Turning? I don't know where you've been the last few thousand years but religion still has a pretty good grip on societies everywhere.
As far as AI goes - we're in the same place we were 30 years ago, only with more computing power. We can't get AI to recognise the latest captchas, but we think self-driving cars is only five years away.
And when you have a lineup of cars a quarter mile long, and your hand pumping gas and diesel into vehicles, how's that going to go for you.
It'll work better than electric, where you don't have the option of fuel at all. In your mind waiting a day to fill up is just as bad as not filling up at all? Ever seen how water is easily rationed out in disaster areas? Petrol and diesel can work the same way.
Mopst gas stations are not built so they can be gravity fed.
They don't need to be built special. Very few stations are located in the bottom of a valley with no downhill in any direction. Most stations have a downhill in at least one direction. A small difference, a slight grade, is enough to drain the tank using only gravity.
And, let's be honest - power outages of a few weeks does not leave people stranded due to how easily it is to transport fuel to the disaster area. Every disaster area I've seen still manages to have moving vehicles because a single small tanker can bring in enough fuel to power a fleet of light trucks for weeks. I want to see how many batteries you'll bring in when electric vehicles need to move in a disaster area.
We've already seen how well ICE engines cope in disaster areas (no power, flooding everywhere). We see it all the time.
What a silly and arrogant thing to say. There are benefits to both, of course, which is why universities use both (lectures and reading material)
There is no benefit to listening to a talking head. Lectures are active (two-way), a talking head on youtube is passive (one-way).
The benefits of video exist only when the video is displaying information that cannot be easily understood with text-only: how to disassemble an iphone, for example. The linked video has, literally, a few minutes of information stretched out over 30m.
There is literally (once again), no reason to make this thing a video other than for people too stupid to read.
This isn't genetic, but education. A lot of these areas which have people with deplorable values (what you consider deplorable is up to you) will often live with like minded people, so there isn't an equal spread of education of such ideas. If they live in an environment that accepts the idea of the educational elites conspiring to control the population, you will just not listen to this group of people. If you live in an environment where you see these educated elites and find for the most part they are just trying to get basic funding so they get the resources for their study, and be able to eat.
I've read this twice, but I still cannot understand what it is you are trying to say. Long day, was it?
And when the power to gas pumps stop working, everything grinds to a halt as well.
What a brain-damaged comment:
You don't need an electric pump to pour petrol into the car, nor to get it out the storage tank. Any fuel station located in a slightly elevated position can siphon out the last drop of fuel from the storage tank using only gravity.
Besides, I may not even need it due to the range - I can go a month on a full tank. If power is gone for a month we have bigger problems than getting to work.
The point that you're ignoring is that the relevant companies have expressed their intent to accept full liability for any accidents caused by their systems. That's the truly compelling argument.
As all the current SDCs in existence require a human anyway
Google's doesn't.
Perhaps I am being unclear: google has many millions of miles logged with a driver+sdc. To display that the sdc drivers better than the human they should log an equal number of miles on the exact same routes during the same seasons with the same cars and same drivers, but with the sdc turned off.
remember that your claim was that we already have evidence that sdcs are better drivers than humans, my claim was that there was no control group so that doesn't constitute any kind of scientific evidence. My claim still stands.
The "evidence" you referred to in your OP was gained from -always-alert drivers correcting the SD software in perfect conditions.
Nope. I've seen how the Google testing is done. And you're still ignoring the more compelling second point.
I haven't ignored it - I addressed it specifically:
It's not unrealistic - whoever is making the claims of "we drove X million miles with Y accidents" should divide their pool of drivers in half and have the control group drive around the same routes with SDC software turned off
All science is done using a control group in which only a single variable is changed, not one where multiple variables are changed. If studying the SDC capabilities then the control group has to be identical but without the actual SDC. As all the current SDCs in existence require a human anyway it is trivial to simply turn the SDC off and leave the human in place.
You're ignoring all of Google's self-driving data (which includes lots of driving with general-population drivers). And my second -- and more compelling -- point.
