41–50 of 325 posts
So, the author hijacks a perfectly good rule of thumb to build their grand theory of everything. It is all nice, clean, and wise, and besides the tortured turn of phrase is just rechewing of popular truisms.
TIL of ≹, which "articulates a relationship where neither of the two compared entities is greater or lesser than the other, yet they aren't necessarily equal either. This nuanced distinction is essential in areas where there are different ways to compare entities that aren't strictly numerical." ( https://www.mathematics-monster.com/symbols/Neither-Greater-... )
"Example 1: Numerical Context
Let's consider two real numbers, a and b. If a is neither greater than nor less than b, but they aren't explicitly equal, the relationship is ≹"
How can that be possible?
TIL of ≹, which "articulates a relationship where neither of the two compared entities is greater or lesser than the other, yet they aren't necessarily equal either. This nuanced distinction is essential in areas where there are different ways to compare entities that aren't strictly numerical." ( https://www.mathematics-monster.com/symbols/Neither-Greater-... )
Likewise, TIL. In your link however it states "Example 1: Numerical Context Let's consider two real numbers, a and b. If a is neither greater than nor less than b, but they aren't explicitly equal, the relationship is ≹" How can that be possible?
TIL of ≹, which "articulates a relationship where neither of the two compared entities is greater or lesser than the other, yet they aren't necessarily equal either. This nuanced distinction is essential in areas where there are different ways to compare entities that aren't strictly numerical." ( https://www.mathematics-monster.com/symbols/Neither-Greater-... )
Likewise, TIL. In your link however it states "Example 1: Numerical Context Let's consider two real numbers, a and b. If a is neither greater than nor less than b, but they aren't explicitly equal, the relationship is ≹" How can that be possible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise, TIL. In your link however it states "Example 1: Numerical Context Let's consider two real numbers, a and b. If a is neither greater than nor less than b, but they aren't explicitly equal, the relationship is ≹" How can that be possible?
I would imagine trying to compare a purely imaginary number (3i) to a real number (3) would suffice.
Because we as programmers need to know how to progam: learning trumps all. Thus: learning > biz > user > ops > maintainer > author There was that bit dev > * meaning resume-driven development, but in reality it is learning > * And that's the conflict programmers experience in corporate structures, for example the hassle programmers experience when they interview for a position. Employers know it too but they try to s…
My gripe with most programmers that they keep re-learning the same narrow set of skills while ignore the rest that actually makes someone a efficient expert.
TIL of ≹, which "articulates a relationship where neither of the two compared entities is greater or lesser than the other, yet they aren't necessarily equal either. This nuanced distinction is essential in areas where there are different ways to compare entities that aren't strictly numerical." ( https://www.mathematics-monster.com/symbols/Neither-Greater-... )
Likewise, TIL. In your link however it states "Example 1: Numerical Context Let's consider two real numbers, a and b. If a is neither greater than nor less than b, but they aren't explicitly equal, the relationship is ≹" How can that be possible?
TIL of ≹, which "articulates a relationship where neither of the two compared entities is greater or lesser than the other, yet they aren't necessarily equal either. This nuanced distinction is essential in areas where there are different ways to compare entities that aren't strictly numerical." ( https://www.mathematics-monster.com/symbols/Neither-Greater-... )
Likewise, TIL. In your link however it states "Example 1: Numerical Context Let's consider two real numbers, a and b. If a is neither greater than nor less than b, but they aren't explicitly equal, the relationship is ≹" How can that be possible?
Firstly, in this framing, the "dev" is not one person but it is a collective for lots of people with varied expertise and seniority levels in different orgs – product, engineering and design orgs.
Then, "ops" is again not one thing and not just engineering ops. It could be bizops, customer support etc. too.
Then, "biz" isn't one thing either. There's branding/marketing/sales/legal etc. and execteam/board/regulators/lenders/investors etc.
All of these people affect what code is written and how it is written and how and when it is shipped to users. Everyone should be solving the same "problem".
A lot of the times, a lot of people within the org are just there to make sure that everyone understands/sees the same "problem" and is working towards the same goals.
But that understanding is continuously evolving. And there is lag in propagation of it throughout the org. And hence, there is lag in everyone working towards the same goal – while goal itself is being evolved.
Finally, "user" is not one thing either nor any one cohort of users are static. There are many different cohorts of users and these cohorts don't necessarily have long-term stable behaviors.
So, it helps to understand and acknowledge how all the variables are changing around you and make sense of the imperfect broken world around you with that context. Otherwise it is very easy to say everyone else sucks and everything is broken and you want to restart building everything from scratch and fall into that and other well-known pitfalls.