get a safety razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... best move you can make.. blades are easily replacable and super-cheap. I picked up 100 for around $20 like 3 years ago and still have some left....
I picked up a ten years supply for the equivalent of $50. I used to use a straight razor, but those things require too much maintenance. My safety double-edged razor cost $5 in the 90s, and I'm still using it.
The best part is that the single-bladed (per side) means that only a single edge goes across my face. Having two edges placed next to each other means that the first blade pulls the follicle out a little while the second blade cuts it. This results in the hair actually being *lower* than the surface of the skin, resulting in in-grown hairs.
The single-edge shave results in a smoother face over time.
So, not only is it cheaper but it is better as well.
it is still a text that represents the received wisdom of 2000 years. throw out the parts that aren't good, but saying it has no value is being petty.
Once again I must point out that you're looking at it exactly the wrong way around - the text might represent 2000 years of wisdom, but all the parts that are good are secular, while all the parts that are bad are not.
You're looking at the book and saying "See? Religion has a few good things to say", while in reality the book would've been all good (not just a few things) if you'd only take out the religion.
You're wedded to the idea that the only way to be good comes form the book, when in reality the book simply codified the good things that already existing and then added a few perversions of its own.
Remove the perversions and you have no religion. The book may bestow good wisdom, but it does so in spite of its primary message, not because of it.
Let me guess: you'll frame your 30 clicks a day on your shitty blog as being more successful than Twitter, right?
That's 30+ clicks to my blog and another 30+ clicks to my author website from Slashdot per day. Thank you for your support.
By my estimates, at 60 clicks/day with two advertisements total (1 per site) you're averaging 1.8USD/year in revenue? Maybe you are making more from the affiliate link.
Anyway, because/. is mostly regulars, you can expect that 60/day to taper off to 5/day in two months, to maybe 1 a day a year from now./. is dying, because new blood that comes here doesn't stay, and the existing regulars are dwindling in number.
Lately I've been reading newsletters from some other site, as they are filled with technical stuff and not highly politicised stuff. I'm tired of sore losers going on about 'drumpf', 'orange', etc.
I called the result of the US election six months before it happened (also correctly called the brexit vote), and was labelled a trump supporter, even though I never supported one candidate over another. Simply observing reality is enough to get you attacked on/.
I've been here since the 90s, since it was chips and dips, before it was fashionable to have low IDs. For the first time, another site has headlines that appeals more to me.
Whipslash, if you're listening, get your act together. I remember posting that we'd give you a chance. I'm tired of the politics, and tired of getting attacked whenever I refuse to join the mob - "You're not a Hillary supporter? KILL HIM!"
as he sometimes says. you might say you're an atheist, and you very well might think you believe it. but you're acting out a christian ethos so what do you really believe?
Actually, that's the other way around, let me fix it for you:
You might *say* you're a christian, but you're acting out a very secular ethos[1], so what do you really believe?
[1] You're not stoning adulterers, you're not killing homosexuals, you touch women who are on their period, you have sex before marriage, divorce after marriage. You eat pork, pick up the fallen grapes in your vineyard, mix the fabrics in your cloths and shave the hair off your face.
You aren't doing any of those christian things, but you do a lot of secular things, so ask yourself - what do you actually believe in?
It doesn't matter. If you force-convert people enough of them remain converted to make a difference.
Christianity was spread at the point of the sword; look how well it took.
Forcing a population to renounce their religion is a strategy that works very very well:- you get the overwhelming majority (+90%) and their descendants permanently converted.
Nope. Appearance of faith is fungible. As a lifelong atheist, I get to deal with stupid people all the time, and mostly I deal with them by not correcting them when they assume that I'm of {their favourite/their hated/any} faith.
My son does the same. While you and I can split hairs on slashdot all day long, in real life it will be way too exhausting to correct people's misconceptions. It's better to simply avoid the argument that {their god is real/moon landings were faked/the MRA is out to get them/the earth is flat/etc}.
Of course, on slashdot I get to determine how much of my time to waste; IRL the other party will continue the conversation long past the time that I am tired of it and I may not be able to get away.
That's not what you said, nor what I quoted you on...'in every home'. If you have to lie about what you said Saud then you yourself know that your argument is broken. Once again I must point out that you are using outliers as representative of the population.
