I have this pet theory that a well-written dynamically-typed program will have fewer bugs than the typical statically-typed program.
Static typing doesn't reduce bugs. It just changes when they appear, from runtime to compile time. Further more, types are largely about communicating information about how a client should use a piece of code. A compiler for a statically-typed language just happens to help automate this exchange of information and reduce the likelihood that the code is used incorrectly.
It's kinda similar to precision vs accuracy; to be precise means to throw a bunch of darts at the same spot on a dartboard, and to be accurate means to actually hit the bullseye. A lot of typed programs are precise, but end up solving the wrong problem.
This guys’ posts read like someone put Paul Graham in a tumble dryer and interviewed him immediately afterwards on a topic pulled from a hat
If you ship a project and your management chain begins talking about the next thing, stop improving that project. In my experience, continuing to work on an already-shipped project is a very common mistake. Declare victory and walk away!
Because that's how the entire reward system is structured - ask management why they care about that stuff (money) and you will understand why people do it (money).
I saw the Ioniq 5 before release in 2022 at an auto show and thought it looked incredible, and that there was no way they would actually make it…I honestly think it’s as good-looking as a DeLorean
I like to think you mean that the so-called “elites” end up studying some useless degree and only can get jobs as trust-fund burger stand employees, serving fries to the “dummies” who chose to work hard and become wealthy the old-fashioned way
> who chose to work hard and become wealthy the old-fashioned way
That's so last century. Now about as real as Santa. Now you can only get wealthy by inheritance or gambling. Even if it means gambling with you health you still need to win for it to amount to anything. There's absolutely no way to earn wealth now. I'm not sure if there ever was.
At some point in your life you'll look back at your past and notice how much of the hard work you did amounted to very little of your wealth and how most of your wealth can actually be attributed to gambles you took and won, even though similar people took similar gambles and lost. How the most work that contributed to your wealth wasn't particularly hard and some hard work you did actually delayed or diminished your success. At least you'll see it if you are going to be an honest person not one of those "I did it all by myself!" self-deluders.
At some point in your life you'll realise that not everyone thinks the same way as you do. Hopefully it happens for you before your mindset seriously dents your future prospects.
Your original assertion "There's absolutely no way to earn wealth now" is ludicrous: was it possible a month ago? a year ago? a decade ago? Did anyone become wealthy through methods other than gambling or inheritance a month ago? a year ago? a decade ago? If even one person did, this disproves your assertion, unless you want to claim some as-yet-unmentioned recent change that made it possible then and impossible now.
Your supporting theory about gambling is only true if you define every single choice you make in life as a gamble to some extent, which is a weird way of thinking about the world.
As for the "you didn't build that" stuff & snark, I don't recall claiming I did anything all by myself, nor did I see anyone claim you have to do everything all by yourself to "earn wealth". Nice strawman.
> At some point in your life you'll realise that not everyone thinks the same way as you do.
Of course. There are many people who are wrong.
> Hopefully it happens for you before your mindset seriously dents your future prospects.
My future is already secured.
> "There's absolutely no way to earn wealth now" is ludicrous: was it possible a month ago? a year ago? a decade ago? Did anyone become wealthy through methods other than gambling or inheritance a month ago? a year ago? a decade ago?
No.
> If even one person did, this disproves your assertion, unless you want to claim some as-yet-unmentioned recent change that made it possible then and impossible now.
Only if you insist on treating the assertion rigidly which is unwise for all assertions pertaining to any other realm than math.
> I don't recall claiming I did anything all by myself
Ah, so you are a person who thinks whatever is said is about them specifically.
> nor did I see anyone claim you have to do everything all by yourself to "earn wealth". Nice strawman.
It's a well known psychological observation that people who achieved success typically misattribute it disproportionately to themselves even if they know it was pure chance.
"> "There's absolutely no way to earn wealth now" is ludicrous: was it possible a month ago? a year ago? a decade ago? Did anyone become wealthy through methods other than gambling or inheritance a month ago? a year ago? a decade ago?
Static typing doesn't reduce bugs. It just changes when they appear, from runtime to compile time. Further more, types are largely about communicating information about how a client should use a piece of code. A compiler for a statically-typed language just happens to help automate this exchange of information and reduce the likelihood that the code is used incorrectly.
It's kinda similar to precision vs accuracy; to be precise means to throw a bunch of darts at the same spot on a dartboard, and to be accurate means to actually hit the bullseye. A lot of typed programs are precise, but end up solving the wrong problem.