So sure, having just a "regular" juicer not only gives you a lot more options, but it's healthier and you get fresher fruits and vegetables in your juices
Fruit juice isn't healthy. It's basically all of the sugar from the fruit with none of the fibre to slow down absorption.
Eat the fruit instead. The fruit as a whole is good for you, the extracted sugar, not so much.
I watched one of Y Combinator's Startup School videos. The presenter was talking about how ideas aren't that important and how so many startups pivot.
VCs don't bet on ideas, they bet on people.
All the 'out-of-the-park' VC successes were based on existing ideas with a new implementation. This is why so many of them have to pivot - the best people realise when the idea is no good. A founder who is fully committed to the idea is a bad idea (pun intended), because if the idea later proves to be infeasible you want someone to ruthlessly kill that effort and focus energy and resources into something that will succeed.
A bad knockoff of 'Command and Conquer' is historically important?
And C&C was 'just' a knockoff of Dune 2?
Hell 'Warcraft' was a bad knockoff of 'C&C', starcraft was just a bad reskin of warcraft.
IIRC, that's how SC started, but they had to do a whole new engine eventually when they decided to do more than a 'knockoff'. Cloaking, stacking, burrowing, creep, higher ground advantage, floating buildings, add-ons, regeneration, etc could not be done as a warcraft reskin.
I read it (originally a long long time ago). It has very little of value that is applicable today. The advice can basically be boiled down to "Use as much of your money as possible to pursue rent-seeking".
Seriously, there's not much of value in there, and the OP was spot on with that line you quoted.
as if you could join copper pipes, rocks and whatnot together and magically transform it into a computer?
I'm now speculating how an episode of MacGyver set in a prison would have worked out. And the original MacGyver, not the new one who looks like he'd last nanoseconds in prison.
My prediction is that within 10 years, half of new cars will have some level of self-driving ability. High-end cars will be almost all autonomous capable.
I also predict that 1 or more of the classic "big 3" auto makers will go under or be purchased.
My prediction: you're wrong. In mid nineties we had SDCs. Two decades later the rate of success of SDCs has improved only a fraction of a percent while the computing power required to drive the car increased by a few thousand percent.
Given the tiny progress made by increasing computional power by thousands of percent, what makes you think that significant progress will be made?
I don't see it that way. Look at the hits GIMP takes. Look at the hits Python and Perl take. I'm not talking about technical objections; I'm talking about just general hits.
There is some basis for some of the technical hits - for instance, Perl legitimately takes some flack for opposed opinions on its typical readability, and Python legitimately takes some flack for opposed opinions on whitespace. But both take hits as if using them would be the freaking end of the world, and it tends to be way over the top. GIMP is an awesome bit of software. The anti-GIMP diatribes are amazing to read. Etc.
I really do think that people just like to find something they think they have an adequate excuse to kick, and then spend lots and lots of time kicking. It's some kind of perverse instance of self-validation or something.
While you may be correct with those examples, Shuttleworth just comes of as bitter that his pet NIH project failed.
Okay, dude, let's accept your premise that men are more competitive and are better at asking for raises than women. I would argue that it has far more to do with socialization than with genetics, but whatever.
What do those skills happen to do with being a good coder?
Who said it did?
And why are raises being awarded on a basis other than skills related to the job, hard work, and delivering results?
It's always been that way - why would your employer give you more money unless they think you want it? What's in it for the employer to pay more than a candidate asks?
It's ridiculous and discriminates against women who have been indoctrinated since childhood to be be "nice" and let others go first.
We didn't ask for "girl training," but we received it nonetheless and operate under its burden.
Well, why do you? Your behaviour, as far as asking for more money goes, is entirely under your control.
You are essentially asking that the money be distributed based on merit. Nice argument, except that the employee still has to make their case for why they merit the extra money.
If you fail to convince your employer of the merit of your argument for more money by, for example, not making any argument for more money, why are you bitter towards the employees that *do* argue the merits of their cases successfully?
