You can lose legitimate cases, it happens all the time. You would need a court case just to decide if a case were legitimate or not anyway. Both sides going into a small claims cour almost always believe they have a legitimate case.
Courts costs are not fixed. There are costs to attorneys, costs to uncover evidence, costs for any and all court filings. Either side can do court filings at any time, ratcheting up the overall costs. At some point you look at your hand and the size of the pot on the table and may decide to back out before you bankrupt yourself. You may be right and the other side is wrong, but there's always a chance that the jury or judge disagrees and you're left holding a gigantic bill. This is not like Perry Mason where the good guys always win.
This would stop citizens from suing corporations. An average citizen can not hope to pay the immense court costs that a corporation could create. Loser pays could work but only if combined with other more major changes to the legal system.
I compare lawsuits to online PvP gaming. If you win, it's because you were right and superior. If you lose, it's because the other side was abusive and cheated. The largest groups calling for tort reforms are not average citizens but large corporations upset that they occasionally lose. They see what happened to tobacco companies and don't want that to happen again. They have enough money that they try to sway voters by bringing up red herring cases, like the McDonald's coffee case (which was not an abuse of the system, but sounds like it if you leave out all the important details). Some extreme mailing lists have a "crazy lawsuit of the week" to try and convince people that the legal system is out of control, when what really happens is that someone is only filing a suit which will likely never see the light of day. If a law gets passed to disallow crazy lawsuits to be filed then that would essentially stop lawsuits by citizens altogether.
Loser pays the costs means the richest person usually wins. It is also up to the courts to set standards so that one side does not flood the other with paperwork and endless motions. A corporation with a set of lawyers on staff that know the legal system will think nothing of a few hundred dollars spent on court filings every day. The loser should only pay if the court finds the suit was frivolous or without reasonable merit.
That's the linker, it's external to the build process, visual studio is a wrapper around separate tools. I'm not sure if Mozilla uses visual studio (probably not as the build should be portable). But as a project manager that deals with calling out to external tools you'd still need a pretty damn big project before you're going to hit 32-bit memory limitations. So just make the linker 64-bit. If you run it on a 64-bit system you've still got closer to 4gb ram to use anyway.
Ha, creative mispelling. I ran into this once. I was working with code that was using a "saclingFactor" all over the place. This was in many files, across many directories. I didn't know what this was so I tried to leave this alone as much as I could, I assumed it was some sort of medical term given that this was a medical machine. Turns out it was just a typo, and should have been "scalingFactor"! But it got copied because either the programmer was too lazy to fix it, or there was some autocompletion in the programmer's editor that kept copying it. Once I figured it out then things made more sense, and instead of mysterious code with a strange set of calculations that didn't make sense it turned out to be somewhat normal code with a bug.
I agree that teaching kids to code is not a good idea. I even think high school is too soon. There are very important concepts to learn first. It's like when I was a kid and had a 100-in-1 electronics set. It was fun to play with but I did not understand very much of what was going on. I could not make a circuit of my own that worked except as tweaks to an existing design. I lacked the necessary math and physics background (generally this is first year college stuff).
And of course "coding" is just a tool. To be a programmer you also have to know other stuff, domain related knowledge. Can't do scientific programming without understanding the science and numerical analysis. Can't do a lot of graphics without understanding geometry and linear algebra. And so forth. But a lot of people fumble along as juniors in those types of programming byt having a set of patterns that they can replicate or look up on the web.
One goal should be able to make the code readable to untrained amateurs perhaps? Obscure code for the purpose of job security is silly. And code that only one programmer on the team understands is dangerous because very often that person will change jobs and leave the original company in a bad position, and I have seen that many many times. If I ever see the attitude that no one else needs to understand the code then that's a programmer I don't want to work with (and who I will give a bad peer review to if I do have to work with him or her.).
Add more comments; don't use silly C obfuscation tricks, give variables and functions meaningful names; write the code so that someone else can maintain it later; and so forth.
In my experience, when I run across code that's difficult to understand it also is not very efficient either, except perhaps in a very localized way.
Personally, get lots of "software engineering" types and gets a mess. More effort is put into having the correct process than in getting stuff done, arguing over the proper design pattern to use, drawing the UML diagrams correctly, and so forth. Granted if the task is extremely complex then you need some of these tools to manage the complexity - but those tools are just tools and should not become the primary focus.
Sometimes I sense a sort of inferiority complex amongst programmers, where they see all these other engineering fields with what they think are interchangeable standard components, rigid design rules, "proper engineering practices" and feel jealous that such things don't exist with programming. The holy grail being to automatically generate code based upon a set of precise specifications and requirements. Except that those things don't really exist in other engineering fields to the degree people think they do, all that stuff gets designed badly too, from bridges to electronic circuit boards to warplanes, not really the sort of thing you want to emulate exactly. Work for defense industry for a bit and you'll learn that precise specifications and requirements are elusive and don't really help you much except to extract more government money.
