Location: BC, Canada

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Within Canada

Technologies: Rust, Golang, C#, Java, C, C++, JS, PHP, Postgres, SQLite, SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, Flutter, Bash, AWK, Linux, Windows

Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eDvIfxc6tgSPAV_psg4aPJptOYz...

Email: cshu32@gmail.com

Versatile programmer with 10+ years of expertise in software development. Automation enthusiast, rustacean, and gopher. Proven experience in web technologies, DB engines, information security, network programming, performance tuning, and cross-platform abstraction.

GitHub: https://github.com/cshu | LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cshu/

when an error occurs in a machine and the machine tries to recover, maybe that's also a form of pain. A machine is not necessarily less sophisticated than any living creature.

Could it be a chance of political corruption even if all source code and data are open?

I agree that we should pay more attention to people that are suffering.

But I think the rationale of such laws is somewhat valid. Can you imagine a person who is totally emotionless when torturing an animal but is also very compassionate towards human beings?

I think in some ways human ethics and animal ethics are connected.

Though if you ask me whether Switzerland has gone too far, I'm still hesitant about yes/no.

Imagine grandpa gutting fish and shooting animals with a rifle all day to come back and give children a goodnight kiss. I am not the one lacking imagination.

That's not the kind of torture i meant. Rifle or knife should be acceptable to most people. (This process is simple. Experienced butchers even work fast and clean.) Switzerland law is also about killing the lobster instantly so it's the same.

They are not really bad. Reading about them can help you get familiar with how programmers usually name their patterns. But I don't think one needs to study "design patterns" to come up with code using builders, factories, and singletons. People should always know the optimal way to write their code (or almost optimal). They can come up with any design patterns when coding, instead of choosing some among the well-known ones.

In most cases, I think they are a solution waiting for a problem. Let the code grow organically at first and see later if a design pattern helps make it simpler, because we humans are terrible at predicting things, moreso the abstract ones.

But getting lost in a sea of abstraction is easy, it makes you a better architecture astronaut than the one that's sitting on a Tesla now on the orbit listening Bowie's music. Looks good, makes you feel an expert, but really it's almost as bad as selling snake oil.

We programmers, as a whole, should have a code of ethic conduct and a better moral ethos.

It depends on many factors. Choosing suitable tools for a project requires careful consideration.

Python is a popular language, but not the only one. So many languages exist for a reason. Of course you can always find justifications to reject a language, e.g. Python lacks compile time checking, C++ is outrageously difficult, Java code is full of boilerplates, Perl is a write-only language, PHP is just bad, etc. But all these languages are widely used for some reasons. Not only the popularity, you may also need to consider maintainability, performance, portability, libraries, licenses, etc.

True. jEdit is one of the best editors i have used. Not my default editor but i use it from time to time and install it everywhere.

The same goes for many other icons. Like rss, wifi, and shutdown icon.

It makes sense, because once an icon becomes popular reinventing it with another design makes people confused.

Isn't it different because the RSS, Wi-Fi and Shutdown icon have been designed to represent a protocol and/or system?

The iCloud "cloud" icon was designed to represent a product, which implies other products could/should have found something else.

kindof, but not always.

C++ and C# are powerful complex languages. C and Java are simple languages. But I can find lots of elegant programs in C or Java. They don't make the programs feel complex.

Still it depends on the programmer. Programs in any language can vary drastically in readability.

If the aliens are strong enough to land their spaceship on earth, investigating all countries is probably a piece of cake for them. There is no reason for them to tie themselves to a certain country or area.

In another case, if they establish communication with a certain country/organization, but they cannot arrive, and somehow can only communicate with that certain country/organization, then it could be a different story.

These thought experiments are always a little strange to me. If an alien race has the technology for interstellar travel I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to assume they’d also be able to do whatever they want to observe us (i.e. stay hidden if they like).

I think a much more interesting thought experiment is this: if an alien race chooses to make First Contact with us, what’s the likelihood we’re actually the first for them? Being a student of history, it’s a stretch for me to think they wouldn’t know these sorts of events trigger drastic changes in the native populations (usually resulting in death) when encountering a more developed civilization. So, I’m forced to conclude that if they do make First Contact with us we’re either the first for them and we’re doomed, or we’re not and they have some sufficient protocol for First Contact that’s “good enough” that they benefit in the exchange. Either way I don’t think Humanity makes out well unless we get lucky with some really benevolent explorers.

> Being a student of history, it’s a stretch for me to think they wouldn’t know these sorts of events trigger drastic changes in the native populations

I think we should really stop thinking that space travel is the natural continuation of the geographic explorations and colonizations of our past. It has nothing to do with it- new planets cannot be colonized because they're uninhabitable (Earth included for an alien) and distances are too big to transfer significant amounts of population.

I don’t think your last sentence follows. Like I noted if they have the technology for interstellar travel I sincerely doubt they wouldn’t also be able to transfer larger populations across those distances. Even that idea might not make sense in this context. Perhaps they’d store their genetic code and simply grown the colonists upon arrival. For us yes we shouldn’t think of colonizing the solar system like it’s just a new continent, but that’s viewing it in the context of our current technology levels. If we had interstellar travel available suddenly that equation changes considerably.

Human life already relies hugely on an artificially created habitat to satisfy basic needs. The trend is to become less coupled to the natural environment that we evolved within. Perhaps that could one day include self supporting habitats beyond the surface of earth. But I do wonder if the focus on planetary surfaces is desirable. If we can survive on the surface of Mars then perhaps space stations/ships could also be self sustaining? If there is enough material outside of big gravity wells then why not?

Being accomplished space travelers doesn't necessarily imply a nuanced understanding of psychology

>>If the aliens are strong enough to land their spaceship on earth, investigating all countries is probably a piece of cake for them.

What if it's just a scout/science vessel?

It depends on how big the gap between the power of aliens and earthlings is.

Some people believe that science advances should progress like explosion, and "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". In this case the possibility of aliens being at the similar level with us is small.

But I think you have a point. Sometimes I doubt the speed of science advances. Maybe the aliens are not so far away from us and their astronautics is not much stronger than our level. They don't look like magicians. In this case things can be boring, may be just an age of discoveries for the aliens.