I want to see science done with a proper control group, which is group of alert drivers driving in perfect conditions
That's not a proper control group, that's an unrealistic fantasy group.
The "evidence" you referred to in your OP was gained from -always-alert drivers correcting the SD software in perfect conditions. The control for such a group would always-alert drivers in perfect conditions.
It's not unrealistic - whoever is making the claims of "we drove X million miles with Y accidents" should divide their pool of drivers in half and have the control group drive around the same routes with SDC software turned off: that's the only way to tell if the SDC software is an improvement or not. There isn't any other way.
The FACT of the matter is this isn't even real "AI" to start with, it's shitty half-assed "machine learning" crap, and at current it has to 'phone home' to have a remote HUMAN operator take over from it when it runs into something it can't handle.
So what?
If it reduces accidents, and the evidence we have so far is that it does,
Wait, what? When did "we" get that evidence? All we have evidence of is that the group of alert drivers ready to take over at a moments notice coupled with a rule-based driving software that is only allowed to drive in perfect conditions results in less crashes than the group of all other drivers in all other conditions.
Let's wait until they put general-population drivers in with the software before calling it a success, okay? I want to see science done with a proper control group, which is group of alert drivers driving in perfect conditions, not everyone else.
People like you who don't have the education or direct experience working with the specific technology in this case are not in any way shape or form qualified to be commenting on how safe or beneficial it'll be. You're just one more bobble-head believing and agreeing with the nonsensical hype you're being spoon-fed about this.
The FACT of the matter is this isn't even real "AI" to start with, it's shitty half-assed "machine learning" crap, and at current it has to 'phone home' to have a remote HUMAN operator take over from it when it runs into something it can't handle. This reveals it to be a PIECE OF SHIT that should not be allowed on public roads. There will be traffic problems because of this garbage, there will be DEATHS that need not have occurred and that nobody will be held responsible for.
DO NOT WANT!
Similar logical fallacy, circa whenever, used by folks wanting to demonize the Perpetual Motion Machine
FTFY. Just because something unrelated succeeded in the past does not mean new unrelated thing will succeed.
electric cars still have other limitations: short range and slow charge time.
The range is good enough for 99% of the time. For the other 1%, I can rent a gas car.
No, you cannot. Not if everyone has an electric. Everyone will want to rent a long-range car at the same time (vacations coincide) and I can guarantee that there is no rental company who is going to stock enough cars for peak supply (that happens bi-annually). They are going to carry only enough stock to make optimal profit.
Maybe you can Uber for that 1 out of 99 trips that use a significant range?
"Musk can't build a rocket"
Later... "Okay but he can't build a cheap rocket"
Later... "Okay but he can't make them reusable"
Later... "Okay but he needs the military and they'll never use him"
etc etc
"Electric cars will never work"
Later... "Okay but they'll never have the performance of petrol cars"
Later... "Okay but car manufacturers will never embrace them"
Later... "Okay but Musk isn't a car manufacturer"
Later... "Okay but they'll never have a range of more than 100 km"
Later... "Okay but there's no practical way to charge them quickly enough"
Later... "Okay but they'll never be able to mass-produce them"
etc etc
"Tesla won't reach their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla STILL hasn't reached their target"
Kinda indicates what the will of the people would actually show.
We don't need a third variable to indicate what the will of the people is with regard to gun-control - we already know from their voting patterns that they don't care enough!
It is not enough of a problem to anyone who has a vote to spend. The danger represented by gun ownership is smaller than many of the other routine dangers families face.
For example, guns kill fewer children than swimming pools. More children are killed by parents carelessly backing over them in the driveway than by guns.
Is it any wonder that a voter will not want to waste their vote on the anti-gun politician? Sure, it's important to you to reduce the number of gun-deaths, but society has indicated thus far that it finds other things that are more important.
It's important to me that governments use open file-formats and not force me to purchase a copy of MS Office to do business with them, but I am hardly going to castigate voters who support a politician who wants to standardise on MS Office.
Just because an issue is important to you, doesn't mean that it is actually important at all.