But at least these software engineering types are focused on very high level (and fashionable) languages so I don't deal with them much anymore.
I wanted to "code" but that was very minor. I also wanted to understand computers. I never really trust the programming or engineering aptitude of people who call themselves a "coder". That's like working in the hardware lab and calling yourself a "solderer", or working in a biology lab and calling yourself a "cage cleaner". Sure, not bad jobs, but the goals are not all that lofty.
There's a variant of this. The EE or science grad that learned a little bit of programming in school then ended up primarily as a programmer as a career. With completely awful code to match if they are more interested in results than in maintenance. Ie, one person said he thought using "const" was a waste of his time.
Granted, CS technically isn't really supposed to teach programming either, it's something you pick up along the way. But at least in CS you should be learning some theory with a wide exposure to lots of computing styles.
I learned very very basic programming briefly on my own but not enough to get anything done (not owning a computer either for a long time afterwords, as they were extremely expensive). But I really did not learn until I went to college and had a real class in it. But even then I didn't program well until I took later classes teaching a lot more stuff on the side - comparative study of programming languages for wider exposure to concepts, AI for more in depth Lisp usage, numerical analysis so that floating point numbers and scientific code was clearer, microprocessor lab and operating systems so the concepts of concurrency became natural, compilers which naturally make you understand computer languages and how everything works under the hood (I am amazed at how many professional programmers treat the CPU as a mysterious black box), etc.
You can learn all this on your own, but the self discipline is enormous. Most people who learn on their own skip the boring stuff, skip stuff they can't see a use for, skip the time consuming stuff, and basically skip everything that they can't use immediately (short term results). And I've met a lot of self taught people who describe themselves as greatprogrammers who I'd categorize as mediocre programmers.
Sometime you can get the memory back in other ways. Ie, make the 32-bit application "large address away". Or just be more efficient. I have seem people bitch at an online game for not going 64-bit, but then they'd have to maintain two copies. The memory problem was basically solved by going to a 64-bit OS instead, so the application gets the full 4GB.
I have trouble imagining any situation where you might want to keep TeamViewer open and active, unless the guy pretending to be microsoft support asked you to. And a situation of leaving TeamViewer open, active, and *unattended* seems bizarre. I could possibly imagine remote control IT support, but that sounds like a badly run company to me; if you can't see your own IT support then what assurance do you have that IT even knows or cares about you, but even a remote control IT support would turn off TeamViewer as often as possible, would know not to use the same password everywhere, etc. (sounds like maybe too many people outsource stuff)
TeamViewer works, is easy to use, and from all accounts other than Reddit, secure. People who complain about losing money on paypal are probably not security experts as security experts wouldn't put their own money in paypal.
Is there an advantage to converting to 64 bits? Or is it more the newer-is-better type of thinking? Seriously, if your project is running out of memory while building then maybe the problem is with the project.
No, I only view them from the outside and see people leave good jobs to be in a startup only to leave 6 months later. I have been at pre-IPOs, which is not the same as a company whose mission is to get sell out before they make a stable product or achieve a profit. Do you have counter examples of this, and if so what percentage of all startups is that and does it justify the fawning adoration of media on startups?
My router is only 5 years old. It does not have 5Ghz support. Because almost no one at home wanted it, 5Ghz was considered to be something for the office. Only the rise of home streaming did it become more attractive. Hardware manufacturers do not add in features that they think customers won't use. We don't know what will be out there in 10 years and what we will want our TVs to do in 10 years, so having a small cheap component that can be replaced easily by the customer is a good idea. But no, a bunch of consumers raised on the concept of planned obsolescence will go and buy a new TV instead.
I find it inconceivable that today's hardware will meet the needs of the consumers 10 or 15 years from now, and a moderately good TV should last at least that long. Yet that seems to be what you're arguing.
The point is the obsession with society with rich celebrities and listening to all the bs the spew. Musk is just another guy, he's not smarter than average most likely. But he has money therefore he just be totally brilliant; just like Trump has money therefore he must be brilliant (even to people who swear that they hate elites). It's not even Musk's idea, so why focus that he said it instead of quoting the original scientist? He hired some people who built and designed a car, so he gets all the credit according to society, just like Steve Jobs was worshiped and Steve Wozniak became a "who?"
I had a recruiter try to sell me on a startup by saying "the founder is a cousin of Elon Musk." That was pure unadulterated name dropping designed to attract celebrity worshipers.
Slashdot Mirror
You can lose legitimate cases, it happens all the time. You would need a court case just to decide if a case were legitimate or not anyway. Both sides going into a small claims cour almost always believe they have a legitimate case.
