They could noop on local runs but be reflected in the github/gitlab as separate steps/stages and allow resumes and retries and such. As it stands there's no way to really have CI/CD run the exact same scripts locally and get all the insights and functionality.
I haven't seen anything like that but it would be nice to know.
I think its clearly false that motivation is an inherent trait. That would imply that demotivation is also inherent, which I think is even more obviously wrong.
I think demotivating people is incredibly easy, see any Dilbert cartoon featuring the PHB ever.
That doesn't mean that motivating people is also easy. They're not equivalent.
Motivating people requires understanding their psychology, their values, what they want from their life, etc, and then applying that knowledge to create a workplace culture that feeds all of that. Demotivating them just requires not understanding any of that, or ignoring it in favour of feeding your own ego or psychology. It's a lot easier to demotivate.
Certainly it's easier to destroy than to build but if you tell yourself "my teams motivation is entirely intrinsic" you might, for example, think you can abdicate the duty of removing demotivations.
Ah yes the workplace culture, psychology angle. I would expect to read that on Linkedin, not here.
No, motivating people simply requires giving them more money (performance bonuses, stock options, thirteenth salary/end-of-year bonus...). DUH. OBVIOUSLY.
People in management positions always try to weasel their way out of paying their people more. (Well, not always, not all of them do, but you get my point.)
Unless you work on truly cutting edge stuff (by which I mean the likes of SpaceX and its equivalents in different industries), motivation is money.
It's as simple as that. No need to twist yourself into all kinds of pretzels.
No, it's not the coworkers (which, by the way, are not your friends unless you meet outside of work), it's not the job as such (very few people outside of art actually enjoy doing their job as an activity after say 10 years of doing it), it's money.
Money is the primary motivator (by far). You work for money. End of story. Anyone saying otherwise is a bs artist.
I work for money because I need food on the table and a place to sleep. It doesn't motivate me much more than that. In fact, I wouldn't even call it motivation. It's a requirement to live.
There have also been studies that have found that money stops making people happier or more motivated once their yearly salary exceeds a certain amount (the equivalent of 700.000NOK here in Norway).
Some people are primarily motivated by making as much money as possible, sure, but most people I've worked with have found someplace else to work once their current job stops being interesting.
It is better to divide motivation between intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic comes from within and is probably best explained as an inherited personality trait. Extrinsic comes from external factors, usually money and rewards, as well as positive feedback. Demotivation is most probably a result of poor management (leaving aside mental health issues).
it's not hard to de-motivate people. but here's the thing... not everyone is motivated by the same thing. the trick of motivating people as a manager is spending the time to figure out what motivates them.
and if you could only de-motivate people, eventually everyone in your team would be de-motivated.
I think by the time you are hiring people at 27 years old or whatever, there is a noticeable gap in motivation. A quarter century of lived experience (which is "inherent" to the person you're hiring) is a lot, especially at the beginning of one's life.
There are all sorts of things like depression, cynicism, past experiences, etc. that can lead to someone have a lower baseline of motivation. It's also highly contextual, which I think is what you're saying and I 100% agree with. Some people thrive in role A and would want to bang their head against a wall for 40 hours in role B. Others vice versa, others would be meh in either, etc.
Is there a name for duplicating function calls such that different optimizations for the same function can be compiled, but they are not fully duplicated at every call site?
Even if the compiler doesn’t explicitly do it, it can happen when doing subsequent optimization steps after inlining such as constant folding and dead code elimination.
Specialization is one of the reasons my call trees are just a little bit deeper than what one would expect given my loud but moderate stance on function splitting. Uncle Bob is nuts for espousing one line functions. But the answer to Bob being a lunatic is not two page functions. I think you can say a lot in five to six lines, and not overshoot meaningful names into word salad because you’ve run out of ideas. That’s still small enough for branch prediction, inlining, and specialization to kick in per call site, particularly if some callers follow one conditional branch and the others favors the other.
If I understand what you're asking for correctly, function cloning.
If you have f(x, y) and the compiler realizes the function optimizes nicely when y == 2 it can create a clone of f with a fixed argument y == 2, optimize that, and rewrite the appropriate call sites to call the clone.
specialization - i don't know if general purpose compilers do this but ML compilers specialize the hell out of kernels (based on constants, types, tensor dimensions, etc).
EDIT: i'm le dumb - this is the whole point of JIT compilers.
No, you can think of them more like unarmed artillery shells. Can you walk down the street to buy some artillery munitions?
Even if they were considered arms for the purpose of 2a this isn’t a ban on drones but a specific manufacturer. They government can definitely refuse to grant a manufacturer license to sell on this country.
After Mcviegh, shouldn’t all U-Haul’s be seen as unarmed vehicular large IEDs? A drone isn’t like an artillery shell because an artillery shell is for putting in an artillery gun. A drone is for flying. Just because something can be modified to serve as some sort of weapon, does make it basically a weapon.
It was quite common in the wake of McVeigh and other large vehicle attacks that they should be seen as weapons and licensing strengthened.
The fact you can drive a 26,000 lb GVWR truck without any special license is something special we have in America compared to most of say, Europe. It's actually pretty mind blowing anyone can just rent 26 ft diesel 26,000 lb truck and get in and drive it on the highway.
It is testament to the fact there are a few vestiges of freedom left in America. Not much, but a few vestiges, since such trucks were around before the regulation hysteria of the late 20th century and 21st century.
>> Can you walk down the street to buy some artillery munitions?
No I need to go to a flea market for that.
It's not a specific manufacturer; it will impact US-made drones too, and based on how it's being rolled out is intended to shut down decent quality, inexpensive and easily-acquired drown sales - exactly what say, a journalist might want.
Not really, not for the air warfare context of drones.
SAM can't be bought for any tax and they come with lifetime in jail if you have them, even just for peaceful purposes.[]
Giving up air military supremacy isn't something the USA is going to yield to its citizens. The tax is reflective of the fact that machineguns and destructive devices can't be banned as they are "arms" that can merely be taxed, but the US doesn't considered air warfare weapons generally to be bearable arms.
As drones become a dominating form of air superiority I would expect they start to become more like SAMs -- not bearable arms but rather arms that merely having in your arms mean you go in a cage forever even if you have an NFA stamp affixed.
If this was the main strategy used even for public/shared branches, then everyone would have to deal with changing, conflicting histories all the time.
This was the very first thing I thought when I was taught about requirement traceability matrices in uni. I was like "Ew, why is this happening in an Excel silo?" I had already known about ways of adding metadata to code in Java and C#, so I expected everything to be done in plain text formats so that tooling could provide information like "If you touch this function, you may impact these requirements and these user stories." or "If you change this function's signature, you will break contracts with these other team members (here's their email)."
The whole point is that they're not doing that, not that they can't or that its really hard to do.
reply