Can he(she) switch to some other work, maybe repairing cars?
That's funny, 'cos I'm working on learning how to rebuild automatic transmissions, purely due to the fact that repairing these things is not easy, nor an easy thing to automate. A modern transmission rebuild currently costs anywhere from $2500 (simple ones) to around $6000 (7-speed tip-tronic ones), with parts/consumables costing from $150 to $1000.
The reason is because the complexity means that you cannot simply throw a mechanic at it and hope it works. Even the dealerships around here don't fix their own transmissions and ship the entire car to a specialised transmission shop for repairs. They can strip and rebuild engines no problems, though.
The automatic transmission is the most complex part of the car and the added electronics in recent years simply rose the complexity by an order of magnitude.
This is my retirement plan in twenty years - fix and/or repair one transmission a week. If no one wants to pay me to fix their transmissions, no problem... looking at the classifieds I see roughly five cars this week being sold for around a quarter of their book value because the transmission is dead. I'll buy one a week, repair and sell.
The extremely high cost of transmission repair means that a lot of these cars are broken for parts once the transmission dies. Doing it cheaper allows me to make a good enough profit to fund my retirement (in addition to the retirement fund that I expect to be too low to meet my retired expenses).
In short, fixing cars is difficult and complex work. You could possibly retrain someone to screw in new lightbulbs, but not to diagnose and repair the expensive items.
Perhaps I am. I don't want a fascist as president.
Shouting down opposing views using shaming language is not fascist? Surely you see the irony in disagreeing with roughly half the voters, stereotyping them with a few labels, and then attempting to shame them into silence...
You're correct, of course. Even people who don't know the meaning of the word "fascist" dislike fascists; this is why they dislike you so much.
The British, through [...] the partition of India essentially laid the groundwork for the present conditions in those countries, leading to fairly significant exoduses.
No, you self-flagellating piece of excrement. India was divided up purely due to the Muslim portion being violent. Not even Mahatma Ghandi was able to broker peace with the Muslim faction - see this wikipedia article.
When a peaceful coexistence with a minority is impossible, and a piece of the country is broken off and given to the minority, why is it that decades later the minority still has more violent elements than the parent country?
So.....in order to keep others from making your country into a totalitarian state ruled by fear, you make your country a totalitarian state ruled by fear.
If you can't beat them, join them! Thanks May and team.
I wrote a paper on this bill. Note that it contains limited exceptions for journalists, medical records, etc... but full exceptions for politicians. Well Done, UK!
That $FOO occurred or exists is not a foregone conclusion.
No, $FOO either occured or did not. That happened regardless of whether or not it is brought to court. The court case has no bearing on whether or not libel occured, only whether or not someone can successfully sue for it.
Actually no. It's not libel until a court determines that it is. If *you* think it is libel and someone else doesn't, why the hell should they simply fall in line and believe you?
Remember, you said:
Libel is not and has never been protected speech.
If you want to silence speech on the basis that it is libel the bar is pretty much "let a court decide if it is libel". Whether or not something is libel is determined by a court. Your opinion isn't likely to convince anyone, even if you are a lawyer.
It's only libel *after* a court hearing decides that it is.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard on the internet today.
That's only because you do not listen to what you say
It's entirely equivalent to saying "It's only theft *after* a successful prosecution".
That is, of course, total bollocks. The crime happens either way.
With criminal prosecutions, certainly. Not so with civil litigation.
The purpose of the court case is to (attempt) to prove that it did.
No. The purpose of the criminal court case is to prove that the accused is guilty of the charges. With civil cases the purpose of the court is to determine whether $FOO occurred. That $FOO occurred or exists is not a foregone conclusion.
Just because a used car salesman can get more people to buy jalopies doesn't mean they are smarter (where it matters).
If his job is selling used cars, then "where it matters" is selling used cars. Clinton couldn't persuade enough of the country that she was going to act in their interests. That makes her a poor politician.
You nominated one of the most unlikable candidates you've ever put forth;
And one of the smartest and most experienced there is.
