Crying wolf requires him to have been wrong (or lied). I think that GP was asking you for evidence of _that_, not of evidence that Linus has ranted in the past.
From memory, I can't recall a time where his ranting was not justified, but he has been wrong a couple of times. Unless I'm missing something blatant, that doesn't constitute "crying wolf" to me.
The parable of the boy crying wolf is not about lies but about desensitizing your audience to what you are saying. I've read enough of the rants to know there is very little signal to all the noise he makes.
The grsecurity stuff could be bad but I sure as hell am not gonna get my analysis from Linus. If he acted more like a grown up then maybe but he doesn't. He character assassinates and then says you are doing silly pointer arithmetic. Can just mention the pointer stuff without shouting and screaming at author of the patch.
The drama in kernel dev is a direct result of his abrasive approach. He screams and shouts so grsecurity screams and shouts. Everyone else loses. The kernel dev space needs less drama and more grown ups.
> The parable of the boy crying wolf is not about lies but about desensitizing your audience to what you are saying.
... Because the little boy was lying. If there really was a wolf every time he said there was they would consider him a brilliant scout rather than an untrustworthy source of information.
It's strange that it's necessary to explain children's parables on HN.
> The kernel dev space needs less drama and more grown ups.
I don't disagree with that, I just don't agree with saying that Linus is crying wolf. Because you don't appear to understand what it means.
The term “Crying Wolf” implies the very specific and extreme accusation of lying. Ranting, or even ranting then reversing course are very different from lying.
I find the juxtaposition of productive and capitalism odd. The entire point of capitalism is to slush money around. That is the definition of productivity in capitalism but somehow some people got the money part mixed up with "value" and now they need fancy mental gymnastics to explain how the system working as intended is in fact not working.
Basic system theory 101 says if you work with and optimize a proxy instead of the true metric then you will always deviate from your true and intended path. Money is only a proxy for value and some people did not get the memo. You need some second and third order correction terms if you use proxies.
As noted by others the annotations would be active checks. More like proofs in coq than static text. That way you'd be building up a logical understanding of the code base that was machine verifiable sidestepping the issue of stale comments.
If done properly this could even feed into code dynamics to capture information on the runtime information. So that at every point in the program you could start asking questions like how many times did this line execute, what was the type of this variable at this point, how much memory was allocated, and so on and so forth.
Seems like youve just abstracted things like static typing into a extension of the language thats checked at a less optimal time. At this point arent you better off just using a language that incorporates this functionality and compiles it? Sounds like youve just implemented static typing but in a really akward and unecessary way
Guess you could have some assertions together with the annotations to make sure things are up-to-date. Then integrate those tests with your CI of choice and it should be a bit easier to keep up-to-date.
I really want something like this for heterogenous codebases. Maybe along the lines of ollydbg and ida but for "reverse" engineering Ruby, python, and go.
Would you be willing to host your critical infrastructure on your direct competitors platform? Wouldn't you be worried about them pulling the rug out from under you?
So don't go into student debt. Go to your local community college and then transfer somewhere affordable. I've now worked with grads from all over the place. I honestly can't tell the difference.
There are a LOT of factors that you're not considering with that statement. For some (many?), the decision isn't that easy. Here's why:
- Are you going to college to escape a really bad situation at home?
- Are you going to college because your local community college isn't good at preparing you for a four-year college and has a bad/incompatible atmosphere?
- Are you going to college because you'll be ostracized by your family (that you love very much) if you don't, even if you (or they) can't afford it?
- Are you going to college because the study that you feel is your life calling can only properly begin at a reputable four year?
At the end of the day, you will be the one in debt. It's your own stupid fault for giving into those pressures if they're exerted upon you. You shouldn't buy something you can't afford, no matter what. If you choose to, you are responsible for the consequences. That's all.
Some curriculum is specialized from the get-go. I don't think I wouldn't been able to get the same quality introductory foundational computer science courses -- into to programming, data structures & algorithms, & object-oriented programming at a community college. Possible observation bias, but a generalized community college education will only take out liberal arts classes. And you weren't spending those semesters building up your hard skills necessary for industry. For a bachelor's, that would leave you with just 2 years to really refine the craft. And I think most people need 4 years of academic programming experience before going into industry. You need to see enough and have established a basic level of experience to make quality judgment calls when working on enterprise software.
Community college alum here, currently going into my senior year at a 4-year university.
CC CS classes were clown-shoes. The math and physics classes were excellent, but the CS classes were not on par with the expectations that most 4-year colleges have for upper-division classes.
That being said, it was still a very good deal for me; I'd been tinkering with programming for ~8 years by the time that I went to school, and self-study easily got me up to speed. Thus, I took my freshman and sophomore classes for less than half of what it would have cost at a 4-year university.
---
Portland State does a proficiency demo for CC transfers with basic data structures questions, (linked lists, binary trees, recursion, etc). If you don't pass, you don't get into the upper-division classes. It's a bloodbath every single year. You don't have much of an excuse to fail, either - they give a description of everything that they will test you on more than a month before the demo[1].
Community college is a great way to get the stuff that won't ever affect your career out of the way. If you want to go to a top engineering college it's pretty insane to keep paying $20k/semester for the mediocre liberal arts portion as well.
Exactly. The lower division requirements can be done at any community college and they are on average much better taught at a community college than a research university.
I studied math. Now I program for a living. I have missed nothing from a specialized CS education.
I could see maybe EE or robotics being something that a good university would have an edge over your local community college. But even here you could get by without access to a good lab if you were motivated enough. Going into debt is almost never the answer.
I keep saying this but no one seems to be listening. Use triplebyte, interviewing.io, or recurse.com for all recruitment. You are not going to beat those folks in terms of quality of candidates. They have data and stats. You have anecdotes.
I'm not affiliated with any of them. The plug is genuine. I've been on both sides of interview table to know it's a crapshoot. You really are better off with one of those three than on your own.
Those companies go out of their way to reduce as much bias as possible. In the long run we are all better off if we rely on data instead of anecdotes and fancy resumes.
Humanity is doomed. At no point have we managed progress and advancement without causing a whole lot of human misery. Someone always pays the cost for your luxury.
