With data-driven programming, I would have expected an SQL table containing all the precomputed results. Unless you carelessly add an index, it has the same asymptotic performance!
It's wild that you would make this claim without taking a few seconds to drop a link. It's such a substantial, controversial claim, it really needs some kind of evidence.
PSA: if you have family meltdowns playing Monopoly, try following the rules and allowing auctions of un-bought property. At least the game may eventually end then. Or just don't play games intended to be teachable "well isn't this shit" moments.
I find it strange that people don't consider HN as social media. I guess the distinction is that you don't usually directly interact with other users, but it has user-generated content, link uploading, very frequent updates, and voting — it ticks many of the same boxes, imo.
The voting is the closest thing it has to algorithmic content selection, it's not tailored to each user, there's no advertising, and rage-bate headings are discouraged if not forbidden. By today's standards, it's quaint.
Oh, it's very good social media, don't get me wrong. I think that's why people avoid the term: social media has pretty negative connotations, so people don't want to use it for things they like.
Note that, even if that's all true (and I do agree that studies should have been conducted), the two positions are:
a) We made this change because we think it will help certain people
and
b) We made this change because we fundamentally disagree with attempts to help certain people, whether effective or not
I think b) is a lot worse than a). Or, to put it another way, has the current administration demonstrated a benefit from this change, or are they behaving at least as badly as "the left"?
No, you're just falling into the sort of left wing "people who disagree with me can only do so because they are a bad person" trap. You can read the full text of the actual memo (and a reasonable interpretation of it) below, but it appears to me that the principle reason as stated is that Calibri is less professional, inconsistent with all other government communications and even inconsistent letterheads on the very same department's material, and that appearance matters. It isn't in fact about "sticking it to the woke", but it does seem like the original decision to use Calibri was not based on anything and just about appearing to be woke.
> No, you're just falling into the sort of left wing "people who disagree with me can only do so because they are a bad person" trap.
I'm not sure where this conclusion came from. I even acknowledged that the original change was problematic.
> the principle reason as stated is that Calibri is less professional
That's fair, but it doesn't erase the 'DEI' comment in the memo. If that weren't there, we might actually be having a discussion about the merits of one font vs. another.
> It isn't in fact about "sticking it to the woke"
Again, that might be believable if the memo hadn't explicitly complained about DEI.
DEI was mentioned in a footnote, it didn't seem to be the main thrust of the memo. I agree it would have been better to not mention it at all, the decision is perfectly defensible on the basis of all the previous non-footnoted points.
I apologise for my first comment, it seems like those critical of the latest decision are painting a simplistic picture - "this was one side attempting to be kind vs other side deliberately being unkind". But it doesn't appear to be the case to me.
And that weird flag is because it's a windows compiler: cl.exe, not gcc.
reply