We’ve started using a different method for rookie introduction at my company… It gives… unsurprising results.
Boss to Rookie while taking a tour of the company: …and on your left-hand side, you have the deep end of the project pool. *Push*
Rookie: *Splash* *Blub* *Cough* *Blub* *Blub*
How about that mathematical proof that women are evil? It goes like this:
Women require time and money… (And I have the black eye to prove that’s all that’s needed… oh yeah… moving on…)
Time is money (I’m just not able to find a bank where I can deposit my time, or even less get interest rate on it…)
So…
Money is the root of all evil (which actually is pretty nice to money… after all, 4 money only gives 2 evil … or maybe that’s just to say evil is expensive?)
Which means that…
Which then obviously means…
Right?
Wrong!
I bet you’re the kind of person that didn’t pay attention in math class?
An example:
So…
Which means that in reality …
Women are evil… or not evil… which we kind of already knew without all this math.
Hah!
I was experimenting with Lambdas in Java on IntelliJ IDEA… they have a sense of humor.
I was wondering how simple a lambda could get so…
final Supplier<Double> supplier = () -> 1d; double value = supplier.get();
A lambda (supplier) that produces a number (1) from no input. Pretty simple. What will happen to the code if I refactor supplier to make it an inline expression?
double value = ((Supplier<Double>) () -> 1d).get();
Well… that’s kind of in line with casting and such. Not that nice looking… However, now the IDE tells me I can make a simplification… “Replace method call on lambda with lambda body…” let’s try that:
double value = 1d;
Yeah… hmmm… that’s a pretty simple “lambda” indeed… hah!
Talkwards 