21–30 of 512 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would happen if we made bridges to last as long as possible, to withstand natural disasters and require minimal maintenance? What if we built things that are meant to last? Would the world be better for it?
What if instead of one bridge we build three, so more people can cross the river?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would happen if we made bridges to last as long as possible, to withstand natural disasters and require minimal maintenance? What if we built things that are meant to last? Would the world be better for it?
> What if we built things that are meant to last? Would the world be better for it? You'd have a better bridge, at the expense of other things, like hospitals or roads. If people choose good-enough bridges, that shows there is something else they value more.
Don't we end up just spending the same? Just now we're left with a crappy bridge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the cheapest bridge that just barely won't fail That can't be right? What about safety factors
Safety factors exist because without them, bridges fall down
Good code wasn't winning even before the ai slop era! The pattern was always: ship fast, fix/document later, but when "later" comes "don't touch what is working". To date nothing changed yet, I bet it won't change even in the future.
... I'll see myself out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What if we built things that are meant to last? Would the world be better for it? You'd have a better bridge, at the expense of other things, like hospitals or roads. If people choose good-enough bridges, that shows there is something else they value more.
Once the good-enough bridge deteriorates and we have to spend more money maintaining or replacing it Don't we end up just spending the same? Just now we're left with a crappy bridge.
Why build each new airplane with the care and precision of a Rolls-Royce? In the early 1970s, Kelly Johnson and I [Ben Rich] had dinner in Los Angeles with the great Soviet aerodynamicist Alexander Tupolev, designer of their backfire Bear bomber. 'You Americans build airplanes like a Rolex watch,' he told us. 'Knock it off the night table and it stops ticking. We build airplanes like a cheap alarm clock. But knock it off the table and still it wakes you up.'...The Soviets, he explained, built brute-force machines that could withstand awful weather and primitive landing fields. Everything was ruthlessly sacrificed to cut costs, including pilot safety.
We don't need to be ruthless to save costs, but why build the luxury model when the Chevy would do just as well? Build it right the first time, but don't build it to last forever. - Ben Rich in Skunk WorksEarlier quoted context omitted.
> the cheapest bridge that just barely won't fail That can't be right? What about safety factors
Safety factors exist because without them, bridges fall down
We are at the point where a single class can be dirty but the API of the classes should be clean. There’s no point reviewing the internals of a class anymore. I’m more or less sure that they would work as intended.
Next step is that of a micro service itself. The api of that micro service should be clean but internals may be however. We are 10% here.
People are not emotionally ready to accept that certain layers of abstraction don’t need as much care and effort if they can be automated. We are at the point where a single class can be dirty but the API of the classes should be clean. There’s no point reviewing the internals of a class anymore. I’m more or less sure that they would work as intended. Next step is that of a micro service itself. The api of that micro…
What if your AI uses an O(n) algorithm in a function when an O(log n) implementation exists? The output would still be "correct"