Courts costs are not fixed. There are costs to attorneys, costs to uncover evidence, costs for any and all court filings. Either side can do court filings at any time, ratcheting up the overall costs. At some point you look at your hand and the size of the pot on the table and may decide to back out before you bankrupt yourself. You may be right and the other side is wrong, but there's always a chance that the jury or judge disagrees and you're left holding a gigantic bill. This is not like Perry Mason where the good guys always win.
This would stop citizens from suing corporations. An average citizen can not hope to pay the immense court costs that a corporation could create. Loser pays could work but only if combined with other more major changes to the legal system.
I compare lawsuits to online PvP gaming. If you win, it's because you were right and superior. If you lose, it's because the other side was abusive and cheated. The largest groups calling for tort reforms are not average citizens but large corporations upset that they occasionally lose. They see what happened to tobacco companies and don't want that to happen again. They have enough money that they try to sway voters by bringing up red herring cases, like the McDonald's coffee case (which was not an abuse of the system, but sounds like it if you leave out all the important details). Some extreme mailing lists have a "crazy lawsuit of the week" to try and convince people that the legal system is out of control, when what really happens is that someone is only filing a suit which will likely never see the light of day. If a law gets passed to disallow crazy lawsuits to be filed then that would essentially stop lawsuits by citizens altogether.
Loser pays the costs means the richest person usually wins. It is also up to the courts to set standards so that one side does not flood the other with paperwork and endless motions. A corporation with a set of lawyers on staff that know the legal system will think nothing of a few hundred dollars spent on court filings every day. The loser should only pay if the court finds the suit was frivolous or without reasonable merit.
It's allowed to be used amongst the education, however it's not to be used amongst the elite. At one time those were one and the same though.
That's the linker, it's external to the build process, visual studio is a wrapper around separate tools. I'm not sure if Mozilla uses visual studio (probably not as the build should be portable). But as a project manager that deals with calling out to external tools you'd still need a pretty damn big project before you're going to hit 32-bit memory limitations. So just make the linker 64-bit. If you run it on a 64-bit system you've still got closer to 4gb ram to use anyway.
Well sure, if they want to learn. But when they set up classes for it specifically there's a lot of pressure to join that class.
Ha, creative mispelling. I ran into this once. I was working with code that was using a "saclingFactor" all over the place. This was in many files, across many directories. I didn't know what this was so I tried to leave this alone as much as I could, I assumed it was some sort of medical term given that this was a medical machine. Turns out it was just a typo, and should have been "scalingFactor"! But it got copied because either the programmer was too lazy to fix it, or there was some autocompletion in the programmer's editor that kept copying it. Once I figured it out then things made more sense, and instead of mysterious code with a strange set of calculations that didn't make sense it turned out to be somewhat normal code with a bug.
I agree that teaching kids to code is not a good idea. I even think high school is too soon. There are very important concepts to learn first. It's like when I was a kid and had a 100-in-1 electronics set. It was fun to play with but I did not understand very much of what was going on. I could not make a circuit of my own that worked except as tweaks to an existing design. I lacked the necessary math and physics background (generally this is first year college stuff).
And of course "coding" is just a tool. To be a programmer you also have to know other stuff, domain related knowledge. Can't do scientific programming without understanding the science and numerical analysis. Can't do a lot of graphics without understanding geometry and linear algebra. And so forth. But a lot of people fumble along as juniors in those types of programming byt having a set of patterns that they can replicate or look up on the web.
One goal should be able to make the code readable to untrained amateurs perhaps? Obscure code for the purpose of job security is silly. And code that only one programmer on the team understands is dangerous because very often that person will change jobs and leave the original company in a bad position, and I have seen that many many times. If I ever see the attitude that no one else needs to understand the code then that's a programmer I don't want to work with (and who I will give a bad peer review to if I do have to work with him or her.).
Add more comments; don't use silly C obfuscation tricks, give variables and functions meaningful names; write the code so that someone else can maintain it later; and so forth.
In my experience, when I run across code that's difficult to understand it also is not very efficient either, except perhaps in a very localized way.
Personally, get lots of "software engineering" types and gets a mess. More effort is put into having the correct process than in getting stuff done, arguing over the proper design pattern to use, drawing the UML diagrams correctly, and so forth. Granted if the task is extremely complex then you need some of these tools to manage the complexity - but those tools are just tools and should not become the primary focus.
Sometimes I sense a sort of inferiority complex amongst programmers, where they see all these other engineering fields with what they think are interchangeable standard components, rigid design rules, "proper engineering practices" and feel jealous that such things don't exist with programming. The holy grail being to automatically generate code based upon a set of precise specifications and requirements. Except that those things don't really exist in other engineering fields to the degree people think they do, all that stuff gets designed badly too, from bridges to electronic circuit boards to warplanes, not really the sort of thing you want to emulate exactly. Work for defense industry for a bit and you'll learn that precise specifications and requirements are elusive and don't really help you much except to extract more government money.
