I listened to Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Motorhead and pretty much anything loud. Including concerts. And I play electric guitar.
Yet I lie awake at night because a neighbor snores, or the aquarium fish flips its fin at the other side of the house, or the blood coursing through my veins, or the hum of a lamp, or even cats walking across the carpet in the room above mine.
If anything, listening to so much loud music has made me overly sensitive, and I have to sleep with ear plugs. Not that it helps when the birds start chirping outside early in the morning.
Please describe this arena that code competes in and the rules of said competition. I don't recall any job I've done where we created more than one chunk of code to perform the same task and set them into competition.
Others create code that your code competes with. Unless you've cornered the market, you are always in a deadly competition, whether you realize it or not.
What percentage of a programmer's time is spent typing?
My guess is around 10%, and only half of that in an editor.
But what's even more scary is that I think even less time is spent on research, like reading.
Since the ability to pursue happiness isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's irrelevant to federal issues.
It is part of the Declaration of Independence, without which the Constitution has no base and is null and void.
When I refactor code it's similar to reorganizing a warehouse. This is not evolution. It's simple management.
The evolutionary aspect is what happens after you refactor your code. It tallies the score on whether you made good or bad decisions. Spend too much time on something that doesn't give your code a competitive advantage, and it fails when competing.
Understanding evolution doesn't mean direct evolution. That's a big clue that you don't understand evolution.
Understanding how evolution works is by always keeping in mind that the least fit are culled, and how to reduce the risks of it being you. You don't have to be best; you just have to not be worse than the competition in any aspect that could cause a survival advantage for them over you.
A federal system relies on the assumption that the federal government is smart enough to know what's best for everyone
No, it only relies on the assumption that the federal government is smarter than the dumbest state government in order to raise the floor.
That's funny, I'm using a touch keyboard now, and I can still spell correctly.
Not at any appreciable speed, I am fairly certain. Touch typing is fast, while swiping is slow. So slow that auto-completion becomes an important and integral part of swiping.
Some companies tried that with word processing for touch typists too (long before swiping was invented), and almost all typists turned it off. With touch typing, you could finish a word much quicker than it took to look at the suggestion and accept it.
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Anything that directly affects an individuals ability to pursue happiness is very much a federal issue.
In very few fields, even science and technology, is an accurate understanding of evolution even remotely helpful.
Au contraire, an understanding of evolution gives a strong advantage in pretty much any field. Whether it's programming or economics, understanding how successful models gain a survival advantage, while the weakest are more subject to predation is more than remotely helpful.
Competition and death is inevitable, and you become more successful by embracing it than fighting or ignoring it.
When deciding what programmers do, evolution plays a part on a daily basis. You want to refactor code? Unless something is detrimental, leave it in. You have two different ways of doing things? Use both if you can, and let time decide which one is best; you may be surprised that it's not always the fastest or most elegant code. You have some spare time? Have individuals compete instead of collaborate. Let the worst projects fail - don't spend a major effort rescuing them.
Similar for any other science. Use your knowledge of evolution. It is a scorekeeper and happens whether you like it or not. So use it to your advantage. Embrace the principles; don't fight them.
These sorts of programs should not be Federal.
Now I'd like to hear some logic behind that claim.
I can only see detriments. When states pick, the result will differ between them. That leads to unequal opportunities depending on where you were born, and as many gaps between haves and have-nots that divide further as gaps that close. Or more, because there seems to be a strong correlation between the overall poverty of a state and how reluctant it is to support science.
Now if there were evolution for states, I'd be all for it. Every year, force a random poor state to dissolve and be amalgamated with its neighbors, and a random rich state to split in two. Then, doing the right thing would be rewarded by survival over time.
But alas, the competition isn't between the states, which survive no matter what, but between humans, who too often lose because of their state not giving them as good opportunities as other states.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.