Then politician A had better changes his stance and accept that it is the collective will will the people.
No, it's the collective will of about 20% of the people. However, that 20% will vote only on that one issue.
The remaining 60-80% (varies based on the poll) want different gun control policy, but they split their vote based on all the other issues in an election.
Well if they want to trade off gun control policy against something else, it's still the collective will of the people and politician A had better be listening to that collective will if he wants to enact all the other policies.
Maybe the majority of people who vote aren't really bothered by gun owners?
t's a sad truth, but a reality because in the US, money reigns supreme, and the NRA has a metric shit ton of money that they throw around
Actually, the NRA has two things. Money is one of them, as you have said.
The second is a rabid following who will vote for anything that the NRA says is gun control. No matter what else that particular politician does.
Politician A fights to keep your industry alive, lower your taxes, rebuild the roads you drive on every day, but wants concealed carry to require a permit.
Politician B fights to end your job, raise your taxes and destroy all infrastructure, punch you in the face every Tuesday, but wants concealed carry without a permit.
NRA supporters will always vote for Politician B. No matter how much they are hurt by all the rest of the policies.
Then politician A had better changes his stance and accept that it is the collective will will the people.
Every time I've tried to use it from behind a NAT I've had issues. It turned out to be the same issues that I had with SIP - not being able to get to the client due to a multi-layered NAT (two NAT layers or more). Most cell providers do double-NAT because for normal browsing and downloading it works just fine.
If you're doing SIP (or something like it, like WebRTC) you need an external proxy (STUN, TURN or ICE) server which all participants talk to, but which still won't work to get through the double-NAT.
WebRTC can't take off until everyone is on IPv6 and is not NATted. Or until they change the specification a little so that a connection-oriented (non-RTP) is specified. WebRTC peers can't talk to each other behind a NAT properly (only one party gets sound, for example), they have to talk to servers only. This needs to change or we need to move to IPv6.
To be honest, a lot of the time it is centrists being called radical leftists.
I'm a centrist and i've never been called radical left, I only ever get accused of being rightwing. Apparently the view that rules should apply e regardless of race or sex is a rightwing view. Me saying that if black-only or women-only clubs are acceptable then so are whites-only or men-only clubs apparently makes me some sort of nazi (in my case a black one).
The left is now mostly a speech-suppression movement which is antithetical to a free society. For example, I am a lifelong atheist, but I have never in my life campaigned to prevent religious propagandists from talking at a university.
What they really dont like is the presence of anyone who does not agree with them.
So they have gone and made their own little club,
I see no problem with this.
Meanwhile the rest of the world will get on with actual life, something they will be less and less in touch with.
Sad? yes.
Pathetic? yes.
But hey, its no different 'because its on the internet', the only odd thing here is that someone thinks its newsworthy. Its not.
The only odd thing here is that a media article admits to the existence of radical leftism. I've gotten so used to people pointing at radical left ideology and claiming that it's centrist.
An article that admits the existence of a radical left is newsworthy. The actual existence of a radical left is not.
If people leave California, they're going to take their ignorant politics with them and pollute the rest of the country.
Thereby diluting that power bloc significantly. I don't see a problem there, especially if they get to experience what other people's environment is like.
Python isn't weakly typed. It's dynamically typed. The 2 are not the same thing.
I did not claim it was weakly typed. Of course, now that you bring it up, Python type errors are only discovered at run-time which makes the argument moot anyway - we use statically typed language to help catch type errors before a user sees them.
Not having to do type declarations is only part of what makes Python development fast. It's also a VHLL.
Remember that lines_of_code/bugs_in_code is roughly a constant, so the more concise a programming language is, the fewer bugs you tend to have in it.
On static-typed languages I tend to write fewer lines of testing code - in python every single input to every single function or method has to be type checked and an appropriate error has to be displayed to the user. That is something I do not have to do in other languages which let me specify the types of the arguments and the return values.
In other languages the compiler will warn (or even outright stop me) if some function somewhere calls some other function somewhere else with a string when it was supposed to use an integer. In Python I have to write code to defend against that. There is no net win to supposed brevity.