I know this will go over badly, but I really wish WindowMaker had compositing support, for window scaling to help me find the windows I need. If it had that, it would be my window manager again in a heartbeat (full 'desktop environments' have been overrated).
Coincidental that you say this - I've just cloned the compiz repo (and emerald decorator repo) because I want to use my build of WindowMaker with compiz.
Nothing may come off it, but I already run a pretty customised WindowMaker (customised in the sources, that is), so perhaps I'll get WindowMaker built as a compiz-compatible decorator.
While I agree with you I think the Karma of this is fucking fantastic. Google supports so much of the crazy liberal bullshit in this country it is only fitting that it comes back to bite the hell out of them. I hope they get reamed out.
Same thing happened with Joss Whedon. You cannot satisfy extremist demands (whether from the left or the right); they'll come for you eventually, too, if you're not extremist enough.
Nope, pretty much women tend to be more conformist on average, get along to go along (more oestrogen less testosterone) and thus take a lower wage. Men on the other hand on average are more competitive (more testosterone less oestrogen) and demand a higher wage.
There's more to it than that - women do the choosing in sexual selection. They set the criteria. Men compete with each other to meet that criteria. Men who aren't competitive don't reproduce.
Open Competitiveness is a characteristic required for men to pass on their genes, while it is not required for women to pass on their genes, hence the men who *don't* compete never reproduced and their strain passed out of our system well before we were fully human.
Women can fix this by changing their selection criteria en masse. As long as women only choose those men who can support themselves and others while men choose women with youth and beauty, the future will be still be filled with men who have to compete and women who don't.
They care precisely because they exist to make money. The pool of skilled labour is limited to the point that is making it hard for them to get the staff they need, at the price they want to pay!
FTFY
so the obvious solution is to expand the pool. Diversity, H1B, education programmes...
Do you really think Intel would invest £300m into improving diversity just because some "SJWs" criticised them? No, it's because they expect a return on that investment.
In the form of lower salaries. Expanding the pool is not about getting more workers, it's about getting cheaper workers. Those big companeis care about the bottom line, and having a larger pool is secondary to having cheaper workers.
How did "care about the characters" become "care about the enemy body count" in your mind?
When did the enemy in movies become something other than a character?
I'm not on that idiot Thompson's side of this. You apparently missed the part of my post where I said "I'm not saying games are all terrible or any nonsense like that", in anticipation of your assumption.
I think you were triggered and didn't read my post properly.
Anytime your ideology shows or is predicted you bring out the "triggered" phrase. It's getting old. You're wearing it out, like you wore out "misogynist" to refer to people who don't care about diversity politics, and "racism" to refer to people who want to decline foreign visitors.
Hell my wife with her BSA can not get more than $13 an hour because women dont deserve male pay levels.
Bullshit. If your wife is getting $13/hour it is because either:
a) She is only worth $13/hour, or
b) She is competing with H1Bs who ask less than $13/hour.
Anyone, regardless of gender, who can do the same (hell, even somewhat similar) work for cheaper gets the work. I doubt your wife is doing $26/hour work and only getting $13/hour.
because that's generally how anyone horrible at their job seems to get that position in the first place. They hide out or "follow the rules" long enough for someone to leave or there is simply no one else to fill the role.
In many of my anecdotes as a contractor, its seems the last people standing in a company (the primary shit stain of sales or the senior dickwad of software) are almost always the most worthless people that just new how to hide well....the good people bailed or were blamed and fired long before.
You're more correct than you think - I posted this before, but another post can't hurt.
The lifecycle of a company is such that once it is out of the growth phase it will be filled by useless wastes of oxygen. That link above provides excruciating details into why this happens.
It matches supply with demand. If rents are too high the root problem is there isn't enough housing being built.
The problem is too many fucking people, literally. We can start by placing limits on how many we import when we already have housing issues.
I know you're a troll, but I'm going to one-up you.