Yep. Can you believe these kids think there will be a computer in almost every home soon. They clearly don't understand the obstacles and how much progress we would have to make for that to happen? - Almost every "expert" right before it (never) happened
Yep. Can you believe these kids think there will be a flying car in almost every home soon. They clearly don't understand the obstacles and how much progress we would have to make for that to happen? - Almost every "expert" right before it happened
You are extrapolating from a single (or few) instance(s) of "People believed that $FOO was not possible, but it turned out to be possible" into "Anything that is said to be impossible will (soon) be possible".
I've got news for you - most of the things that people thought were impossible are, in fact, still impossible. It's a very small number of things that are now possible which were previously though to be impossible.
IOW, Your statistics are poor - you look at the outliers and use those as predictors for a trend. I would guess that, on average, most of the predictions of the form "that will never work" turn out to be correct. It's only a few that turn out to be wrong.
A month ago self driving cars up to speed of 60km/h where approved in Germany, I believe it is an Audi.
Big deal - self-driving cars have been at the same level of autonomy for the last two decades.
So what is your point?
You, like so many others, seem to be under the impression that the current state of self-driving cars is something new. It isn't.
Back when Musk and Co. first made their predictions about SDCs in five years (and many of the posters here on/. as well) they were wrong. I don't see any reason for them to suddenly become right when they tell us, five years later, that we'll have SDCs in five years.
Read the wikipedia entry on the history SDCs - in the last five years only marginal advances were made in autonomous driving. You aren't going to have autonomous cars that are any better from the mid-90s ones in your lifetime, even assuming that you are a young man.
Both of them display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the limits of AI. Their respective knowledge about AI is purely from works of fiction, which is why at least one of them has, for the last five years, been bleating that self-driving cars are only five years away.
Well considering there are already self-driving cars, I think he's right. Sure they're still all rudimentary and not the complete package, they all require the occasional human intervention- but there are already cars out there with many of the first steps of self-driving abilities out there.
It all depends on where you draw the line of "self driving". Fully self-driving with no human intervention at all. Probably not in 5 years (for the public at least).
Mostly self-driving with humans having to act as a backup and perform some actions. We're already there.
We were already there in the mid-90's. Since 2005 or thereabouts the computation for SDC increased roughly 1000% while the improvements were marginal. "Mostly self-driving with humans having to act as backup" was demonstrated by two separate continent-crossing teams in the mid-90s.
Both of them display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the limits of AI. Their respective knowledge about AI is purely from works of fiction, which is why at least one of them has, for the last five years, been bleating that self-driving cars are only five years away.
After using it, it is eh, not a big deal. You indent the same amount for everything in the block, which you are probably doing most of the time anyways. It is their little cheat around not having block delimiters.
You think the ':' is not the delimiter for the start of a block?
They have block start delimiters, in some cases (empty blocks) there is a block end delimiter as well. Then you also have to use whitespace to signify the block as well.
Compare to sane languages, which use a block start/block end pair and no exceptions to that rule. Python is crap not because of whitespace, but because of the many many exceptions to a general rule.
The pythonic way boils down to "There is a general rule, and here is a list of exceptions to that rule", whereas other programming languages say "here's the general rule, no exceptions".
Python is crap because of this approach - the stupidity of whitespace-as-indentation is just a symptom of the crappiness, not the cause of it.
Having no general rules and lots of exceptions results in a higher cognitive load just for reading code. In fact, the whitespace rule demonstrates this perfectly - in a language with a general rule for block delimiting you can write a program that takes source code mangled in some way and re-indents it. In python you can't do this with mangled sources, because the indentation can only be determined by a human, and not automatically determined by a set of rules.
No matter which way you spin it, I prefer source code in which the code blocks can be discovered via automated means rather than asking the original coder where the code block starts and where it ends. Automated detection of code blocks means less cognitive effort on my part.
Python is attractive to beginners because they don't know what they are doing.
Actually, closer to 0.03% than to 3%. The locomotive needs... say 55000nm of torque, while the lights, these days, use pretty much negligible electricity.
I suspect that the savings come from the reduced weight rather than the actual electricity usage (removing those smaller diesel generators per car).
So, your answer is "use both, as long as it allows you to keep using tabs". A simpler solution is to just ditch the tabs - they are neither required nor superior.
I don't give a shit that Gawker was run by rude incompetent assholes who ignored the law, an oligarch shutting them down is definitely troubling in terms of freedom of press and speech.
