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.

Speaking of arrogance, narcissism and sociopathy, Jane ran away like a snivelling coward instead of showing that he wasn't lying when he repeatedly claimed he's happy to admit his mistakes:

... Slashdotters don't think very highly of sock-puppetry. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

That might be the most hilarious bit in Jane's comedy act, where he wrongly claims that "there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett"".

And yet Jane's 100% wrong, despite being 99.9% certain. As always. And Jane refuses to admit he's wrong. As always. And Jane simultaneously insists that he's happy to admit he's wrong. As always.

But at least Jane finally admitted that Jane is suggesting anything. Baby steps.

Answered here.

I see. So you admit "RespekMyAthorati" is one of your sockpuppet accounts? If not, why are you answering for "him"? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

Good grief, Jane. That link goes to my clear statement that I'm not "RespekMyAthorati". So it's difficult to imagine that Jane's asking that question in good faith.

But maybe Jane's chronic amnesia is kicking in again, so Jane might actually be honestly confused... once again. If Jane's actually just honestly confused, Jane should try to remember that I answered Jane's comment because Jane used my real name to wrongly accuse me of being "RespekMyAthorati":

... Is this your amateur attempt at the despicable practice of "doxxing"? Besides: I would estimate in good faith that there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett", who demonstrably can't stand to be tied down to one pseudonym like his "Khayman80" account, he thinks it's fun to harass other people using multiple sock-puppet accounts. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Sadly, Jane will probably never appreciate the ironic contrast between those first two sentences.

Jane probably also won't appreciate the irony that Jane uses my real name to wrongly accuse me of posing as someone else, while complaining bitterly and threatening to call the police and/or sue whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus. But again, I'll remember this the next time Jane pretends to be offended whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus.

... You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

Good grief. Once again, the irony of Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet "Jane Q. Public" wrongly accusing me of sock-puppeting is overwhelming.

Once again, Jane's completely wrong. This "khayman80" account is the only account I use at Slashdot. What Jane actually means is that his crippling paranoia has led Jane/Lonny Eachus to repeatedly and baselessly project his own sock-puppeting onto me.

... 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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

I just explained that "RespekMyAthorati" was wrong, and showed that I'd already disagreed with his statement 6 years ago. A real skeptic might interpret this as evidence against Jane's accusation.

But Jane simply interprets that evidence as support for his accusation. This is known as a 'self-sealing' ideology: "(Keeley 1999, Bale 2007, Sunstein and Vermeule 2009), whereby evidence against a conspiratorial belief is re-interpreted as evidence for that belief."

... 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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

Good grief, Jane. You've been baselessly accusing me of contradicting myself, but if you'd learn how to apply conservation of energy then you'd realize that your accusations are misplaced. For instance, from our Spencer discussion:

... As long as the power used by the source and the power used by the cooler are constant as required, any relationship between them has no bearing on the experiment. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]

... I was arguing that the input to the heat source was constant but the power to the cooled walls was not stipulated and could be variable. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-20]

Really? Because you'd previously and wrongly claimed that the power used by the cooler was constant. To the untrained eye, that might look like a contradiction. But I'm sure Jane could grace us with a long-winded evasive pile of nonsense which miraculously concludes that Jane's been perfectly consistent.

I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.

If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way to see that Jane should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

... I will state again what I have stated so many times before: I don't mind admitting that I am wrong, but first I have to be shown that I am indeed wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-06]

I don't know about you, but if I say something that is incorrect, I appreciate being corrected. As long as it's done politely. ... I can be stubborn, but i someone can show me I'm wrong, I'm willing to change. But all too often, they've just tried to TELL me I'm wrong, rather than showing me I'm wrong. That's the difference. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-07]

Really? I showed that you were wrong about GPS by writing down the equations showing that 4 satellite locks are required unless the GPS receiver has an atomic clock, but you couldn't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong. Will you do that now, or were you lying when you said you're willing to admit that you're wrong?

... I've made mistakes here and admitted them when they've been pointed out to me. But unless I made a recognizable blunder, I won't admit to being wrong unless someone actually shows that I am. Insults don't quite make it over that line. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-27]

Insults like these?

