secrecy by means of non-disclosure is essentially an obsolete phenomenon, so this is the only kind of knowledge worth calling "occult knowledge" at this point:https://twitter.com/literalbanana/status/1193302182478483456 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Software doesn't have parts, except in the mind of some human. It's one of the consequences of mereological nihilism. Much easier to find awkward overlaps in our arbitrary categories rather than getting them to play nice together.
-
This reminds me of another occult principle. Total responsibility. Even if some problem is the responsibility of someone else, it's very likely that fixing it is your own responsibility simply because if you don't, nobody will.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is “occulting” a form of Feynman falsifiability test? If I say dependency injection is a dictionary of functions, or blockchain is a linked list, but I can’t do the same thing for SRP, is that the tell?
-
seems about like it, yeah probably one could get a good metric of occultation from the median number of iterations of "no, not like that" one would go through trying to tell somebody what the thing is and them trying to replicate it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You got your shibboleth in my solution to P=NP.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
there's a clever truism by a professor whose name I'm forgetting about not building an Egg that can .hatch() unless you're sure it'll always be able to .incubate() nowadays I just build Chickens but it's stuck with me
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.