An oligarch did not shut gawker down. They shut themselves down by telling a court to fuck off.
Normally they'd have been fine. What got them is they didn't know that Hogan had that billionaire behind him until it was too late.
Both statements are untrue. What got them was ignoring an order of the court to take down the nude and sexual images and videos they published without permission.
Hogan's sex tape had some legitimate newsworthiness. Specifically his racially charged comments. As a public figure Gawker is well within their rights to report on them. What's more, we've lost a legitimate source of good 'ole fashion muck racking of the kind that used to keep abuses by the rich in check.
Whatever your personal views on Gawker you're going to regret losing them as the billionaire class can now operate in shadow. Good luck starting your business if it competes with or even gets noticed by them.
The billionaire class is already operating out of the shadows - see gawkers response to the fappening and their response to hogan. One sex scandal is "bad" because it offends gawkers ideology and the other one is "good" because it reinforces gawkers ideology:
Here is the position that gawker takes.
You've never had the UI go unresponsive in X11 under heavy load?
FTFA it appears to go unresponsive without a heavy load - the cores are unloaded. So, no, I've never had an unloaded Linux/BSD machine get unresponsive with X11 .
This simply is not true. There is no labor shortage, and in fact the very idea of a "labor shortage" is pure lunacy; it cannot exist. The only thing that can exist is a shortage of labor willing to work for the wages offered.
That is bollocks.
From where should a high skilled developer come?
Hu? They are not there. Simple. That had nothing to do with wages.
That's a stupid argument and you should feel stupid for making it.
The skilled developer already has a job. If you have a situation where a skilled developer does not have a job then your entire economy is tanking anyway, so the skilled developer already has a job. In Canada, at any rate, there are enough Universities churning out qualified, if inexperienced, developers. This is irrelevant, because the skilled developer already has a job anyway.
If you want them to leave their current job and come work for you then you need to offer them more. Companies tend to whine when their offer is too low to entice skilled developers to leave. They complain "There are no engineers to hire", when the real complaint is "there are no engineers at this price point".
Assume that you're an employer, employing skilled developers. You need 5 extra skilled developers for the next year. Where do you think you're going to find them?
Do you think that skilled developers are simply sitting around, unemployed, waiting for someone to offer them employment?
Of course not - they are already employed because they have the skills! So, when you are looking for skilled developers, you already know upfront that these people who you want are already employed.
If you already know that they are employed, then why are you not offering them more than they are making now?
TLDR: Skilled developers aren't sitting around unemployed, and people who think that skilled developers should be sitting around unemployed are literally too stupid to be part of society. If you want them, you have to offer enough to make them move. If you don't offer them enough to move, they won't move. It's only a question of money, nothing else.
I remember when I was a kid, growing up in Miami. We would go to the unlimited hydroplane races at Marine Stadium on Key Biscayne. Back then, all the Unlimited Hydro's were powered by Rolls Royce Merlin engines. Yea, surplus engines from P-51's and Spitfires. There was/is nothing like the sound of that Merlin engine screaming by. If you've never heard it, I can't explain it. Fast forward a few years into the future, and I attend the Hydro races in Detroit, and all the unlimited Hydro's are using jet engines. The go by and it's just a "whoosh" sound. All the fun and excitement were gone. Last Hydro race I ever went to. Or take a dragster or funny car burning Nitro, that sound, that smell. Yea, the electrics and jet powered race vehicles may be faster, but they're just boring. This may sound silly, but soon there will be a generation that never knows the sound of a tightly tuned internal combustion engine on a Formula 1 or even a Ducati. We won't even get behind the wheel, we will just whoosh along in boring electric vehicles. I think Jeff Beck said about self driving cars, who the hell would want that. What's the fun in that. Hell, I even miss the sound of a raspy old Bultaco, Husky or CZ 2-Stroke. I'll go back to yelling at the clouds now.
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Despite all the religion-fuelled comments here, the infernal combustion engine isn't going anywhere soon. It's way too cheap and plentiful.
Slippery slopes when these robots become ai+genetic material and humans start considering given them rights as 2/3rds human being or something like that.
You can build a robot that could give consent, unlike real children. You can also make it so it doesn't feel pain or enjoy sex.
You can also make it so that it always enjoys sex.
Claiming that Disagreement = histrionics really means that you = exceptionally butthurt.
