It is not a law.
It never was a law.
An observation is all that it ever was, or a prediction, but not a law.
And surprise, it does not hold true anymore.
It is not a law.
It never was a law.
An observation is all that it ever was, or a prediction, but not a law.
And surprise, it does not hold true anymore.
I just wrote a code review comment that I feel particularly smug about.
The code I was reviewing:
class PointClouds ...
My comment:
A software testing tool is presented, which uses dependency analysis to greatly optimize the process of running tests.
Biological anthropologists generally agree that humans evolved reasoning to
facilitate hunting together as a group; however, there are many other species
that hunt in packs, and yet reasoning is unique to humans. Therefore, in order
to explain reasoning, it is not enough to consider how it was beneficial to
us; we also need to consider what enabled reasoning to emerge specifically in
humans as opposed to any other species.
I have a hypothesis which attempts to explain how this happened.
While working on code in the context of a certain task, a programmer often discovers some preexisting quality issue. When this happens, there is a choice to be made:
What causes homosexuality? The predominant understanding is that the causes are genetic, but this seems to be in conflict with the notion of natural selection: an individual who does not reproduce is a dead-end for the genes that they carry; therefore, the 'gay gene' should have gone extinct. A number of hypotheses have been proposed, attempting to resolve this paradox, but they are not very convincing. In this post I present a couple of my own hypotheses, which I believe do a better job at resolving the paradox.