How about "we" place limits on breeding and instead import existing perfectly good people from shittier places.
Eugenics FTW! You'd make Hitler proud, I'll make Godwin proud.
This makes me wonder why we have not moved back to a Harvard architecture for fundamental computing. The #1 way that the bad guys get in is that data gets executed somehow, be it HTML, Flash, or anything winding in documents. Having separate data and code spaces would stop this line of attack cold.
How would this help email.doc(x) attacks? The malicious code is stored in data memory, the word.exe program executes in executable memory. The word.exe program then interprets the data and does a malicious action.
Or you could learn C++ and how to use it. Well-written C++ avoids a lot of C gotchas. (By well-written, I'm not saying written by good C++ coders, but rather adhering to a style guide that can easily be checked in code review.)
Code reviews do not remove traps in the language. When we tell people that PHP is crap we giggle when they reply that they only use a subset of PHP that is not crap, and enforce that subset by code-reviews.
By definition alone, C++ has all the traps and UB of C, and adds a whole lot more.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk to people who've practiced meditation for years. "Super awake" is a way to describe it, but it doesn't quite do it justice.
"Super awake" does not accurately describe meditation; "Self-delusion', on the other hand, does.
So sure, having just a "regular" juicer not only gives you a lot more options, but it's healthier and you get fresher fruits and vegetables in your juices
Fruit juice isn't healthy. It's basically all of the sugar from the fruit with none of the fibre to slow down absorption.
Eat the fruit instead. The fruit as a whole is good for you, the extracted sugar, not so much.
I watched one of Y Combinator's Startup School videos. The presenter was talking about how ideas aren't that important and how so many startups pivot.
VCs don't bet on ideas, they bet on people.
All the 'out-of-the-park' VC successes were based on existing ideas with a new implementation. This is why so many of them have to pivot - the best people realise when the idea is no good. A founder who is fully committed to the idea is a bad idea (pun intended), because if the idea later proves to be infeasible you want someone to ruthlessly kill that effort and focus energy and resources into something that will succeed.
A bad knockoff of 'Command and Conquer' is historically important?
And C&C was 'just' a knockoff of Dune 2?
Hell 'Warcraft' was a bad knockoff of 'C&C', starcraft was just a bad reskin of warcraft.
IIRC, that's how SC started, but they had to do a whole new engine eventually when they decided to do more than a 'knockoff'. Cloaking, stacking, burrowing, creep, higher ground advantage, floating buildings, add-ons, regeneration, etc could not be done as a warcraft reskin.
Significantly fewer people voted for Trump than voted for Clinton. The deplorables are, fortunately, in the minority.
"About a a single percentage point" divides the Trump vote from the Clinton vote. That is hardly "significant" no matter how you look at it.
(Out of 250m or so people, 66m voted Hilary and 63m voted Trump. In no statistic would we call 3/250 "significant". It simply isn't).
(Don't give me that "work hard and save" bullshit.)
With an attitude like that, I know you won't read "The Richest Man in Babylon" to get started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Richest_Man_in_Babylon_(book)
I read it (originally a long long time ago). It has very little of value that is applicable today. The advice can basically be boiled down to "Use as much of your money as possible to pursue rent-seeking".
Seriously, there's not much of value in there, and the OP was spot on with that line you quoted.
Fuck you! I can't decide whether to rape you before or after I kill you! You're getting both raped and killed, in some order!
Death by Oooga Booga.
Wrong meme - death by Snu Snu
as if you could join copper pipes, rocks and whatnot together and magically transform it into a computer?
I'm now speculating how an episode of MacGyver set in a prison would have worked out. And the original MacGyver, not the new one who looks like he'd last nanoseconds in prison.
There's a new MacGyver?
Yes, I use actual examples to form my opinion of the world.
In my experience, fire is always hot, water is always wet, criminals are always criminals.
--XYZZY--
So you're incapable of nuanced thought. Well done you.