You didn't merely disagree, you lead with insults on every line. That's fairly melodramatic by any measure. Histrionics, indeed.
while they are ignoring you and playing video games.
Some of my friends are avid gamers, and if they were ignoring me then they wouldn't be my friends. I like how you try to equate gamers with "checked out".
I didn't. Your poor comprehension skills lead you to believe that "checking out by playing video games" means the same thing as "playing video games is checking out."
You should seek a refund from your educational providers.
Out of interest, have you checked out?
Ah - more histrionics. Tip: wait for your arguments to fail before turning to insults. If you have to resort to insults it displays that even you have very little faith in whatever argument you think you are making.
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
It's a narrative being sold because men are checking out. The odds are so slightly higher than they are almost insignificant.
The "story" being sold is due wholly to reality not matching feminist ideology, and almost all of these stories about how men have a biological clock are hyped to get men to play the game again.
You aren't wrong. Younger men are indeed checking out. While women's interest in marriage and children have increased, the number of young men who are interested in marriage is something like 29 percent. And many of the older men have already been through the divorce mill, and can't afford a new romance.
So think about that for a minute. most young men are not interested in marriage and children, and the selection process for the women tends to exclude deadbeats and psychos, so we are looking at a pretty dire situation for young women. that 29 percent is much smaller yet.
Society and the legal system is not the friend of the male of the species. And many women just view men as a utility that they've been trained since birth to dislike. The results are that many males just retreat into less dangerous environs. Xboxes and motorcycles are fun, and people shaming them for "not manning up" is much less expensive than handing over half of their paycheck and the house to children they may see for a few hours every week.
Not just shaming them for refusing to play the game, but shaming anyone who doesn't join the mob who is shaming the men - see this for an example: this poster leads with insults (a compelling argument indeed) purely because I refuse to join in the shaming of men.
Slashdot Mirror
get a safety razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... best move you can make.. blades are easily replacable and super-cheap. I picked up 100 for around $20 like 3 years ago and still have some left....
I picked up a ten years supply for the equivalent of $50. I used to use a straight razor, but those things require too much maintenance. My safety double-edged razor cost $5 in the 90s, and I'm still using it.
The best part is that the single-bladed (per side) means that only a single edge goes across my face. Having two edges placed next to each other means that the first blade pulls the follicle out a little while the second blade cuts it. This results in the hair actually being *lower* than the surface of the skin, resulting in in-grown hairs.
The single-edge shave results in a smoother face over time.
So, not only is it cheaper but it is better as well.
it is still a text that represents the received wisdom of 2000 years. throw out the parts that aren't good, but saying it has no value is being petty.
Once again I must point out that you're looking at it exactly the wrong way around - the text might represent 2000 years of wisdom, but all the parts that are good are secular, while all the parts that are bad are not.
You're looking at the book and saying "See? Religion has a few good things to say", while in reality the book would've been all good (not just a few things) if you'd only take out the religion.
You're wedded to the idea that the only way to be good comes form the book, when in reality the book simply codified the good things that already existing and then added a few perversions of its own.
Remove the perversions and you have no religion. The book may bestow good wisdom, but it does so in spite of its primary message, not because of it.
Let me guess: you'll frame your 30 clicks a day on your shitty blog as being more successful than Twitter, right?
That's 30+ clicks to my blog and another 30+ clicks to my author website from Slashdot per day. Thank you for your support.
By my estimates, at 60 clicks/day with two advertisements total (1 per site) you're averaging 1.8USD/year in revenue? Maybe you are making more from the affiliate link.
Anyway, because /. is mostly regulars, you can expect that 60/day to taper off to 5/day in two months, to maybe 1 a day a year from now. /. is dying, because new blood that comes here doesn't stay, and the existing regulars are dwindling in number.
Lately I've been reading newsletters from some other site, as they are filled with technical stuff and not highly politicised stuff. I'm tired of sore losers going on about 'drumpf', 'orange', etc.
I called the result of the US election six months before it happened (also correctly called the brexit vote), and was labelled a trump supporter, even though I never supported one candidate over another. Simply observing reality is enough to get you attacked on /.
I've been here since the 90s, since it was chips and dips, before it was fashionable to have low IDs. For the first time, another site has headlines that appeals more to me.
