One of the major things code review does is prevent that one guy on your team who is sloppy or incompetent from messing up the codebase without singling him out.
If you told someone "I don't trust you, run all code by me first" it wouldn't go well. If you tell them "everyone's code gets reviewed" they're ok with it.
Everyone is sloppy sometimes. I wonder if what code review does is prevent velocity (acts a a brake) so that things dont change too fast (which is often a good thing).
You don't get paid for features or code shipped. People don't pay $200 a head for fine dining based on the number of carrot chops or garlic crushes. The chops and crushes are necessary but not what you should be optimizing for.
Yeah I don’t understand what these other people are saying. There are definitely more barriers to harming your computer online now than there were 20 years ago. Even just email clients preemptively flagging suspicious emails is a huge leap lol
You could argue that it's one of the most versatile instruments, sure. "Greatest" is completely subjective.
But is it one of the most versatile instruments? You can do signal transforms with any kind of audio input, although it's done more with the electric guitar than any other instruments.
I would say it in practice, it has the most versatile sonic profile.
A modular synth is more versatile in terms of enumerated signal transformations. Its the ability to be expressive with those signal transformations that makes the guitar+tube amp what it is.
With the right interface, I think the synth can be more expressive. Look at the Haken Continuum or ExpressiveE Osmose - both can be used with something like the Expert Sleepers FH-2 to get MPE data to the modular.
I do see your point, and agree the amount of articulation you can do with guitar is hard to beat, but I do think a synth can win, if the setup is built for it.
Synths with mod wheels are the bomb, I used to have a roland that had a pitch wheel for bends and then push it for tremolos, vibratos and such, and way more voices, envelopes etc and that was a few decades ago and I'm sure that nowadays guitars are not going to compete except at one thing, making guitar sounding noises, you can get guitary sounds but somehow they come off to me to be too clean and lack the slop that various fingerings produce lol
I would be careful with this kind of reasoning, because it suggests corruption within a corporate model is inevitable, giving it implicit permission to continue existing. It's not inevitable.
I would suggest it is inevitable when the goal is to grow without end. The sociopaths buy the shares and push the businesses to ether become "evil" or get pushed out and taken over. Its what the current models leads to when there are no checks and balances.
Pursuing growth at all costs is inevitable though. If you don't continue to grow, you get superseded by entities that do. Goes for both countries and companies.
Communist countries like the Soviet Union and China have even had the explicit goal of outgrowing the US.
It's already crumbling. That's why we have AI-powered fascism in the first place. Society destabilizes and a significant fraction of the population says "perhaps authoritarianism is a good thing." It's never worth it, though.
Unironically, maybe they should be scored by LLMs? My first thought was that the reviewers could score the papers but that would lead to even more group-think.
Ideally whoever is paying the academics should just be paying attention to their work and its worth, but that would be crazy.
We have such powerful AI tools these days. Every media recommendation service should have a slider you can set to indicate how much you want to be "challenged."
High challenge = CS papers explained
Medium challenge = bridge engineering videos
Low challenge = some guy playing video games for you on YouTube
If you told someone "I don't trust you, run all code by me first" it wouldn't go well. If you tell them "everyone's code gets reviewed" they're ok with it.