Lots of people are incapable of nuanced thought. See:
"basket of deplorables"
"Trump voters" becomes "racist voters"
"Unable to support Anita Sarkeesian/Brianna Wu/etc" becomes "Misogynist"
Oh, wait, you thought you were capable of nuanced thought? That's actually quite hilarious.
I think that number is very, very low.
My prediction is that within 10 years, half of new cars will have some level of self-driving ability. High-end cars will be almost all autonomous capable. I also predict that 1 or more of the classic "big 3" auto makers will go under or be purchased.
My prediction: you're wrong. In mid nineties we had SDCs. Two decades later the rate of success of SDCs has improved only a fraction of a percent while the computing power required to drive the car increased by a few thousand percent.
Given the tiny progress made by increasing computional power by thousands of percent, what makes you think that significant progress will be made?
I don't see it that way. Look at the hits GIMP takes. Look at the hits Python and Perl take. I'm not talking about technical objections; I'm talking about just general hits.
There is some basis for some of the technical hits - for instance, Perl legitimately takes some flack for opposed opinions on its typical readability, and Python legitimately takes some flack for opposed opinions on whitespace. But both take hits as if using them would be the freaking end of the world, and it tends to be way over the top. GIMP is an awesome bit of software. The anti-GIMP diatribes are amazing to read. Etc.
I really do think that people just like to find something they think they have an adequate excuse to kick, and then spend lots and lots of time kicking. It's some kind of perverse instance of self-validation or something.
While you may be correct with those examples, Shuttleworth just comes of as bitter that his pet NIH project failed.
After all, Mir is not, and never was, mainstream.
Okay, dude, let's accept your premise that men are more competitive and are better at asking for raises than women. I would argue that it has far more to do with socialization than with genetics, but whatever.
What do those skills happen to do with being a good coder?
Who said it did?
And why are raises being awarded on a basis other than skills related to the job, hard work, and delivering results?
It's always been that way - why would your employer give you more money unless they think you want it? What's in it for the employer to pay more than a candidate asks?
It's ridiculous and discriminates against women who have been indoctrinated since childhood to be be "nice" and let others go first.
We didn't ask for "girl training," but we received it nonetheless and operate under its burden.
Well, why do you? Your behaviour, as far as asking for more money goes, is entirely under your control.
You are essentially asking that the money be distributed based on merit. Nice argument, except that the employee still has to make their case for why they merit the extra money.
If you fail to convince your employer of the merit of your argument for more money by, for example, not making any argument for more money, why are you bitter towards the employees that *do* argue the merits of their cases successfully?
I know this will go over badly, but I really wish WindowMaker had compositing support, for window scaling to help me find the windows I need. If it had that, it would be my window manager again in a heartbeat (full 'desktop environments' have been overrated).
Coincidental that you say this - I've just cloned the compiz repo (and emerald decorator repo) because I want to use my build of WindowMaker with compiz.
Nothing may come off it, but I already run a pretty customised WindowMaker (customised in the sources, that is), so perhaps I'll get WindowMaker built as a compiz-compatible decorator.
While I agree with you I think the Karma of this is fucking fantastic. Google supports so much of the crazy liberal bullshit in this country it is only fitting that it comes back to bite the hell out of them. I hope they get reamed out.
Same thing happened with Joss Whedon. You cannot satisfy extremist demands (whether from the left or the right); they'll come for you eventually, too, if you're not extremist enough.
Nope, pretty much women tend to be more conformist on average, get along to go along (more oestrogen less testosterone) and thus take a lower wage. Men on the other hand on average are more competitive (more testosterone less oestrogen) and demand a higher wage.
There's more to it than that - women do the choosing in sexual selection. They set the criteria. Men compete with each other to meet that criteria. Men who aren't competitive don't reproduce.
Open Competitiveness is a characteristic required for men to pass on their genes, while it is not required for women to pass on their genes, hence the men who *don't* compete never reproduced and their strain passed out of our system well before we were fully human.
