Rant about programming stereotypes 

@julia Intellisense doesn't negate your point. Your talent has my respect.

@xarvos @ZachWeinersmith Given that a) the conversation machine told him it's a conversation machine and b) the conversation machine only repeats what a typical human might say, we can infer that the typical human will occasionally claim to be a conversation machine.

@jefftk Seems like a good example of cargo culting.

Is eight-years old enough to have a gears-level understanding of what contracts are doing?

@cosmiccitizen Ah, I can't imagine having my life anywhere but a task uni-stream.

@Cedar Why is this a hypothetical? Do you actually believe that or not?

@panchromaticity pretty sure it has something to do with tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php

Three appears to have psychological significance

@alexthecamel Not sure I agree with Jill's implicit premise that aggrievement is necessarily passive.

Earlier in the same article (which I confess to merely skimming) she accuses the same demographic of entitlement, of exerting *more control* over their circumstances than they were due.

@Cedar From the image: "chimpanzees, orangutans, and toddlers"

*Toddlers* aren't much smarter than a chimp. Try the same tests with an adult human.

@niplav Oh, I misunderstood and parsed "those two" as C or C+, not the two possible differences.

"Featureful" sounds sufficiently general to cover "stricter", so I'd *guess* there's no deep difference, but not with much confidence.

@niplav Run a C+ compiler on your program? Wouldn't that distinguish the two as rigorously as possible?

Mastodon

a Schelling point for those who seek one