them seem to come from a fundamental disagreement: I believe that recipes exist to ensure repeatability. While it seems like you believe recipes exist to teach the cook a dish.
In that light, I'd counter-argue the points you made like this:
1. Eye-balling, though great for everyday cooking, has no place in the "formal" system of a recipe; as it decreases reproducibility.
2. This is a valid argument towards the quality of life, but not one towards the quality of the recipe.
3. This is mostly a non-argument. Assuming the worst case of a mixing bowl to which you need to add extra wet and dry ingredients, you're still only left with 1 mixing bowl to wash up (which you'd need to do anyway), and one small measuring bowl. (Dry can be weighed before wet.) The difference in washing up is minimal.
4. You debunked this one yourself. Having 2 scales, one for heavy things, and one for light things, is not an objection when you're comparing the space it occupies to a bunch of measuring cups. Using 2 scales like that also ensures higher accuracy than volume; even in small quantities.
5. This is why I believe we have very different views of recipes. The recipes I write and maintain are after many iterations of trial and error, getting a little closer to perfection every time. They're made for me and my friends, not because I don't know how to make a creme brulee, but because this exact version of creme brulee is the best I have thus far managed to make.
1
-
@uziboozy4540 Unfortunately, a distributed database just improves the reliability of the single point of failure, but does not eliminate it. In situations like this, a startup is often better off using an off-the-shelf database like dynamoDB or even firebase that provides a high availability SLA, often around 99.999%.
If, however, your usecase requires an in-house database, and you choose a monolithic database, there are still a plethora of issues that can occur which will hurt the availability of your entire application. Examples of this include network level authentication issues, failure in registering the database, failed upgrades, data corruption, access control failures, and if you're working with PII you're opening an entirely new can of worms which can make maintaining a monolithic database infeasible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hmm, I suppose my job doesn't exist then.
But look, screw the arguing on meaningless points. You're clearly in distress, and rightfully so. Having gone through personal bankruptcy myself, I know exactly what it's like to have no money; to the point of some asshat with their desk-job telling you exactly what you can and can't spend money on, and how much.
The fact of the matter is that there's only one way out, and it's stressful, it's tiring, and it seems both impossible and pointless at the same time.
The first step is to build a habit of budgeting and build an emergency fund. This seems pointless, but you do it to give yourself breathing room.
From there it depends on your personal situation, and yes, sometimes that means you need to work on weekends to get extra cash. At $15/h, you'd need to work an extra 4 hours per week to reach $200/month. Are you telling me that's impossible?
I can't give a lot of insight without knowing your exact situation, but if you want, I'd be happy to take a look at your exact situation with you and help make a plan to get out. Just pop me an email at a1350997 [at] gmail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Psych2go Originally (afaik), the technique was suggested to be used with particularly volatile employees, as a way to reduce that volatility by obfuscating the critique while still providing it. I'm not sure why it became so popular, but in my experience, the compliment sandwich is more focussed around managing the emotional state of the critiquer than the person being critiqued.
As noone wants to feel like the bad guy, it becomes a defense mechanism to obfuscate your message along the lines of "I really like X about you, though perhaps you could do Y better, but Z is also really great!". The rapid-fire barage of topics almost turns the critique into a "hot potato": The shorter it is and the less focus it gets, the less you have to feel like the bad guy. (And noone can blame you for not having given critique.) Unfortunately that also means the message is likely to get lost, or you come off as being deceptive / ingenuine.
When it comes to managing the emotional state of the critiqued, I don't think I've heard anyone recount a situation in which the compliment sandwich was used on them, and they appreciated it. Though if this does not align with your experience, I'd love to learn about it! Particularly around what you appreciated about the technique being used.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1