I can see it working for certain industries, but overall we need digital systems too. I work in manufacturing (biotech); everything we do uses a automated recipe, and there are only a handful of systems where we need an operator to directly interact with a UI to make stuff happen.

Obviously a very very gross generalization (might get called out on it too :P) - But I think the low hanging fruit for modern software is optimizing data layouts for fast processing.

Optimizing code requires a lot of work, and requires skills that people usually learn from experience - therefore a rare and expensive skillset. Data-Oriented Design can be taught, and requires (IMO of course) a far less technical skillset.

This is difficult because lots of tools don't let developers choose their data layouts. For example you cannot declare an array of structs in Java.

This is very true. The tower of template and OO class hierarchies typical in c++ codebases make the memory layout impossible. Polymorphism and vtables are so killer for performance. I think general programming can learn a lot of lessons from HPC and game engines.

If we can't learn from flawed humans, then we can't learn anything from anyone. Everyone is defective in one way or another.

Sure, but the lesson isn't necessarily that we should emulate this particular human, genius though he may have been.

What are some instances of people en-masse trying to emulate a scientist's womanizing or similar traits? What I mean to say is, the problem we're trying to solve/avoid - does it actually exist, ever?

Many if not most "hard" science cultures (math, physics, etc.) have a strong undercurrent of competitive gamesmanship. In its worst form, it becomes about vanquishing your rivals more than it is truly about advancing the human condition. I believe this is a factor in driving many people out of the field, including many extremely talented women. The womanizing is consistent with this culture even if it doesn't always come out directly in lectures or papers.

Also, I have direct experience with this having spent time in some of the most prestigious academic institutions in the US. I can assure you that the culture I'm describing exists. As a postdoc, my supervisor was so insecure that he would go out of his way to undermine me publicly and he was one of the leading scientists in his field and in his 70s at the time. There were also good, generous people, but as the old saying goes a rotten apple can spoil the lot.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

While LE probably has legitimate reason to have contacts in every major company SV company, its still chilling to see how friendly and obedient Twitter was, makes you wonder what other social media companies are doing with the government, and how they respond to "suggestions".

I don't usually stick my neck out for Google, but I kinda get this policy. Charge-backs are the "nuclear" option, and both parties will take this unkindly. I understand in this case, it was suggested by the customer rep, which was a mistake.

Also it is wrong tool for other than actually fraudulent as in stolen cc details. Sadly the expensive way is court or arbitration. I wish there was some reasonable method like insurance I could buy that would fight for me instead in these cases.

I don't think it's difficult to become inflammatory when people are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to paint what Twitter/Elon did as justified. You're not arguing in good faith and I see that as far more harmful for HN.

That is simply your view, and I don't agree. Again, its no big deal, people can disagree. People are attempting to moralize the issue due to a personal vendetta against Elon (such as the poster I replied to).

You can disagree all you want. Doesn't change the facts about what happened. Stop lying and trying to defend Elon.

Personal attacks are against HN guidelines. I think we're done here. Goodbye.

Pointing out that you're lying isn't a personal attack, but okay.

Sure, and someone may disagree with your assessment. In the end its no big deal, its just a difference of opinion.