Whipslash, if you're listening, get your act together. I remember posting that we'd give you a chance. I'm tired of the politics, and tired of getting attacked whenever I refuse to join the mob - "You're not a Hillary supporter? KILL HIM!"
as he sometimes says. you might say you're an atheist, and you very well might think you believe it. but you're acting out a christian ethos so what do you really believe?
Actually, that's the other way around, let me fix it for you:
You might *say* you're a christian, but you're acting out a very secular ethos[1], so what do you really believe?
[1] You're not stoning adulterers, you're not killing homosexuals, you touch women who are on their period, you have sex before marriage, divorce after marriage. You eat pork, pick up the fallen grapes in your vineyard, mix the fabrics in your cloths and shave the hair off your face.
You aren't doing any of those christian things, but you do a lot of secular things, so ask yourself - what do you actually believe in?
I don't want auto play videos (my addons wouldn't allow it anyhow). I don't want auto play dvds, I turn that crap off.
I don't know why anyone thinks people do, or should, want that. People are just lazy.
Google appears to have forgotten how and why they toppled altavista and yahoo.
How do you know Muslim3 isn't lying?
It doesn't matter. If you force-convert people enough of them remain converted to make a difference.
Christianity was spread at the point of the sword; look how well it took.
Forcing a population to renounce their religion is a strategy that works very very well :- you get the overwhelming majority (+90%) and their descendants permanently converted.
Faith is fungible.
Nope. Appearance of faith is fungible. As a lifelong atheist, I get to deal with stupid people all the time, and mostly I deal with them by not correcting them when they assume that I'm of {their favourite/their hated/any} faith.
My son does the same. While you and I can split hairs on slashdot all day long, in real life it will be way too exhausting to correct people's misconceptions. It's better to simply avoid the argument that {their god is real/moon landings were faked/the MRA is out to get them/the earth is flat/etc}.
Of course, on slashdot I get to determine how much of my time to waste; IRL the other party will continue the conversation long past the time that I am tired of it and I may not be able to get away.
Flying cars exist today. I accept your apology.
That's not what you said, nor what I quoted you on ...'in every home'. If you have to lie about what you said Saud then you yourself know that your argument is broken. Once again I must point out that you are using outliers as representative of the population.
Yep. Can you believe these kids think there will be a computer in almost every home soon. They clearly don't understand the obstacles and how much progress we would have to make for that to happen? - Almost every "expert" right before it (never) happened
Yep. Can you believe these kids think there will be a flying car in almost every home soon. They clearly don't understand the obstacles and how much progress we would have to make for that to happen? - Almost every "expert" right before it happened
You are extrapolating from a single (or few) instance(s) of "People believed that $FOO was not possible, but it turned out to be possible" into "Anything that is said to be impossible will (soon) be possible".
I've got news for you - most of the things that people thought were impossible are, in fact, still impossible. It's a very small number of things that are now possible which were previously though to be impossible.
IOW, Your statistics are poor - you look at the outliers and use those as predictors for a trend. I would guess that, on average, most of the predictions of the form "that will never work" turn out to be correct. It's only a few that turn out to be wrong.
A month ago self driving cars up to speed of 60km/h where approved in Germany, I believe it is an Audi.
Big deal - self-driving cars have been at the same level of autonomy for the last two decades.
So what is your point?
You, like so many others, seem to be under the impression that the current state of self-driving cars is something new. It isn't.
Back when Musk and Co. first made their predictions about SDCs in five years (and many of the posters here on /. as well) they were wrong. I don't see any reason for them to suddenly become right when they tell us, five years later, that we'll have SDCs in five years.
Read the wikipedia entry on the history SDCs - in the last five years only marginal advances were made in autonomous driving. You aren't going to have autonomous cars that are any better from the mid-90s ones in your lifetime, even assuming that you are a young man.
Both of them display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the limits of AI. Their respective knowledge about AI is purely from works of fiction, which is why at least one of them has, for the last five years, been bleating that self-driving cars are only five years away.
Well considering there are already self-driving cars, I think he's right. Sure they're still all rudimentary and not the complete package, they all require the occasional human intervention- but there are already cars out there with many of the first steps of self-driving abilities out there.
It all depends on where you draw the line of "self driving". Fully self-driving with no human intervention at all. Probably not in 5 years (for the public at least).
Mostly self-driving with humans having to act as a backup and perform some actions. We're already there.
