Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)OK
Posts
0
Comments
454
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • But that's what I'm saying, that choice is axiomatic. I think most people would agree, but it's a belief, not an unquestionable truth. You're choosing something to optimize and defining that to be good.

    I'm not really arguing against this tho (perhaps the choosing part, but I'll get to it). I'm saying that a goal post of "axiomaric universal good" isn't all that interesting, because, as you say, there is likely no such thing. The goal shouldn't therefore be to find the global maximum, but to have a heuristic that is "universal enough". That's what I tried to make a point of, in that the golden rule would, at face value, suggests that a masochistic should go around and inflict pain onto others.

    It shouldn't be any particular person's understanding, but a collectively agreed understanding. Which is in a way how it works, as this understanding is a part of culture, and differs from one to the other. Some things considered polite in the US is rude in Scandinavia, and vice versa. But, regardless, there will be some fundamentals that are universal enough, and we can consider that the criteria for what to maximise.

  • I think it is easy enough to argue without making it circular. As for "good", I don't think an objective absolute and universal definition is necessary.

    The argument would be to consider it an optimization problem, and the interesting part, what the fitness function is. If we want to maximise happiness and freedom, any pair of people is transient. If it matters that they be kind to you, it is the exact same reasoning for why you should be to kind to them. Kinda like the "do unto others", except less prone to a masochist going around hurting people.

  • There is a different side to this equation too. Locally sourcing production. There is no surplus stock that needs to be thrown unopened. No shipping of some part that solves some particular problem. Replacement parts can be made for things that would otherwise be cheaper to buy new and dump the old one, etc.

  • The license is with regards to "GOG Service", not "GOG Contents". You need the former to get access to the latter, sure. But what isn't clear about this?

    You still own the contents (though, as mentioned, individual titles may have additional blablabla). If you don't think this distinction makes sense when it comes to GoG vs Steam, then maybe you're just discussing something entirely different?

  • I believe that a significant factor for this can be attributed to mental development and maturity of boys lagging behind that of girls of the same age, during formative years. And, please read on, if you assume my argument is "boys dumb, conservatives dumb. Q.E.D."

    The second factor is an education system where this offset in mental development/maturity is further confounded. Boys don't typically do as well, because sitting idle and being a "good boy", is more challenging. This leads to a path for boys to start working earlier, while girls get higher degrees. (I assume the trends for higher education by gender, to be similar, if not, then that can falsify this hypothesis).

    What a person then observes they get from society, vs what you pay in terms of taxes, is skewed between these two groups, and highly correlated with gender.

    If this hypothesis has any validity to to it, then one could argue that a way to mitigate this is by correcting the negative causes. Where the fundamental root cause might be improved by revisiting how education is failing boys in particular.

    The challenge with this is that if the conservative parties' policies are driven by what can make more people vote conservative, then this will be a negative feedback loop. The worse you make it for a certain group of people that vote for you, the more that group is willing to vote for you.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Since you don't know your use case, I'll also mention a different approach that solved a similar problem, which is how I'd go about it if I needed color labels, a lot of labels, or special labels for outdoor use, etc.

    Which is to combine a normal, (in my case, a laser) printer, and use something like this: https://www.herma.co.uk/office-home/product/weatherproof-film-labels-a4-white-extremely-strong-adhesion-4581/

    The Herma brand were decent quality, and also had templates (see link example, a bit further down on the page). The downside is that you need to put in some effort. But if you want full control, high quality labels, that's not a bad way to do it.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Don't know if you'll get something for as low as $20, but a small thermal printer. Functions as a label maker on steroids, there is no ink, or proprietary paper. Some thermal paper rolls have built in stickers, some are transparent, some have special shapes and colors, etc.

    I've used it to label plants, tools, cables, boxes, so-so-many gridfinity boxes. It takes 1-2 seconds from hitting print to having it ready.

    not entirely the case, in that some have set sizes, or markings to automatically feed and count. However, these are low tech, and there are third party vendors.

  • My biggest gripe is the lack of respect/understanding for the importance of data models and clear domain boundaries.

    Most things that end up as "technical debt" can be traced to this. Sometimes, it's unavoidable, because what the data models changes, or the requirements of the domain, etc.

    And, it's very innocent looking differences sometimes. Like "We know that the external system state will change from A to B, so we can update that value on our side to B". Suddenly you have an implicit dependency that you don't express as such.

    Or, things like having enum that represents some kind of concept that isn't mutually exclusive. Consider enum values of A and B. Turns out this really represented AZ, and BP (for some inherent dependency to concepts Z and P). Someone later on extends this to include ZQ. And now, suddenly the concept of Z, is present in both AZ and ZQ, and some consumer that switches on concept Z, needs to handle the edge case of AZ... And we call this "technical debt".

  • I did eventually yes. Thanks for asking. I was exhausted yesterday, and upon reading my comment again, I get the downvotes. Being a second language doesn't fully explain the wrong tone there. The article was a lot more insightful and in depth than I had mistakenly assumed.

    After reading it tho, it seemed a lot more focused on performance than I think would be warranted. But that could be due to different concerns and constraints than where I'm used to working. I'd focus more on the mechanisms that best expresses the intent, and although they do discuss this well, the Venn diagram for the appropriate use of exceptions and error codes don't overlap as much in my world.

    And, it's not like I'm arguing that they are wrong. It's an opinion on a choice for a tradeoff that I only think, while allowing the possibility of being wrong, might miss the the mark. Stack unwinding is by its nature less explicit for the state it leaves behind. So it shouldn't be a question of either error codes or exceptions, but which are most appropriate to express what, and when.

    Even for Rust, where monads are preferred and part of the language to express and handle error codes, I would say that the statement of "newer languages like Rust don’t allow the use of exceptions", seems incorrect to me. Something like panic!("foo"); coupled with panic::catch_unwind(|| { ... } }); I believe would unwind the stack similar to that of a throw/catch.

    Anyways. Thanks for reminding me to actually read the post. It was well worth it, and very insightful.