Women can fix this by changing their selection criteria en masse. As long as women only choose those men who can support themselves and others while men choose women with youth and beauty, the future will be still be filled with men who have to compete and women who don't.
They care precisely because they exist to make money. The pool of skilled labour is limited to the point that is making it hard for them to get the staff they need, at the price they want to pay!
FTFY
so the obvious solution is to expand the pool. Diversity, H1B, education programmes...
Do you really think Intel would invest £300m into improving diversity just because some "SJWs" criticised them? No, it's because they expect a return on that investment.
In the form of lower salaries. Expanding the pool is not about getting more workers, it's about getting cheaper workers. Those big companeis care about the bottom line, and having a larger pool is secondary to having cheaper workers.
How did "care about the characters" become "care about the enemy body count" in your mind?
When did the enemy in movies become something other than a character?
I'm not on that idiot Thompson's side of this. You apparently missed the part of my post where I said "I'm not saying games are all terrible or any nonsense like that", in anticipation of your assumption.
I think you were triggered and didn't read my post properly.
Anytime your ideology shows or is predicted you bring out the "triggered" phrase. It's getting old. You're wearing it out, like you wore out "misogynist" to refer to people who don't care about diversity politics, and "racism" to refer to people who want to decline foreign visitors.
For example, good movies make you care about the characters, and care when they get injured or die.
Really? How many movies made you care about the enemy bodycount? I can't think of many (none come to mind, but there *must* have been a few).
I'm not really surprised you choose the Jack Thompson side of any issue, but still ... surely you must put at least some thought into your words?
[snipped airplane powered by batteries theory] It's really that simple.
Everything is simple to simple people.
Hell my wife with her BSA can not get more than $13 an hour because women dont deserve male pay levels.
Bullshit. If your wife is getting $13/hour it is because either:
a) She is only worth $13/hour, or
b) She is competing with H1Bs who ask less than $13/hour.
Anyone, regardless of gender, who can do the same (hell, even somewhat similar) work for cheaper gets the work. I doubt your wife is doing $26/hour work and only getting $13/hour.
because that's generally how anyone horrible at their job seems to get that position in the first place. They hide out or "follow the rules" long enough for someone to leave or there is simply no one else to fill the role.
In many of my anecdotes as a contractor, its seems the last people standing in a company (the primary shit stain of sales or the senior dickwad of software) are almost always the most worthless people that just new how to hide well....the good people bailed or were blamed and fired long before.
You're more correct than you think - I posted this before, but another post can't hurt.
The lifecycle of a company is such that once it is out of the growth phase it will be filled by useless wastes of oxygen. That link above provides excruciating details into why this happens.
He very openly says he knows nothing about code, so he wants things explained in simple terms.
You have the best type of manager.
It matches supply with demand. If rents are too high the root problem is there isn't enough housing being built.
The problem is too many fucking people, literally. We can start by placing limits on how many we import when we already have housing issues.
I know you're a troll, but I'm going to one-up you. How about "we" place limits on breeding and instead import existing perfectly good people from shittier places.
Eugenics FTW! You'd make Hitler proud, I'll make Godwin proud.
This makes me wonder why we have not moved back to a Harvard architecture for fundamental computing. The #1 way that the bad guys get in is that data gets executed somehow, be it HTML, Flash, or anything winding in documents. Having separate data and code spaces would stop this line of attack cold.
How would this help email .doc(x) attacks? The malicious code is stored in data memory, the word.exe program executes in executable memory. The word.exe program then interprets the data and does a malicious action.
Or you could learn C++ and how to use it. Well-written C++ avoids a lot of C gotchas. (By well-written, I'm not saying written by good C++ coders, but rather adhering to a style guide that can easily be checked in code review.)
Code reviews do not remove traps in the language. When we tell people that PHP is crap we giggle when they reply that they only use a subset of PHP that is not crap, and enforce that subset by code-reviews.
By definition alone, C++ has all the traps and UB of C, and adds a whole lot more.