We were already there in the mid-90's. Since 2005 or thereabouts the computation for SDC increased roughly 1000% while the improvements were marginal. "Mostly self-driving with humans having to act as backup" was demonstrated by two separate continent-crossing teams in the mid-90s.
Both of them display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the limits of AI. Their respective knowledge about AI is purely from works of fiction, which is why at least one of them has, for the last five years, been bleating that self-driving cars are only five years away.
Although to be fair, "flocking" means you can fly. In your case, you'd be "herding".
Flocking doesn't mean flying, it means gathering.
After using it, it is eh, not a big deal. You indent the same amount for everything in the block, which you are probably doing most of the time anyways. It is their little cheat around not having block delimiters.
You think the ':' is not the delimiter for the start of a block?
They have block start delimiters, in some cases (empty blocks) there is a block end delimiter as well. Then you also have to use whitespace to signify the block as well.
Compare to sane languages, which use a block start/block end pair and no exceptions to that rule. Python is crap not because of whitespace, but because of the many many exceptions to a general rule.
The pythonic way boils down to "There is a general rule, and here is a list of exceptions to that rule", whereas other programming languages say "here's the general rule, no exceptions".
Python is crap because of this approach - the stupidity of whitespace-as-indentation is just a symptom of the crappiness, not the cause of it.
Having no general rules and lots of exceptions results in a higher cognitive load just for reading code. In fact, the whitespace rule demonstrates this perfectly - in a language with a general rule for block delimiting you can write a program that takes source code mangled in some way and re-indents it. In python you can't do this with mangled sources, because the indentation can only be determined by a human, and not automatically determined by a set of rules.
No matter which way you spin it, I prefer source code in which the code blocks can be discovered via automated means rather than asking the original coder where the code block starts and where it ends. Automated detection of code blocks means less cognitive effort on my part.
Python is attractive to beginners because they don't know what they are doing.
Surely it's closer to 3% than 30%.
Actually, closer to 0.03% than to 3%. The locomotive needs... say 55000nm of torque, while the lights, these days, use pretty much negligible electricity.
I suspect that the savings come from the reduced weight rather than the actual electricity usage (removing those smaller diesel generators per car).
Not if you align it correctly it isn't.
You indent with tabs and align with spaces.
So, your answer is "use both, as long as it allows you to keep using tabs". A simpler solution is to just ditch the tabs - they are neither required nor superior.
I don't give a shit that Gawker was run by rude incompetent assholes who ignored the law, an oligarch shutting them down is definitely troubling in terms of freedom of press and speech.
An oligarch did not shut gawker down. They shut themselves down by telling a court to fuck off.
Normally they'd have been fine. What got them is they didn't know that Hogan had that billionaire behind him until it was too late.
Both statements are untrue. What got them was ignoring an order of the court to take down the nude and sexual images and videos they published without permission.
Hogan's sex tape had some legitimate newsworthiness. Specifically his racially charged comments. As a public figure Gawker is well within their rights to report on them. What's more, we've lost a legitimate source of good 'ole fashion muck racking of the kind that used to keep abuses by the rich in check. Whatever your personal views on Gawker you're going to regret losing them as the billionaire class can now operate in shadow. Good luck starting your business if it competes with or even gets noticed by them.
The billionaire class is already operating out of the shadows - see gawkers response to the fappening and their response to hogan. One sex scandal is "bad" because it offends gawkers ideology and the other one is "good" because it reinforces gawkers ideology: Here is the position that gawker takes.
You've never had the UI go unresponsive in X11 under heavy load?
FTFA it appears to go unresponsive without a heavy load - the cores are unloaded. So, no, I've never had an unloaded Linux/BSD machine get unresponsive with X11 .
This simply is not true. There is no labor shortage, and in fact the very idea of a "labor shortage" is pure lunacy; it cannot exist. The only thing that can exist is a shortage of labor willing to work for the wages offered. That is bollocks. From where should a high skilled developer come? Hu? They are not there. Simple. That had nothing to do with wages.
That's a stupid argument and you should feel stupid for making it.
The skilled developer already has a job. If you have a situation where a skilled developer does not have a job then your entire economy is tanking anyway, so the skilled developer already has a job. In Canada, at any rate, there are enough Universities churning out qualified, if inexperienced, developers. This is irrelevant, because the skilled developer already has a job anyway.