After 30 years in politics she was unable to beat someone who took it up as a hobby less than two years ago. She is most certainly not as smart as she appears to you.If she was as experienced as you say she is, Trump would not have won.
Maybe he did a CS-heavy field of study. The problems with threads can't simply be handwaved away with "Careful locking". There is no such beast!
Even if there was, all it fixes are race conditions. The *actual* problems are deadlock detection, deadlock intervention, thread starvation, priority inversion... and that's before we even get to profiling, code coverage and unit tests which will all execute/result differently under threaded loads.
Threads are provably non-deterministic, which makes reasoning about non-trivial threaded code impossible (not hard, impossible) regardless of how well you think you are using them, or how closely you've guarded the queue.
With threads, a unit that passes the unit-test for a range of inputs may not actually pass that test with the same inputs later. Without threads, a unit that passes for a certain range of inputs will always pass for that range of inputs.
It's "an illustration of a basic issue in computer science" that never seems to come up.
You can't be serious.
He probably is. Too many devs think that threads are easy if you simply use locks/design patterns/$LANGUAGE/$PLATFORM/etc... These people have likely either a) Never written anything non-trivial using shared-memory paralellism, OR b) Decided a long time ago that the frequency of crashes in their multi-threaded was acceptable.
We were seeing all the polls showing Clinton had a near certain victory. And we assumed trump was lying when he said that his polls are showing something different. Unfortunately that raises the question how good are the sources to figure out truthfulness.
Now Trump could had been lying about his sources, and gotten lucky. However the fact that he was saying that he was winning and the media is lying about that and actually won. Does bring up questions, on the fact checkers and truthfulness.
Clinton actually gained roughly the amount of votes that were expected. But what happened is the overwhelming majority of "undecided" voters voted for Trump. What we all forgot about, but should never forget about, is The Bradley Effect. People didn't want to admit to a pollster that they were voting for Trump. It's a key example of Social Desirability Bias where respondents answer questions in a manner which will be viewed favorably by those around them.
The blame for that lies squarely with the hardcore left - as we see regularly on/. itself, the hardcore left prefers to use shaming language in lieu of arguments. Stop using shaming language and perhaps people will listen to you. Keep calling Trump misogynist because women let him grope them, see how that turns out for you.
The parallels with the rise of Nazism in the 1930s are quite disturbing. Trump wants to deport 11 million people, persecute Muslims, force other countries to respect and build walls for America, and all on the back of a populist campaign of lies and blame.
The Republicans control both houses, the presidency and will get to appoint an ultra conservative to the Supreme Court. Trump won by appealing particularly to white males, a group that thinks it is repressed and under attack when in fact it has all the power and is now persecuting everyone else. The President has admitted sexually assaulting women, and is being sued for the Trump University scam, used cheap immigrant labour to build his empire and wants to put his political rival in jail.
The world is turning to shit again. I honestly thought this couldn't happen, that we had learned from the 1930s and would never allow the same mistakes to be made, but it has happened.
And that above, people, is how you lose an election.
No one likes smug assholes, and they like them even less when the doom-and-gloom fails to materialise.
Well, I'm not that sure. Team sports are attractive for one single reason: You can't just do them at home. Even if I am in shape and able to play football, I still need a lot of friends to get a game going. Plus, I could get hurt. So, if I'm interested in that sport, the only way to enjoy it (if I don't have a lot of friends that share that interest) is to watch it on TV.
Well, that's why I said that the interest would fall. Sports as a spectator pastime was interesting because there was so little else to interest a teen/young adult. That has changed. Prior to 2000, the average person was the target audience for sports (matches, news, etc). Post-2010 the average person plays more phone-games than viewing sport.
Looking at the stats (last time I looked sometime last year), sports viewers still made up less than 10% of the population while at one point in the past it was well over 65%. Right now there are more people playing smartphone games than there are people watching sport (combined). This is why I think sports viewership numbers are going to dive down to the same level as videogame viewership numbers.