But at least these software engineering types are focused on very high level (and fashionable) languages so I don't deal with them much anymore.
I wanted to "code" but that was very minor. I also wanted to understand computers. I never really trust the programming or engineering aptitude of people who call themselves a "coder". That's like working in the hardware lab and calling yourself a "solderer", or working in a biology lab and calling yourself a "cage cleaner". Sure, not bad jobs, but the goals are not all that lofty.
There's a variant of this. The EE or science grad that learned a little bit of programming in school then ended up primarily as a programmer as a career. With completely awful code to match if they are more interested in results than in maintenance. Ie, one person said he thought using "const" was a waste of his time.
Granted, CS technically isn't really supposed to teach programming either, it's something you pick up along the way. But at least in CS you should be learning some theory with a wide exposure to lots of computing styles.
I learned very very basic programming briefly on my own but not enough to get anything done (not owning a computer either for a long time afterwords, as they were extremely expensive). But I really did not learn until I went to college and had a real class in it. But even then I didn't program well until I took later classes teaching a lot more stuff on the side - comparative study of programming languages for wider exposure to concepts, AI for more in depth Lisp usage, numerical analysis so that floating point numbers and scientific code was clearer, microprocessor lab and operating systems so the concepts of concurrency became natural, compilers which naturally make you understand computer languages and how everything works under the hood (I am amazed at how many professional programmers treat the CPU as a mysterious black box), etc.
You can learn all this on your own, but the self discipline is enormous. Most people who learn on their own skip the boring stuff, skip stuff they can't see a use for, skip the time consuming stuff, and basically skip everything that they can't use immediately (short term results). And I've met a lot of self taught people who describe themselves as greatprogrammers who I'd categorize as mediocre programmers.
Sometime you can get the memory back in other ways. Ie, make the 32-bit application "large address away". Or just be more efficient. I have seem people bitch at an online game for not going 64-bit, but then they'd have to maintain two copies. The memory problem was basically solved by going to a 64-bit OS instead, so the application gets the full 4GB.
I have trouble imagining any situation where you might want to keep TeamViewer open and active, unless the guy pretending to be microsoft support asked you to. And a situation of leaving TeamViewer open, active, and *unattended* seems bizarre. I could possibly imagine remote control IT support, but that sounds like a badly run company to me; if you can't see your own IT support then what assurance do you have that IT even knows or cares about you, but even a remote control IT support would turn off TeamViewer as often as possible, would know not to use the same password everywhere, etc. (sounds like maybe too many people outsource stuff)
TeamViewer works, is easy to use, and from all accounts other than Reddit, secure. People who complain about losing money on paypal are probably not security experts as security experts wouldn't put their own money in paypal.
I use teamviewer. But there's no password. What does having an account get you that you don't get with the free version?
Is there an advantage to converting to 64 bits? Or is it more the newer-is-better type of thinking? Seriously, if your project is running out of memory while building then maybe the problem is with the project.
Alanis Morrisette called this usage very ironic.
I got the impression that actual workers were an afterthought.
No, I only view them from the outside and see people leave good jobs to be in a startup only to leave 6 months later. I have been at pre-IPOs, which is not the same as a company whose mission is to get sell out before they make a stable product or achieve a profit. Do you have counter examples of this, and if so what percentage of all startups is that and does it justify the fawning adoration of media on startups?
By then I will be too old to shake my fist at the screen.
My router is only 5 years old. It does not have 5Ghz support. Because almost no one at home wanted it, 5Ghz was considered to be something for the office. Only the rise of home streaming did it become more attractive. Hardware manufacturers do not add in features that they think customers won't use. We don't know what will be out there in 10 years and what we will want our TVs to do in 10 years, so having a small cheap component that can be replaced easily by the customer is a good idea. But no, a bunch of consumers raised on the concept of planned obsolescence will go and buy a new TV instead.
I find it inconceivable that today's hardware will meet the needs of the consumers 10 or 15 years from now, and a moderately good TV should last at least that long. Yet that seems to be what you're arguing.
The point is the obsession with society with rich celebrities and listening to all the bs the spew. Musk is just another guy, he's not smarter than average most likely. But he has money therefore he just be totally brilliant; just like Trump has money therefore he must be brilliant (even to people who swear that they hate elites). It's not even Musk's idea, so why focus that he said it instead of quoting the original scientist? He hired some people who built and designed a car, so he gets all the credit according to society, just like Steve Jobs was worshiped and Steve Wozniak became a "who?"
I had a recruiter try to sell me on a startup by saying "the founder is a cousin of Elon Musk." That was pure unadulterated name dropping designed to attract celebrity worshipers.
The circles of CEOs and geniuses rarely intersect. Not even this time.