Your argument makes no sense. Let's not ask Siri, let's ask a random 3 year old human:
Hey kid, "How many cylinders in a V6 engine?"... blank stare,
Hey kid, "How many doughnughts are in a dozen doougnughts?"... blank stare.
Hey kid, "What is the nominal size of a 2X4 board?"... blank stare.
Hey kid, "What time is it on Mars?"... Dinner time, yay!
I think you will admit that a 3 year of human may not know all those things but at the same time be vastly intelligent. Hence it is no demonstration of the lack of intelligence by Siri and such.
By the way, how intelligent do you need to be to spell "doughnuts" so badly?
That's a stupid rebuttal: the three year old doesn't have the information requested while Siri does.
Exactly what I was thinking. It isn't just that the end code might have 15% fewer bugs development will be quicker/more confident because a bunch of the stupid little mistakes you make while coding are automatically checked for and swigglies tell you fix them right away.
Except that weakly typed languages, Python, JS, and Perl, tend to more concise and quicker to write than strongly typed languages such as C, C++, and Java.
Saving 30 minutes of typing a day isn't going to make development go any faster.
It really depends on the resources you're willing to invest in the project. If you have a good staff and are willing to invest the time then a strongly typed language can give you something more reliable.
But if you're investing fewer resources than weakly typed might be the way to go, you'll miss some dumb bugs due to the typing but you have less complexity overall, and that will give you a more stable product more quickly.
Correction - you'll have a product more quickly but it's unlikely to be stable.
As a developer, I much prefer compatibility breaking improvements than maintaining compatibility and never making it around to improvements..
I don't think you're a developer, cos we know that breaking existing products already in the users hands is a good way to stop sales. Breaking compatibility with existing products is another good way to halt spread of the product.
Slashdot Mirror
Society is turning into factions of cargo cults.
Turning? I don't know where you've been the last few thousand years but religion still has a pretty good grip on societies everywhere.
As far as AI goes - we're in the same place we were 30 years ago, only with more computing power. We can't get AI to recognise the latest captchas, but we think self-driving cars is only five years away.
And when you have a lineup of cars a quarter mile long, and your hand pumping gas and diesel into vehicles, how's that going to go for you.
It'll work better than electric, where you don't have the option of fuel at all. In your mind waiting a day to fill up is just as bad as not filling up at all? Ever seen how water is easily rationed out in disaster areas? Petrol and diesel can work the same way.
Mopst gas stations are not built so they can be gravity fed.
They don't need to be built special. Very few stations are located in the bottom of a valley with no downhill in any direction. Most stations have a downhill in at least one direction. A small difference, a slight grade, is enough to drain the tank using only gravity.
And, let's be honest - power outages of a few weeks does not leave people stranded due to how easily it is to transport fuel to the disaster area. Every disaster area I've seen still manages to have moving vehicles because a single small tanker can bring in enough fuel to power a fleet of light trucks for weeks. I want to see how many batteries you'll bring in when electric vehicles need to move in a disaster area.
We've already seen how well ICE engines cope in disaster areas (no power, flooding everywhere). We see it all the time.
What a silly and arrogant thing to say. There are benefits to both, of course, which is why universities use both (lectures and reading material)
There is no benefit to listening to a talking head. Lectures are active (two-way), a talking head on youtube is passive (one-way).
The benefits of video exist only when the video is displaying information that cannot be easily understood with text-only: how to disassemble an iphone, for example. The linked video has, literally, a few minutes of information stretched out over 30m.
There is literally (once again), no reason to make this thing a video other than for people too stupid to read.
Is it just me or has people having the attention of a gold fish become worryingly common these days?
It's the other way around: people with superior attention spans ignore the video in favour of reading.
Stupid people like to watch video. Smart people prefer to read. That 30m video has about 4m worth of content.
