It is a shame that most people's associations with oatmeal is either "bland" or "I've added in so much sugar that I may as well ignore the benefits of oats entirely".
Because programmers probably think it'll be a similar field, but it's different. It has correct and incorrect ways of doing things, strongly enforced. You're not inventing new shit, you're reapplying old shit constantly. Old shit that works.
Many think writing software is engineering, but it couldn't be further from the truth.
edit: to clarify, trying to get people to realize the grass isn't always greener, and both sides are better off for it.
Your comment feels unwarranted because other engineering professions have guardrails, because they recognize that people will die if they don't. Your comment is implying that a software engineer can simply apply their existing (lack of) guardrails when that's probably not the case.
No, my comment is implying that if you enjoy the relative freedom of writing software in new and interesting and novel ways, you probably will not enjoy copy-pasting buildings or bridges or whatever again and again and again.
People can easily die due to software, and there are still few (any?) regulations in almost every single industry, plus no way to assign accountability. If a bridge collapses, it's pretty simple to figure out whose fault it is.
The prime example for me was always driving at night in Japan and coming across some grandma waving a traffic light for construction. On the surface, it's ridiculous that she's even there - but then again she has a job and can pay her bills (presumably).
Shit might be annoyingly inefficient over there, but it does just work.
Closures are pretty simple in relation to their captures lifetimes, but they do have a lot of complexity in how the lifetimes of their argument and return type are computed. The compiler has to basically infer them, and that can easily go very wrong. The only reason it works most of the time is because closures are immediately passed to functions whose trait bound specify the expected signature of the closure, but once you deviate a little bit from the common case things start to break down. For example if the bound is `F: SomeTrait` where `SomeTrait` is implemented for `FnOnce(&' i32) -> &i32` the inference will break. Similarly if you store the closure in a local variable before passing it to the function. This used to come up pretty often for "async" closures that were supposed to take a reference as input, since it's impossible to specify their correct trait bound using directly the `Fn*` traits. There are a bunch of related issues [1] in the rustc repo if you search for closure and higher ranked lifetimes.
I really wanted just yesterday to create a dyn AsyncFnMut, which apparently still needs async-trait to build the stable. but I was pretty much unable to figure out how to make that work with a lambda. saying this is all trivial once you understand the borrow machinery is really understating it.
The comment above isn't saying that closures are trivial. Once you understand the borrow checker, you understand that it's a miracle that closures in Rust can possibly work at all, given Rust's other dueling goals of being a GC-less language with guaranteed memory safety despite letting closures close over arbitrary references. Rust is in uncharted territory here, drawing the map as it goes.
What I mean is that later employees—especially the ones who joined during the 2021–2022 hype when Brex was valued at that crazy $12.3 billion peak—got their RSU grants priced at those very high levels. That meant their equity was basically "underwater" once valuations crashed post-2022; the shares they were promised wouldn’t pay out much (or anything meaningful) unless the company somehow got back to those crazy heights.
To keep people from jumping ship and to make things feel fairer, IIRC in 2024 Brex did some RSU "top-ups" - basically, they handed out extra shares at the much lower current valuation to compensate for the drop and give those folks a better shot at actually making some real money or "breaking even".
> Fiber is the cause of many of intestinal issues, making constipation and crohn's disease worse.
Big ol' citation needed on that one.
Fiber is more than fine if you actually drink enough water. There are also two types of fiber; some people need one more than the other, or vice-versa.
I know several people with Crohns where fiber has made the biggest difference in controlling it.
It is a shame that most people's associations with oatmeal is either "bland" or "I've added in so much sugar that I may as well ignore the benefits of oats entirely".
reply