A couple of my favorite inspirational art sites are SketchFab and DeviantArt. Both have some amazing talent on display on a regular basis, and both have given me inspiration when I'm running short on ideas or creativity. Both also have a quite wide variety of liberally licensed content (creative commons, etc) that you can legally re-use as a starting point for your own works, as long as you conform to the requirements of any given license.
This makes me wonder: what if there was a language where variable names are determined according to the type, with the option of overriding with a custom name. So a variable of type http.Request would automatically be named “req”, the next one in scope would be “req2”, etc.
If you think about it, when you solve a physics problem, for instance, you call every mass “m1”, “m2”, etc. Maybe this would be another step in Go’s direction of conforming style to make code more standard and readable.
I agree that most types come with a natural variable name.
However, in many cases a more descriptive name is way appropriate. On top of my mind:
- Multiple variables of the same type. How are you supposed to distinguish between req and req2? Compare it to something like "apiReq" and "cdnReq"
- Primitive types, that does not inherently carry a domain value. An integer called "seconds" or "max_offset" has a lot more meaning that one named "num"
Forcing such a notation into the language would make impossibile to represent all these cases
You’re right. Going back to my physics example, all the variables in a physics problem are actually of the same type, float. So you’d need more specific types, but that would be infeasible-the whole point of types in a general purpose language is that they’re general enough for any use case.
Werrrrlllllll... It all depends on what yo umean by "type". In physics problems, I find taht quantities may be measured in "floats", but have the types "mass", "amperage", "distance per second per second" and the like.
In Go, I would probably model this as:
type mass float64
type speed float64
type acceleration float64
That way, they'd all have float64 as the "storage type", but it would be harder to accidentally pass an acceleration when I wanted a mass.
> Going back to my physics example, all the variables in a physics problem are actually of the same type, float
This is why some people recommend a practice I've forgotten the name of, where they defined a new type that maps to language type. So type Mass could just be a float, but you know better how to treat it.
The real question from this example is: why are you creating two http requests in the same scope before using them?
I've been writing Go cloud stuff for the better part of a decade and "req" for a request has never been ambiguous because I go ahead and send the request and process the response before sending another one, at which point I can just reassign the variable and let the first one fall out of scope.
Terraform has an extreme approach to that, every time you reference a variable you have to spell out the complete TYPE.NAME.ATTRIBUTE, eg resource.aws_s3_bucket.my_bucket.website_endpoint. There is no way to access my_bucket without the whole prefix, even after assigning it to local variable you must prefix the reads as locals.my_bucket.
For sensitive infrastructure this makes sense, i surely wouldn't want to write other code like this.
That could be easily done by the editor in a statically typed language like Go, so there is no point bloating the language with it. Just turn on an overlay that displays the types of all names. I believe LSP adds this to many languages/editors already.
As a graduating senior in CS who is super interested in working in BCI, may I ask how you got into the field? I would love to work somewhere like Neuralink but it seems that most of these companies are not hiring new grads (understandably, perhaps). I might just get this or openbci and do a project on my own, to start.
Id you're interested in working with EEG, the advice of the other poster is worthwhile. I've transitioned away from EEG as I don't believe it's a future-proof technology. I got into the field through a series of lucky internships during university and a whole lot of networking got my resume into Neuralink before the destealthing last year. My advice is to apply everywhere you can, be passionate, and reach out to people. There are more opportunities out there than you think.
Learn EEGLAB in Matlab, using existing online EEG datasets. Don’t collect your own, not worth it. Join the EEGLAB list. Figure out how to use some machine learning classification algorithms on the datasets. (There are walk through). Do something cool and share. Then use their devices.
These laws exist. You’re not allowed to discriminate based on criminal or arrest record unless it’s relevant to the job (e.g. someone applying to be a delivery driver with 3 DUIs).
The problem is that between two equally qualified candidates, if one has a record and the other is clean, it can be pretty easy to justify just throwing the first one out. And pretty hard to prove that that’s why you were rejected.
For you, it seems that "tremendous" means best in class. Where is the cutoff, 1st, 3rd, top 10?
For others, being in the top 10 percent of 195+ countries is quite significant. For the average person in the rest of the world, being in the US would provide a significant and meaningful increase in their economic mobility.
Really? Seems like it’d be more reliable and a lot faster to just hop in one of the hundred rickshaws on every street. Besides the fact that they’ll overcharge you if you’re a tourist.
Not the OP, but as I’d say that subjectively speaking, you’re better off going to MIT, but only if you have the passion and drive to succeed at a place like that (which you probably do if you got into MIT).
But for Boston College, Boston University, or Northeastern? You’re probably going to end up paying more than MIT and get an education that’s indistinguishable from UMass, quite possibly worse in some respects.
What people have been saying in this thread is not incorrect (though should be nuanced): the ivy leagues are worth it for the caliber of the student body and reputation; otherwise, go to a (Tier 1) public school.
Unless, of course, you don’t want to and can easily afford otherwise.
BC, BU, and Northeastern are all excellent schools. Boston is a weird place.. any of those three schools would be a top tier private school in just about any other city in the country, but in Boston they're seen as second tier just because of the ludicrously good schools in Massachusetts. They're all in the top 50 according to US News.
You're fine. There are a ton of reasons MIT and UMass Amherst would help, but they are not for everybody, and I saw plenty of folks struggle at MIT and gain nothing out of it (even not graduating).
What matters a lot more than the name of the institution on your degree is experience; getting that experience may be a bit tougher at a small school (you don't have FAANGs or huge biotech firms recruiting there), but it is certainly not impossible.
Three of the last four engineers I hired had no formal CS degree (but they had gone to bootcamps).
Every reply to you is repeating the same thing and they’re all wrong. Woe on the next great sociologist, philosopher, or artist who gets discouraged from study because “just do CS so you can make money” or “just go to the library it’s literally the same thing as four years of training under experts in the field and discussion with other smart young people.”
Realistically, the next great sociologist and philosopher is going to be an academic, and the amount of spaces for academics in those fields is so vanishingly small that if you went to a third-tier university, you're almost entirely unlikely to get one. If you went to Stanford/Harvard/etc., maybe, but still not great odds.
It's like saying that you're discouraging the next lottery winner by telling people that playing the lottery is a bad investment.
That probably has more to do with 'greatness' as a product of the publishing system. (Meaning: it's great because it's published in a prestigious medium, not because the content is inherently superior) The next plato will likely be completely uncelebrated in these mediums, and will publish on an uncelebrated website or publisher.
To be fair, first Plato was born in aristocratic family and got best education possible at the time with private tutors. He definitely did not go to equivalent of 3rd tier university.
Almost everyone goes to college to get a job. People who can afford to take risks like trying to become a philosopher don’t come from backgrounds where price is even a consideration. No middle class person dumb enough to believe trying to be a sociologist is a good idea will be smart enough to actually make that happen.
The vast majority of people are not the next great sociologist, philosopher or artist. The idea that you create a super individual by ruining the lives of thousands of people is really destructive. Is that genius really productive enough to offset the productivity loss of thousands of people?
I don't really know of any great sociologists though.
I kind of feel it may be a made up field to promote forms of Marxism and not something that actually contributes much to the body of human knowledge. Nothing entirely wrong with that either if it's something a person is into, it's just, well, we might actually be better off with less sociology students. The half baked and non realistic ideas that come out of that cause problems in the real world.
The reason I feel this is not from outside observation but because I spent a bunch of time in sociology classes many years ago. 4 as I recall. I wish I'd spent the time in extra math classes and I believe the world would be better off if people did.