This isn't genetic, but education. A lot of these areas which have people with deplorable values (what you consider deplorable is up to you) will often live with like minded people, so there isn't an equal spread of education of such ideas. If they live in an environment that accepts the idea of the educational elites conspiring to control the population, you will just not listen to this group of people. If you live in an environment where you see these educated elites and find for the most part they are just trying to get basic funding so they get the resources for their study, and be able to eat.
I've read this twice, but I still cannot understand what it is you are trying to say. Long day, was it?
And when the power to gas pumps stop working, everything grinds to a halt as well.
What a brain-damaged comment: You don't need an electric pump to pour petrol into the car, nor to get it out the storage tank. Any fuel station located in a slightly elevated position can siphon out the last drop of fuel from the storage tank using only gravity.
Besides, I may not even need it due to the range - I can go a month on a full tank. If power is gone for a month we have bigger problems than getting to work.
The point that you're ignoring is that the relevant companies have expressed their intent to accept full liability for any accidents caused by their systems. That's the truly compelling argument.
As all the current SDCs in existence require a human anyway
Google's doesn't.
Perhaps I am being unclear: google has many millions of miles logged with a driver+sdc. To display that the sdc drivers better than the human they should log an equal number of miles on the exact same routes during the same seasons with the same cars and same drivers, but with the sdc turned off.
remember that your claim was that we already have evidence that sdcs are better drivers than humans, my claim was that there was no control group so that doesn't constitute any kind of scientific evidence. My claim still stands.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It never has.
It means freedom from government consequences. It always has.
If the state can persecute you for "false speech", then it's not free anymore.
The "evidence" you referred to in your OP was gained from -always-alert drivers correcting the SD software in perfect conditions.
Nope. I've seen how the Google testing is done. And you're still ignoring the more compelling second point.
I haven't ignored it - I addressed it specifically:
It's not unrealistic - whoever is making the claims of "we drove X million miles with Y accidents" should divide their pool of drivers in half and have the control group drive around the same routes with SDC software turned off
All science is done using a control group in which only a single variable is changed, not one where multiple variables are changed. If studying the SDC capabilities then the control group has to be identical but without the actual SDC. As all the current SDCs in existence require a human anyway it is trivial to simply turn the SDC off and leave the human in place.
You're ignoring all of Google's self-driving data (which includes lots of driving with general-population drivers). And my second -- and more compelling -- point.
I want to see science done with a proper control group, which is group of alert drivers driving in perfect conditions
That's not a proper control group, that's an unrealistic fantasy group.
The "evidence" you referred to in your OP was gained from -always-alert drivers correcting the SD software in perfect conditions. The control for such a group would always-alert drivers in perfect conditions.
It's not unrealistic - whoever is making the claims of "we drove X million miles with Y accidents" should divide their pool of drivers in half and have the control group drive around the same routes with SDC software turned off: that's the only way to tell if the SDC software is an improvement or not. There isn't any other way.
The FACT of the matter is this isn't even real "AI" to start with, it's shitty half-assed "machine learning" crap, and at current it has to 'phone home' to have a remote HUMAN operator take over from it when it runs into something it can't handle.
So what?
If it reduces accidents, and the evidence we have so far is that it does,
Wait, what? When did "we" get that evidence? All we have evidence of is that the group of alert drivers ready to take over at a moments notice coupled with a rule-based driving software that is only allowed to drive in perfect conditions results in less crashes than the group of all other drivers in all other conditions.
Let's wait until they put general-population drivers in with the software before calling it a success, okay? I want to see science done with a proper control group, which is group of alert drivers driving in perfect conditions, not everyone else.
People like you who don't have the education or direct experience working with the specific technology in this case are not in any way shape or form qualified to be commenting on how safe or beneficial it'll be. You're just one more bobble-head believing and agreeing with the nonsensical hype you're being spoon-fed about this. The FACT of the matter is this isn't even real "AI" to start with, it's shitty half-assed "machine learning" crap, and at current it has to 'phone home' to have a remote HUMAN operator take over from it when it runs into something it can't handle. This reveals it to be a PIECE OF SHIT that should not be allowed on public roads. There will be traffic problems because of this garbage, there will be DEATHS that need not have occurred and that nobody will be held responsible for. DO NOT WANT!
