To add to this, it's so nice. Sit on a stool in the middle of the room and rinse, soap up, scrub to exfoliate, rinse, then roll the lid of the bath open and soak in a sub much deeper than an American one. Bath is programmable to maintain a constant temperature.
I wish more people knew how nice it is! And the toilet is in a completely separate room so there's no contention among one person who wants to take a bath and another who needs to use the toilet.
I just wish dish washers and dryers were more common in Japanese households. I'm in Okinawa where dryers are a lot more "standard", but dish washers are relatively rare.
Man get with the times and switch to mplayer2 already /s
mpv can still do terminal ANSI-art output if you really want but it can also display pixels directly via DRM without a display server if you launch it from a random VT.
Have you ever worked directly with customers? Even those paying huge amounts of money for custom software usually don't know what they really need. They usually know their problems, but even then it can still require a lot of exploration to get to the core of it all, and then design an appropriate solution; not to mention having a good awareness of how software actually intersects with real life rather than how a non-technical customer imagines it does.
I know we're getting closer to robots that can do all that but I don't believe we're there yet.
> Modularity abstraction aspires to hide the interleavings and present operations as if they were atomic. Its goal is to make the module easy to use, but in doing so it forgoes exposing concurrency or efficiency opportunities.
> In stark contrast, the modeling abstraction is about identifying what should leak and leveraging it! It exposes the fine-grained actions and orderings, and proves that invariants hold despite the interleavings. The payoff for this work is to harvest the maximum safe concurrency from the system.
I guess I don't understand the argument here because those just sound like two different flavours of the same custard to me; the difference is just the balance of work you're doing on each side of the interface, and that decision depends on use cases specific to the project.
This feels more like it's making a point about system design? Abstraction is abstraction - you can apply it at different levels within a project, and a big part of building skills in software development is in learning to zoom in and out and nail the abstraction at each stage, but ultimately you're doing the same thing over and over. I don't personally think we need categories of it.
> I guess I don't understand the argument here because those just sound like two different flavours of the same custard to me; the difference is just the balance of work you're doing on each side of the interface, and that decision depends on use cases specific to the project.
It is two different flavours. One is about interconnecting things, and the other is what you interconnect. What TFA called modelling abstraction seems to be the primitive ideas that goes in building more complex systems (which it calls Modularity Abstraction). Something like a String is not a primitive, but rather a combination of the idea of Character and List are. Just like you can go from a disk (a pure array of bytes) to a file system (in the unix world, a tree with nodes of metadata). The primitive here are Array (existing) and Tree (target) and with them you build a modular system (The file systems) that transform ones into another.
So yes, both are abstractions, one is about identifying primitives, and the other is about combining them.
That just sounds like a tower of abstraction to me; the 'primitives' are whatever you're building the current layer on top of. The filesystem becomes the primitive when you want to fopen something. Perhaps I'm over simplifying? I still don't see a division into two classes of abstraction.
> That just sounds like a tower of abstraction to me;[...] I still don't see a division into two classes of abstraction.
It is a tower of abstraction as it's recursive. It's just that at every layer you will be dealing with two types, the primitive from the previous layer and the new system that you're building in this layer. Something like Character is a composition of symbols (bit) and encoding (ASCII, Unicode), in a specific form of Data.
DDD is kinda a meta on that where the emphasis is to simultaneously build a glossary (primitives) while also trying to define subdomains to restrict their semantic. But that's an approach for software architecture, not general system modeling.
That's a great comment! Tying ones shoelaces without the aid of modern technology is not just old-fashioned (em dash) it's a key differentiator that highlights the growing divide between the generations in the age of generative AI!
Sorry for your struggles. Not to speak to your specific experience but in evolutionary terms there are other ways to look at neurodivergence besides the challenges: https://complementarycognition.co.uk/
Hyperfocus for example can be highly beneficial if you manage to point it in the right direction, and in general neurodivergence tends to specialise either into explorers or exploiters, that is, those who are good at exploring the space of possible solutions, and those who are good at applying a specific solution to solve the problem at hand. Such skills can be problematic in isolation (as you've described), but in combination can be very powerful and could've therefore been instrumental to our past success as a species.
I understand this is not much comfort for an individual who is struggling, but I second the GP in saying that many modern societies are not setup to provide the best environment for the neurodivergent among us to thrive, to the detriment of everyone.
> Hyperfocus for example can be highly beneficial if you manage to point it in the right direction
If you have the social support to cope with the costs of hyperfocus: forgetting to complete other tasks, losing track of broader priorities, and the risk of burnout.
Hyperfocus is dysregulation. It just looks productive to everyone so we trick ourselves into thinking it is a benefit. But it is stealing from your present (other tasks you are neglecting) or your future (burnout).
People who can manage their time can generally get the same work done in actually a similar span of time without the downsides. Take a bit longer maybe but then won’t have days of being distracted or exhausted or ill. Viewed over any longer span of time it is clear that hyperfocus is not really a benefit to the brain with ADHD.
reply