I'm going to take a different tack: a senior developer is a developer with enough experience that if you subject her to the bullshit processes that work on lower-level developers --- things like scrums, status updates, architecture reviews, and other command-and-control measures --- she either performs badly or quits.
Developer seniority is developer autonomy, and autonomy must be matched to skill level and scope.
Of course it is. Energy input must balance energy output and net changes in storage. What isn't simple is that we don't have the ability to merely will ourselves to eat less. We are not as much in control over our bodies and our consciousnesses as we'd like to believe.
We also don't have the ability (or understanding) to control the conversion of energy-in-food into energy-our-body-can-use + energy-our-body-can-store + waste-products. Food is not gasoline, and our bodies are not combustion engines.
Even that's a bad analogy; gasoline's quality and impurities can vary quite a bit, which effects how much energy an engine can extract from it, and engine efficiency can also vary greatly. Still, our bodies are much more complex.
I'm more inclined to report reported differences to bad reporting of inputs. How many studies are conducted under controlled conditions? People lie about everything all the time, especially to themselves.
I don't understand why so many people have difficulty accepting that the chemical environment can mediate appetite, and appetite is a key driver of food consumption. Thermodynamics holds. What doesn't hold is the idea that you exist as a consciousness independent of chemical inputs.
What you missed out on is feedback loops that affect your basal metabolism. So: eat less, your body decides it is starving and reduces your basal metabolism, you continue to eat less (better-than average willpower!), and... you gain weight.
I'm a physicist, and I roll my eyes whenever anyone starts up with simplistic arguments about humans, food, and thermodynamics. Thermodynamics holds, but the system doesn't work the way you think it does.
Can your body just "reduce your basal metabolism"? Where are the energy savings? Is your body temperature lowered? I'm skeptical of the idea that differences in "metabolism" can account for different results arising from the same energy inputs.
Yes, your body temperature can be lowered, somewhat. Your temperature actually varies over a pretty wide range all of the time, with daily cycles and in response with your activities and things like fighting infections. But your average temperature can trend higher or lower, corresponding to a higher or lower basal metabolism.
Other things that can happen when your metabolism slows down are that you get tired more often and more easily, your thought processes slow down, you sleep more. This happens to everyone as they age, and it can also happen from chronic stress, calorie restriction sufficient to trigger 'starvation mode', and anything else that causes your body to try to conserve energy for survival.
What can be done to boost basal metabolism? A safer DNP? The current approach, diet and exercise, although it may work in individual cases, is not effective at the scale of public health.
Why, yes, it's a typical confounding situation with exercise and diets. As you probably know, it's difficult to do calorimetry on humans, but if I recall correctly it is partly lowered heat generation (which doesn't necessarily change the core temperature you measure with a thermometer) and moving around less.
But what you're saying sounds to me very different from what most people in this thread are saying. You're saying, if I understand correctly, that eating stuff with aspartame will make you eat more (what happens if you have the self control to either not do that, or eat something like a carrot that has very little calories ?).
Most people in the thread here seem to be saying your body will find a way to use the same amount of energy, and store the same amount of energy, despite the energy intake being different.
Anecdotally, I've lost over 10 kg while not caring about aspartame intake (in fact I think it probably went up).
More that aspartame fooled no GI ever into thinking its job was done than that it makes you hungrier. The alkaline phosphatase blocking from it is also hampering phosphate metabolism you might've been using to switch gears, including regulating pH and coexistence with gut flora (detoxifying oligosaccharides etc.)
Nice anecdotal going (if it was low density tissue; I should joke 'you uploaded your brain, what did you expect.')
As long as Twitter applies a double standard to abuse against white men, it'll be a useless political echo chamber. Allowing "#killallmen" posters to get away with their drivel while bringing the banhammer on anyone challenging the SJW narrative is itself taking a strong and IMHO obnoxious political stance. Twitter is unbearable
All you need to do is look at the people twitter invite to their conferences, and associate with at their executive level to know that Twitter will only get worse in these regards.
It absolutely is fair. For a long time after a syscall your program will run slower thanks to the increased cache misses from the kernel clobbering your stuff in cache. That's a real price that you pay for a syscall and it would be wrong not to count it. However, if you found some other way of doing the work, e.g user code, kernel bypass, amortized bulk syscall, those will also have a (lesser) effect on the cache. So to be fair you compare a syscall against that, not against zero.
If you have enough CPU cache, the CPU will cache both kernel and user code/data for your process. If you run long enough and access enough user data that the kernel bits get evicted, then you'll take more of a performance hit, but the same thing applies to accessing enough user data that different parts of your user data get evicted.
Maybe this is more reflective on the kinds of software I work on, but I don't find that I have enough cache. So syscalls always come at a steep price. In fact I am tempted to break up one program into multiple processes and use the cache partitioning in Xeon v4 to prevent the different parts of my program from clobbering it's own cache.
I am extremely skeptical of "full" rows in the table, the ones that purport to measure the overall costs of cache invalidation. These costs are so workload specific that a single number is meaningless and likely to mislead. My own benchmarks show costs that are nowhere near the ones cited.
> My own benchmarks show costs that are nowhere near the ones cited.
This is heavily dependent on the benchmark. In the OP, there is a ref to an academic research showing these numbers - and from my own real-world experience (NOT artificial benchmarks), the costs of 10K-100K are very usual. From a completely different perspective - there should be reasons why nginx beats Apache performance-wise :-).
> There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech
No there is not. "Hate speech" is what liberals call inconvenient conservative speech. Approving all speech except "hate speech" is just declaring that you will censor speech you find disagreeable.
The only legitimate speech restrictions are viewpoint-neutral no matter what the viewpoint.
I think you're mistaking the purpose of the 1st amendment. Racist comments are protected speech in that the United States Government cannot arrest/imprison/etc. you for that kind of speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussions for your speech. New York is an at-will state, meaning there is no legal problem with this email. There is no protection for people getting fired for hate speech, just like there is no legal protection for people boycotting or refusing to work for companies that they disagree with.
Private enterprises aren't required by law to uphold a high standard of free speech, but being decent Americans does. The government MUST NOT censor, but private companies SHOULD NOT.
We are discussing these terms in a specific context of this email. Wild straw men arguments do not contribute to the discussion. Unless you can find someone saying,
> You're a dirty monkey and should go back to Africa
I think it would be best to delete your second sentence. Let's not delve too deeply into group A vs. group B. Your comment would be much better without it.
You are right that hate speech is a charge that can get blown out of proportion. The question then becomes how to define it in a way that protects ideological differences.
> Unfortunately this is an opinionated piece with foul language and it is a bit offensive.
Whenever you read "X is offensive", mentally replace it with "I find X offensive". The substitution emphasizes how little being offended ought to matter.
Your finding this piece offensive does not create an obligation on the part of anyone else. I am growing very tired of social critics attempting to turn the world into inoffensive mush. We need more articles of this kind.
> It is a remarkable for one person to create a language, runtime, repl, debugger, compiler to another quirky language
I agree that the effort is remarkable. The idea that the strength of the author's effort should somehow shield his work from criticism is antithetical to excellence. It's participation trophy culture. If we're to create great work, we have to understand the difference between good and bad work, and we can't do that if misplaced concern for someone's feelings stops our describing reality as it is.
Developer seniority is developer autonomy, and autonomy must be matched to skill level and scope.