Similar logical fallacy, circa whenever, used by folks wanting to demonize the Perpetual Motion Machine
FTFY. Just because something unrelated succeeded in the past does not mean new unrelated thing will succeed.
electric cars still have other limitations: short range and slow charge time.
The range is good enough for 99% of the time. For the other 1%, I can rent a gas car.
No, you cannot. Not if everyone has an electric. Everyone will want to rent a long-range car at the same time (vacations coincide) and I can guarantee that there is no rental company who is going to stock enough cars for peak supply (that happens bi-annually). They are going to carry only enough stock to make optimal profit.
Maybe you can Uber for that 1 out of 99 trips that use a significant range?
"Musk can't build a rocket" Later... "Okay but he can't build a cheap rocket" Later... "Okay but he can't make them reusable" Later... "Okay but he needs the military and they'll never use him" etc etc
"Electric cars will never work" Later... "Okay but they'll never have the performance of petrol cars" Later... "Okay but car manufacturers will never embrace them" Later... "Okay but Musk isn't a car manufacturer" Later... "Okay but they'll never have a range of more than 100 km" Later... "Okay but there's no practical way to charge them quickly enough" Later... "Okay but they'll never be able to mass-produce them" etc etc
"Tesla won't reach their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
...
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla STILL hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target"
Kinda indicates what the will of the people would actually show.
We don't need a third variable to indicate what the will of the people is with regard to gun-control - we already know from their voting patterns that they don't care enough!
It is not enough of a problem to anyone who has a vote to spend. The danger represented by gun ownership is smaller than many of the other routine dangers families face.
For example, guns kill fewer children than swimming pools. More children are killed by parents carelessly backing over them in the driveway than by guns.
Is it any wonder that a voter will not want to waste their vote on the anti-gun politician? Sure, it's important to you to reduce the number of gun-deaths, but society has indicated thus far that it finds other things that are more important.
It's important to me that governments use open file-formats and not force me to purchase a copy of MS Office to do business with them, but I am hardly going to castigate voters who support a politician who wants to standardise on MS Office.
Just because an issue is important to you, doesn't mean that it is actually important at all.
Then politician A had better changes his stance and accept that it is the collective will will the people.
No, it's the collective will of about 20% of the people. However, that 20% will vote only on that one issue.
The remaining 60-80% (varies based on the poll) want different gun control policy, but they split their vote based on all the other issues in an election.
Well if they want to trade off gun control policy against something else, it's still the collective will of the people and politician A had better be listening to that collective will if he wants to enact all the other policies.
Maybe the majority of people who vote aren't really bothered by gun owners?
t's a sad truth, but a reality because in the US, money reigns supreme, and the NRA has a metric shit ton of money that they throw around
Actually, the NRA has two things. Money is one of them, as you have said.
The second is a rabid following who will vote for anything that the NRA says is gun control. No matter what else that particular politician does.
Politician A fights to keep your industry alive, lower your taxes, rebuild the roads you drive on every day, but wants concealed carry to require a permit. Politician B fights to end your job, raise your taxes and destroy all infrastructure, punch you in the face every Tuesday, but wants concealed carry without a permit.
NRA supporters will always vote for Politician B. No matter how much they are hurt by all the rest of the policies.
Then politician A had better changes his stance and accept that it is the collective will will the people.
No one uses WebRTC because it is in its infancy.
Every time I've tried to use it from behind a NAT I've had issues. It turned out to be the same issues that I had with SIP - not being able to get to the client due to a multi-layered NAT (two NAT layers or more). Most cell providers do double-NAT because for normal browsing and downloading it works just fine.
If you're doing SIP (or something like it, like WebRTC) you need an external proxy (STUN, TURN or ICE) server which all participants talk to, but which still won't work to get through the double-NAT.
WebRTC can't take off until everyone is on IPv6 and is not NATted. Or until they change the specification a little so that a connection-oriented (non-RTP) is specified. WebRTC peers can't talk to each other behind a NAT properly (only one party gets sound, for example), they have to talk to servers only. This needs to change or we need to move to IPv6.