If you want them to leave their current job and come work for you then you need to offer them more. Companies tend to whine when their offer is too low to entice skilled developers to leave. They complain "There are no engineers to hire", when the real complaint is "there are no engineers at this price point".
Assume that you're an employer, employing skilled developers. You need 5 extra skilled developers for the next year. Where do you think you're going to find them?
Do you think that skilled developers are simply sitting around, unemployed, waiting for someone to offer them employment?
Of course not - they are already employed because they have the skills! So, when you are looking for skilled developers, you already know upfront that these people who you want are already employed.
If you already know that they are employed, then why are you not offering them more than they are making now?
TLDR: Skilled developers aren't sitting around unemployed, and people who think that skilled developers should be sitting around unemployed are literally too stupid to be part of society. If you want them, you have to offer enough to make them move. If you don't offer them enough to move, they won't move. It's only a question of money, nothing else.
I remember when I was a kid, growing up in Miami. We would go to the unlimited hydroplane races at Marine Stadium on Key Biscayne. Back then, all the Unlimited Hydro's were powered by Rolls Royce Merlin engines. Yea, surplus engines from P-51's and Spitfires. There was/is nothing like the sound of that Merlin engine screaming by. If you've never heard it, I can't explain it. Fast forward a few years into the future, and I attend the Hydro races in Detroit, and all the unlimited Hydro's are using jet engines. The go by and it's just a "whoosh" sound. All the fun and excitement were gone. Last Hydro race I ever went to. Or take a dragster or funny car burning Nitro, that sound, that smell. Yea, the electrics and jet powered race vehicles may be faster, but they're just boring. This may sound silly, but soon there will be a generation that never knows the sound of a tightly tuned internal combustion engine on a Formula 1 or even a Ducati. We won't even get behind the wheel, we will just whoosh along in boring electric vehicles. I think Jeff Beck said about self driving cars, who the hell would want that. What's the fun in that. Hell, I even miss the sound of a raspy old Bultaco, Husky or CZ 2-Stroke. I'll go back to yelling at the clouds now.
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Despite all the religion-fuelled comments here, the infernal combustion engine isn't going anywhere soon. It's way too cheap and plentiful.
Slippery slopes when these robots become ai+genetic material and humans start considering given them rights as 2/3rds human being or something like that.
You can build a robot that could give consent, unlike real children. You can also make it so it doesn't feel pain or enjoy sex.
You can also make it so that it always enjoys sex.
Australia agrees that small breasts means underage
How do they determine underage males?
Claiming that Disagreement = histrionics really means that you = exceptionally butthurt.
You didn't merely disagree, you lead with insults on every line. That's fairly melodramatic by any measure. Histrionics, indeed.
while they are ignoring you and playing video games.
Some of my friends are avid gamers, and if they were ignoring me then they wouldn't be my friends. I like how you try to equate gamers with "checked out".
I didn't. Your poor comprehension skills lead you to believe that "checking out by playing video games" means the same thing as "playing video games is checking out."
You should seek a refund from your educational providers.
Out of interest, have you checked out?
Ah - more histrionics. Tip: wait for your arguments to fail before turning to insults. If you have to resort to insults it displays that even you have very little faith in whatever argument you think you are making.
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
It's a narrative being sold because men are checking out. The odds are so slightly higher than they are almost insignificant.
The "story" being sold is due wholly to reality not matching feminist ideology, and almost all of these stories about how men have a biological clock are hyped to get men to play the game again.
You aren't wrong. Younger men are indeed checking out. While women's interest in marriage and children have increased, the number of young men who are interested in marriage is something like 29 percent. And many of the older men have already been through the divorce mill, and can't afford a new romance.
So think about that for a minute. most young men are not interested in marriage and children, and the selection process for the women tends to exclude deadbeats and psychos, so we are looking at a pretty dire situation for young women. that 29 percent is much smaller yet. Society and the legal system is not the friend of the male of the species. And many women just view men as a utility that they've been trained since birth to dislike. The results are that many males just retreat into less dangerous environs. Xboxes and motorcycles are fun, and people shaming them for "not manning up" is much less expensive than handing over half of their paycheck and the house to children they may see for a few hours every week.
Not just shaming them for refusing to play the game, but shaming anyone who doesn't join the mob who is shaming the men - see this for an example: this poster leads with insults (a compelling argument indeed) purely because I refuse to join in the shaming of men.