I will elaborate just a little:

I have personally seen code essential to execution time, which was neat and canonical, made literally more than 100 times more efficient in the sense of time and CPU cycles, by using methods that were a little less readable.

And I mean via testing, not just subjective impression.

TFA has its priorities skewed.

There *IS* one problem here: efficiency is the last item, while "simple" and "pleasant to look at" are given higher priority on the list.

Yes, that is a regrettable trend I've seen lately. Yes, code should be readable, and should be easy to maintain. But there is a huge amount -- maybe even majority -- of time when efficiency should be considered before readability or beauty.

Yes, it is, because there's no such thing as a "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole". A real thing and an imaginary thing are not comparable.

Arrogance and narcissism are not even remotely the same things... though they may be related. In the same way, for example, that narcissism and sociopathy are sometimes related. But NOT the same things.

Especially when you consider that study after study has shown that older programmers consistently outperform younger programmers. This has been shown to be true up to about age 70.

To whoever modded me "troll", I'll explain my position this much further:

You don't get to step on the Constitutional rights of one group in order to uphold another.

It doesn't work that way. Trying to do so will inevitably backfire. You set a terrible precedent, and weaken everybody's rights, including your own, when you do that.

---
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson

Since you consider yourself to be a scientist, maybe I can use you for an example of how scientists think?

You have VERY frequently demonstrated that you appear to think repeating the same false thing in public over and over again somehow makes it more true.

I assure you, it's not.

You have not once demonstrated that any of my "accusations", as you call them, were in any way "baseless".

Saying my comments were baseless is a bald-faced lie. One which you know to be a lie.

That's something that is (at least in the moral sense) called libel. Knock it off.

I'm not accusing you of libel in any legal sense. At least not yet. If I do, I'm not the person you will hear about it from.

I am with you on this. I do not perceive it to be an anti-gay bill at all, but rather a bill that protects religious freedom.

I'm no religious nut myself, nevertheless forcing people to do things that violate their genuine religious beliefs is the opposite of "tolerance".

I didn't "accuse you" but I did suggest the possibility. More than just a possibility, really.

And I find the "coincidence" (as I explained above) of him answering for you to be just a bit too unlikely. Actually, I think it's damned near impossible. Of course "nearly impossible" happens all the time in this world, but Slashdot is not the entire world.

You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either.

And it hardly surprises me that you would contradict yourself. You did it a lot when we were actually having our Spencer discussion. You never admitted it, but as I have stated before, it's all a matter of record.

Unlike you, while I certainly have made mistakes, and changed my mind on some issues over the years, I have been happy to admit it when that actually happens.

I see. So you admit "RespekMyAthorati" is one of your sockpuppet accounts? If not, why are you answering for "him"?

STOP LYING.

Absolute nonsense. No programmer I know gives the slightest damn who wrote a function they use. They just want it to work. And that's the proper way to look at it.

Insisting that a program include functions written by women that access other functions written by women is by definition sexist. The opposite of sexism isn't more sexism in the opposite direction... it's truly not caring.

You don't fight discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. It hasn't worked, and it doesn't work. You fight discrimination by eliminating its consideration.

I no more care whether a software tool I use was written by a woman or a man than I care whether a bolt or a piece of material used in a weekend project was made by a woman or a man. It just has to work. Who made it is completely irrelevant... and should be.

Well, let's see if the rest of Slashdot has much of a problem with this logic:

For years now, I have had ONE person claiming to be a physicist, who seems to care (understatement; "obsessed" would be more accurate) about who he thinks I am outside of Slashdot, and who likes to argue -- nay, insists upon arguing -- fallaciously about physics.

And along comes "RespekMyAthorati", with marvellously coincidental timing, who apparently also likes to argue fallaciously about physics, and who also seems to care about some person outside of Slashdot who he thinks is me.

Rather astounding coincidence, wouldn't you say?

I would. I bet if I put together a group of Slashdotters, and showed this to them, they would conclude that the one account is very likely (understatement again) a sock-puppet of the other.

And I know you don't seem to care, but Slashdotters don't think very highly of sock-puppetry.

I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to.

I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it.

No. You do NOT get to take my words out of context, insert your own later comments around them, then try to argue that I said something I explained to you in plain English that I did not mean in the context you are trying to portray them.

That's called LYING, man. Or worse.

We already had this argument, and you lost. End of story. Go the fuck away, and leave me alone.