To be honest, a lot of the time it is centrists being called radical leftists.
I'm a centrist and i've never been called radical left, I only ever get accused of being rightwing. Apparently the view that rules should apply e regardless of race or sex is a rightwing view. Me saying that if black-only or women-only clubs are acceptable then so are whites-only or men-only clubs apparently makes me some sort of nazi (in my case a black one).
The left is now mostly a speech-suppression movement which is antithetical to a free society. For example, I am a lifelong atheist, but I have never in my life campaigned to prevent religious propagandists from talking at a university.
What they really dont like is the presence of anyone who does not agree with them.
So they have gone and made their own little club,
I see no problem with this.
Meanwhile the rest of the world will get on with actual life, something they will be less and less in touch with.
Sad? yes.
Pathetic? yes.
But hey, its no different 'because its on the internet', the only odd thing here is that someone thinks its newsworthy. Its not.
The only odd thing here is that a media article admits to the existence of radical leftism. I've gotten so used to people pointing at radical left ideology and claiming that it's centrist.
An article that admits the existence of a radical left is newsworthy. The actual existence of a radical left is not.
If people leave California, they're going to take their ignorant politics with them and pollute the rest of the country.
Thereby diluting that power bloc significantly. I don't see a problem there, especially if they get to experience what other people's environment is like.
Python isn't weakly typed. It's dynamically typed. The 2 are not the same thing.
I did not claim it was weakly typed. Of course, now that you bring it up, Python type errors are only discovered at run-time which makes the argument moot anyway - we use statically typed language to help catch type errors before a user sees them.
Not having to do type declarations is only part of what makes Python development fast. It's also a VHLL. Remember that lines_of_code/bugs_in_code is roughly a constant, so the more concise a programming language is, the fewer bugs you tend to have in it.
On static-typed languages I tend to write fewer lines of testing code - in python every single input to every single function or method has to be type checked and an appropriate error has to be displayed to the user. That is something I do not have to do in other languages which let me specify the types of the arguments and the return values.
In other languages the compiler will warn (or even outright stop me) if some function somewhere calls some other function somewhere else with a string when it was supposed to use an integer. In Python I have to write code to defend against that. There is no net win to supposed brevity.
Your argument makes no sense. Let's not ask Siri, let's ask a random 3 year old human:
Hey kid, "How many cylinders in a V6 engine?" ... blank stare,
Hey kid, "How many doughnughts are in a dozen doougnughts?" ... blank stare.
Hey kid, "What is the nominal size of a 2X4 board?" ... blank stare.
Hey kid, "What time is it on Mars?" ... Dinner time, yay!
I think you will admit that a 3 year of human may not know all those things but at the same time be vastly intelligent. Hence it is no demonstration of the lack of intelligence by Siri and such.
By the way, how intelligent do you need to be to spell "doughnuts" so badly?
That's a stupid rebuttal: the three year old doesn't have the information requested while Siri does.
Exactly what I was thinking. It isn't just that the end code might have 15% fewer bugs development will be quicker/more confident because a bunch of the stupid little mistakes you make while coding are automatically checked for and swigglies tell you fix them right away.
Except that weakly typed languages, Python, JS, and Perl, tend to more concise and quicker to write than strongly typed languages such as C, C++, and Java.
Saving 30 minutes of typing a day isn't going to make development go any faster.
It really depends on the resources you're willing to invest in the project. If you have a good staff and are willing to invest the time then a strongly typed language can give you something more reliable.
But if you're investing fewer resources than weakly typed might be the way to go, you'll miss some dumb bugs due to the typing but you have less complexity overall, and that will give you a more stable product more quickly.
Correction - you'll have a product more quickly but it's unlikely to be stable.
As a developer, I much prefer compatibility breaking improvements than maintaining compatibility and never making it around to improvements..
I don't think you're a developer, cos we know that breaking existing products already in the users hands is a good way to stop sales. Breaking compatibility with existing products is another good way to halt spread of the product.