I’d consider getting a really cheap, small chunk of rural land and boondocking there sometimes (so nobody can claim it’s not actually a residence of yours).

This is Lemmy, they didn’t even really have to ask.

As long as it’s one of the actually efficient cryptos.

If I ever go that route, you bet I’m getting a dishwasher put in at the very least. I know my limits, haha.

As the internet should be.

There’s a list on GitHub of instances by most federation. It’s where I found mine.

The .ml admins (and devs of Lemmy the software) are from that crowd, basically. If you don’t like it, try another instance.

Edit: .ml is for Marxist-Leninist, even. There’s no connection to Mali.

Hmm. I, on the other hand, tend to write a lot more code than I probably should before I do debugging, so there’s plenty to go back through again.

Although this looks like it’s for a browser, and for all I know debuggers work completely differently in there.

^ This is the person I want to develop with. My goodness, can I produce some tasty, broken first-pass code you can go wild on.

That’s kind of the whole philosophy, though. The tests are the main way you understand what you’re doing, the working code is just an addition on top of that. Presumably, there’s a way to do that without repeating yourself - although I’m not turning up much on a quick look.

Well, yeah, but I was kind of hoping you’d explain why.

Can’t you just add the wrapper to the test as well, if it’s easy to do in the actual code?

Yeah, you definitely run fixed tests on the whole thing. But when it returns indecipherable garbage, you’ve got to dive in in more detail, and at that point you’re just doing breakpoints and watchpoints and looking at walls of floating point values.

I suppose Strassen’s is recursive, so you could tackle it that way, but for other numerical-type things there is no such option.

If I actually did have that kind of job, the tests-first philosophy would sound very appealing. Actually, build the stack so you don’t have a choice - the real code should just be an instantiation of plumbing on generic variables with certain expected statistical properties. You can do that when correctly processing unpredictable but repetitive stuff is the name of the game, and I expect someone does.

At a certain level of detail, tests just become a debugger, right?

I’m thinking of something like an implementation of Strassen’s algorithm. It’s all arithmetic; you can’t really check for macro correctness at a micro point without doing a similar kind of arithmetic yourself, which is basically just writing the same code again. It resembles nothing other than itself.

Depending on what kind of coding you’re doing, there might not be an obvious, really atomic unit to test. Most people here seem to do the data-plumbing-for-corporations kind, though.

Huh, so it does. It looks like it shouldn’t at first, my bad.

Have you had any luck with the urban sprawl? We’ve brought in a bunch of urban densification stuff recently in Canada, and NZ was cited as an example to follow.

These days, a shallow folder system. I have an electronica folder, and a Blanck Mass folder that definitely would go in there but that is full enough to stand on it’s own. Actual taxonomic organisation would take way too many clicks, but flat organisation can result in trouble finding things, and just looks like you’re a slob. (Although I’m guilty of having unsorted hoarder folders for things I only needed once, too)

There’s probably a rule of thumb for optimal fanout on each GUI folder, related to our visual processing. Hmm. I wonder if there’s a way to make the tree self-balancing as well.

Wow. And you still have >5 million people? This list goes all the way down to what I’d call not quite villages, but very small towns (although your link is broken, you need to add the Wikipedia part).

That is funny!