Yes, there is a market. But I doubt that it will ever become any bigger than for other niche games like chess or curling. There are also fans of either, but neither has any kind of mass appeal.
I broadly agree with you. However I expect interest in "traditional" sports to fall as well - all the arguments against videogames as a spectator sport are the same for football as a spectator sport. The only thing these sports have in their favour is momentum - every watches a match/talks about a match because their friends are all watching/talking about a match.
Watching sports was a draw when kids had little else to do. Now, they've got a ton of other activities more interesting than watching a match. They've also got lots of ways for social groupings whilst previously the best way for a group to get together was at a match (as spectators).
I suspect that within a few generations football will be limited to a niche like chess is - only the parents of the kids who play will follow the sport.
I wonder if he didn't want to go the post-factual route for some kind of moral reason, or if he just didn't foresee the rise of anti-intellectualism and post-truth politics. It's similar to the mistake that the Remain campaign made during the Brexit referendum - they assumed that reason and addressing people's concerns, which they worked very hard to understand, would work. They had all the profiling and polling data, the focus groups. They heard people saying that they wanted hard data, factual information and the truth. They just didn't realize that what people really wanted was to have their existing views validated and to be told it's not them, it's the world that's wrong.
You bring up the Brexit in almost every post. You present it as "the ignorant racist masses voted with their irrationally", while in truth the rulers got their asses handed to them. You want to spin the brexit as some sort of bad thing, but time will tell - thus far all of the doom and gloom has failed to materialise.
In this case there is apparently a very real possibility that the ruling class will get a bloodied nose. You appear to think that all of the ruled classes should be concerned about the well-being of their rulers. You are, of course, incorrect.
> When this study was done for job interviews, the test was always low class black names vs. obvious middle/upper class white names.
Bullshit. They used names like Jamal and Lakisha. Those both are names from the african continent, neither are 'ghetto' mispronunciations of everyday products.
How the hell did you get modded up? Ever been to the African continent? Those aren't African-continent names, those are ghetto names. Names from the African continent are nowhere close to the names they used. Names like Jamal and Lakisha are clearly not the same as Xolani, Busiswe, Tembelihle, Musi, Lindiwe, etc. Those who don't have ethnic names either have English words seen by locals as auspicious (Hope, Precious, Patience, Blessing, Virtue, etc) or have Anglo names (Richard, Elvis, Mike, George, etc).
Names of African-continent descent are easy to spot as they are rooted in some variant of either French or the older Bantu languages. You, and the idiots who voted you up, have obviously never been to Africa. Before you spout off like an expert you should perhaps go vacation there first.
Yes and when it was done for job interviews the same resume with different names got different responses. So it's not about the quality of the person's skills and credentials. It's simply because the person was easily identifiable as black.
No, it's because the person is easily identifiable as being from a background which wishes to stand out, with the double whammy being that the background and/or culture being identified by the name is not viewed as particularly desirable.
When a demographic is more willing to assimilate, they are more accepted by the assimilating society. When a demographic puts its culture over assimilation then, yes, society tends to avoid that particular culture.
Skin colour has nothing to do with it, it's culture that puts people off.
Slashdot Mirror
Can he(she) switch to some other work, maybe repairing cars?
That's funny, 'cos I'm working on learning how to rebuild automatic transmissions, purely due to the fact that repairing these things is not easy, nor an easy thing to automate. A modern transmission rebuild currently costs anywhere from $2500 (simple ones) to around $6000 (7-speed tip-tronic ones), with parts/consumables costing from $150 to $1000.
The reason is because the complexity means that you cannot simply throw a mechanic at it and hope it works. Even the dealerships around here don't fix their own transmissions and ship the entire car to a specialised transmission shop for repairs. They can strip and rebuild engines no problems, though.
The automatic transmission is the most complex part of the car and the added electronics in recent years simply rose the complexity by an order of magnitude.
This is my retirement plan in twenty years - fix and/or repair one transmission a week. If no one wants to pay me to fix their transmissions, no problem... looking at the classifieds I see roughly five cars this week being sold for around a quarter of their book value because the transmission is dead. I'll buy one a week, repair and sell.