... If you show that I was wrong or ignorant of some subject, I'll happily admit it and correct myself. But calling names doesn't cut it, and I doubt you can do the other. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-05]

... 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. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

Good grief, Jane. The last time you made this absurd claim, I listed several examples where I've admitted mistakes.

Again, it's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.

You even repeatedly refused to answer my simple question: when you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" you actually meant that I had repeated that part and responded to it?

If you're actually happy to admit mistakes, couldn't you start by answering that very simple question?

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.

tech how?

It's not, but Friday night is #GamerGate and MRAs night on Slashdot, when 8chan empties out and all the manbabies meet here to cry about how the feminazis are taking away their games and comics and action figures.

Look back a few months. It happens every Friday. There is a story about gender or sexual orientation or something that can be construed as violating the natural order of the primacy of white men. Then, the tears start to flow and it all ends in the gators and the MRAs in one big group hug.

It's harmless, really. If it keeps them off the streets, I'm all for them having their own neckbeard hugbox.

Actually when I read that comment, I thought: "it IS good to consider that this is not solely a Russian problem". I didn't necessarily see an appeal to the bandwagon approach to "morality". The person could have meant that, too, but since it was not specified, we don't actually know that.

But this is Slashdot, where assuming you know the poster's intent (through some sort of psychic powers, I guess) is somehow not considered arrogant.

What do you mean by SMS clients? Do you mean SMS integration?

I have email and chat. Why would I want SMS to get crippled messages or limit myself to a phone platform?

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.

White males are the one group that it's tacitly deemed "okay" to discriminate against. Especially if they happen to be Christian, and even more so if they're Protestant ("WASP").

You just can't have a civil, enlightened society if there's ANY grounp it's okay to fuck with. Even if you think they deserve it. Even if retaliation, based on group identity, against those who didn't personally decide historical events (with their enduring consequences) is somehow your idea of "justice", and simultaneously not your idea of "vengeance". Reversing the tide doesn't cause the state of "tide-free". And it isn't going to.

Otherwise, like if a single individual -- or single institution -- or small group of institutions -- made all these bad decisions, I would be perfectly fine with shunning and refusing to trust that person based on an observed track record. But what you have with the group-guilt scenario is this implicit idea that a large group of people, including those who had no input into the process, should bear some guilt for it. That's a total flat-out rejection of any sort of accountability or individuality.

If you want some kind of one-ness or collective, you don't get it this way. Dystopias are created by trying to find more efficient ways of doing it like that. No, you start by honoring the individual and letting those flourish, interact, and coalesce as they will.

Lesson learned for how to draw up future contracts, I guess.

Hahaha - if the contracts were designed to produce on-time, on-budget they would be written that way (fixed price, fixed requirements, penalties for late delivery). Their intended purpose is quite the opposite of that. If something useful happens to be generated in the process of funneling money from taxpayers to the MIC, so much the better excuse for the next contract.

I've yet to witness a Majority which was truly Moral in both word and deed.

I prefer red wine, myself. Like maybe a good, dry cabernet sauvignon. But to each their own! Enjoy that beer, my friend. Salud!

I wouldn't hire them anyway, based in sheer incompetence. The most readily observed incompetence: calling oneself an "editor" while remaining unable to spell-check or understand and apply the 5th-grade English grammar in which most news stories are deliberately written.

The problem is, the workaholics and institution types effectively have forced their ways on everyone else. Worker productivity has steadily risen since at least the 1950s, meanwhile wages (indexed against inflation) have remained relatively stagnant. That would be equitable if the number of hours worked per week had been reduced, but it hasn't (that, by the way, is what steadily improving technology could have brought us, but it's never enough, the owners want more, more more).

That means someone's getting screwed, and unless most of your revenue comes from investments or other unearned income, that includes you. If you don't work the overtime and place your corporation above your family, you're "not a team player". Because these are conflicting goals, they cannot all be simultaneously satisifed. One must be chosen at the expense of all others, meaning some group who want it one way are going to force this upon everyone else. Currently, in so many work environments, this favors those who want more work and less free time.