Be mindful of fundamental human nature and how it shapes everything we do, including all our social constructs. Few people are, which make mindlessness the dominant modus operandi.
Lord of the Flies was a fictional novel, it never happened, it’s not real and shouldn’t be used to inform your thinking.
Especially when real life instances of groups of young children being stranded without adult help exist and play out in ways directly opposite of the novel’s central thesis.
You can make any society work if you're writing fiction.
For example, Star Trek is Roddenberry's idea of a utopia. A benevolent dictator with his happy ship of comrades all rowing together. (But hey, I enjoyed watching it!)
STTNG amps that up even further. It got so heavy-handed with it I lost interest in it.
I'm not understanding how you're extrapolating Lord of the Flies from what they're saying. A key part of "raised to be empowered by creation and creativity" would involve parents and other adults to do that. I haven't read the book in a while, were they stranded on the island with their parents?
> Be mindful of fundamental human nature and how it shapes everything we do, including all our social constructs. Few people are, which make mindlessness the dominant modus operandi.
What is the fundamental human nature in your opinion?
True mindfulness is to know when the machine breaks, why it breaks and to recognize known flaws of the machine, for example to assume that all others are automatons running on low-energy heuristics.
Regardless of how they might have used LLMs, I tend to have an issue with this kind of complaint, given the C++ example code on the Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software book, released in 1994, 2 years before Java was made public.
Or the examples from "Using the Booch Method: A Rational Approach", "Designing Object Oriented C++ Applications Using The Booch Method", or "Using the Booch Method: A Rational Approach".
Additional there are enough framework examples starting with Turbo Vision in 1990, MacAPP in 1989, OWL in 1991, MFC in 1992,....
Somehow a C++ style that was prevalent in the industry between 1990 and 1996, that I bet plenty of devs still have to maintain in 2026, has become "Java in C++".
A class with a passel of static member functions is Java code. It is not in any way idiomatic C++ code which has had namespace-level ("free") functions since it was invented as C-with-classes many decades ago. Using classes holding a whole lot of static member functions is strongly frowned on in the professional C++ community.
A lot of my professional C++ experience comes from the computer vision space where I am specifically linking against FFmpeg (libav does its own share of memory management tricks that don't always play well with RAII).
I think of static functions (even within member classes) as a signifier of "hey, you don't need a constructed object for this to work and it doesn't depend on class instance state".
In application code, I was typically relying on Myers Singletons and the implicit thread-safeness more than what you see here. I debated dropping the static keyword because it stands out as odd especially in a private class method, but settled on keeping it.
There's not much mystery about that - Java took that approach and ran with it, and now has much greater mindshare than C++.
Also, the mid-90s were before most software developers working today were born, I suspect. They'd have to go find a graybeard and ask them to tell them tales of yore, to find out about any of this.
its a ~70 day old account with mostly mixed / downvoted comments defending conservative candidates by attempting to deflect via popular topics (in this case, gender and sexism)
Hmm, looking at your profile it seems all you do is comment on political topics. Look at my profile, it's almost exclusively technology and AI related, since I don't usually use HN as a political battleground.
The part you're missing is that the evaluator already knows the answer. They're not looking that you can arrive at the correct answer, but that you know how to arrive at the correct answer. If "arriving at the correct answer" just means retrieving data from a Baysian database using a Markov chain you have only demonstrated you provide no value in the chain and should indeed get a mark of zero or get recycled.
>The part you're missing is that the evaluator already knows the answer. They're not looking that you can arrive at the correct answer, but that you know how to arrive at the correct answer.
The university evaluator is not the one paying you, the one paying you is your boss or customer. It doesn't matter how highly your university professor thinks of you, if you can't solve difficult problems as fast because your university never taught you to solve hard problems with AI, you're going to be at a competitive disadvantage in the workforce when you graduate.
Similarly most salespeople would gladly work commission-free if it meant more sales.
reply