The extremely high cost of transmission repair means that a lot of these cars are broken for parts once the transmission dies. Doing it cheaper allows me to make a good enough profit to fund my retirement (in addition to the retirement fund that I expect to be too low to meet my retired expenses).
In short, fixing cars is difficult and complex work. You could possibly retrain someone to screw in new lightbulbs, but not to diagnose and repair the expensive items.
Honestly? Even scarier. The guy made racist/xenophobic remarks through his campaign - on record.
Obviously, a significant portion of the population does not consider "enforce existing laws" to be the same as "racist".
They are claiming that outside actors deliberately leaked hacked data
You make it sound like the data is not legitimate. As far as I know, all the dumped data was accurate.
Perhaps I am. I don't want a fascist as president.
Shouting down opposing views using shaming language is not fascist? Surely you see the irony in disagreeing with roughly half the voters, stereotyping them with a few labels, and then attempting to shame them into silence...
You're correct, of course. Even people who don't know the meaning of the word "fascist" dislike fascists; this is why they dislike you so much.
Oh, its quite likely most Trump voters aren't racist. But they did vote for one.
I don't know what is worse. The fact that someone would willingly vote a racist president or that he/she simply doesn't give a shit.
Or maybe, most voters agrees that he just isn't racist.
If you look at the Parliamentary speeches, a lot of MPs seem to genuinely believe this is a good and necessary law.
Actually, they read it and realised that politicians are exempt from unwarranted domestic spying.
The British, through [...] the partition of India essentially laid the groundwork for the present conditions in those countries, leading to fairly significant exoduses.
No, you self-flagellating piece of excrement. India was divided up purely due to the Muslim portion being violent. Not even Mahatma Ghandi was able to broker peace with the Muslim faction - see this wikipedia article.
When a peaceful coexistence with a minority is impossible, and a piece of the country is broken off and given to the minority, why is it that decades later the minority still has more violent elements than the parent country?
So.....in order to keep others from making your country into a totalitarian state ruled by fear, you make your country a totalitarian state ruled by fear.
If you can't beat them, join them! Thanks May and team.
I wrote a paper on this bill. Note that it contains limited exceptions for journalists, medical records, etc... but full exceptions for politicians. Well Done, UK!
That $FOO occurred or exists is not a foregone conclusion.
No, $FOO either occured or did not. That happened regardless of whether or not it is brought to court. The court case has no bearing on whether or not libel occured, only whether or not someone can successfully sue for it.
Actually no. It's not libel until a court determines that it is. If *you* think it is libel and someone else doesn't, why the hell should they simply fall in line and believe you?
Remember, you said:
Libel is not and has never been protected speech.
If you want to silence speech on the basis that it is libel the bar is pretty much "let a court decide if it is libel". Whether or not something is libel is determined by a court. Your opinion isn't likely to convince anyone, even if you are a lawyer.
It's only libel *after* a court hearing decides that it is.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard on the internet today.
That's only because you do not listen to what you say
It's entirely equivalent to saying "It's only theft *after* a successful prosecution".
That is, of course, total bollocks. The crime happens either way.
With criminal prosecutions, certainly. Not so with civil litigation.
The purpose of the court case is to (attempt) to prove that it did.
No. The purpose of the criminal court case is to prove that the accused is guilty of the charges. With civil cases the purpose of the court is to determine whether $FOO occurred. That $FOO occurred or exists is not a foregone conclusion.
Do you know, who filed such a complaint against Milo, when the "dangerous faggot" was banned by Twitter?
Libel is not and has never been protected speech.
It's only libel *after* a court hearing decides that it is.
Just because a used car salesman can get more people to buy jalopies doesn't mean they are smarter (where it matters).
If his job is selling used cars, then "where it matters" is selling used cars. Clinton couldn't persuade enough of the country that she was going to act in their interests. That makes her a poor politician.
You nominated one of the most unlikable candidates you've ever put forth;
And one of the smartest and most experienced there is.
After 30 years in politics she was unable to beat someone who took it up as a hobby less than two years ago. She is most certainly not as smart as she appears to you.If she was as experienced as you say she is, Trump would not have won.
It sounds like you never got the hang of it, TBH.
Maybe he did a CS-heavy field of study. The problems with threads can't simply be handwaved away with "Careful locking". There is no such beast!
Even if there was, all it fixes are race conditions. The *actual* problems are deadlock detection, deadlock intervention, thread starvation, priority inversion... and that's before we even get to profiling, code coverage and unit tests which will all execute/result differently under threaded loads.
Threads are provably non-deterministic, which makes reasoning about non-trivial threaded code impossible (not hard, impossible) regardless of how well you think you are using them, or how closely you've guarded the queue.
With threads, a unit that passes the unit-test for a range of inputs may not actually pass that test with the same inputs later. Without threads, a unit that passes for a certain range of inputs will always pass for that range of inputs.
It's "an illustration of a basic issue in computer science" that never seems to come up.
You can't be serious.
He probably is. Too many devs think that threads are easy if you simply use locks/design patterns/$LANGUAGE/$PLATFORM/etc ... These people have likely either a) Never written anything non-trivial using shared-memory paralellism, OR b) Decided a long time ago that the frequency of crashes in their multi-threaded was acceptable.
We were seeing all the polls showing Clinton had a near certain victory. And we assumed trump was lying when he said that his polls are showing something different. Unfortunately that raises the question how good are the sources to figure out truthfulness.
Now Trump could had been lying about his sources, and gotten lucky. However the fact that he was saying that he was winning and the media is lying about that and actually won. Does bring up questions, on the fact checkers and truthfulness.
Clinton actually gained roughly the amount of votes that were expected. But what happened is the overwhelming majority of "undecided" voters voted for Trump. What we all forgot about, but should never forget about, is The Bradley Effect. People didn't want to admit to a pollster that they were voting for Trump. It's a key example of Social Desirability Bias where respondents answer questions in a manner which will be viewed favorably by those around them.
The blame for that lies squarely with the hardcore left - as we see regularly on /. itself, the hardcore left prefers to use shaming language in lieu of arguments. Stop using shaming language and perhaps people will listen to you. Keep calling Trump misogynist because women let him grope them, see how that turns out for you.
How is it that over half the population is women and yet they account for only 20% of congress?
For the same reason that over half the population is women and yet they account for only 15% of the prison population... they take fewer risks.
The parallels with the rise of Nazism in the 1930s are quite disturbing. Trump wants to deport 11 million people, persecute Muslims, force other countries to respect and build walls for America, and all on the back of a populist campaign of lies and blame.
The Republicans control both houses, the presidency and will get to appoint an ultra conservative to the Supreme Court. Trump won by appealing particularly to white males, a group that thinks it is repressed and under attack when in fact it has all the power and is now persecuting everyone else. The President has admitted sexually assaulting women, and is being sued for the Trump University scam, used cheap immigrant labour to build his empire and wants to put his political rival in jail.
The world is turning to shit again. I honestly thought this couldn't happen, that we had learned from the 1930s and would never allow the same mistakes to be made, but it has happened.
And that above, people, is how you lose an election.
No one likes smug assholes, and they like them even less when the doom-and-gloom fails to materialise.
Well, I'm not that sure. Team sports are attractive for one single reason: You can't just do them at home. Even if I am in shape and able to play football, I still need a lot of friends to get a game going. Plus, I could get hurt. So, if I'm interested in that sport, the only way to enjoy it (if I don't have a lot of friends that share that interest) is to watch it on TV.
Well, that's why I said that the interest would fall. Sports as a spectator pastime was interesting because there was so little else to interest a teen/young adult. That has changed. Prior to 2000, the average person was the target audience for sports (matches, news, etc). Post-2010 the average person plays more phone-games than viewing sport.
Looking at the stats (last time I looked sometime last year), sports viewers still made up less than 10% of the population while at one point in the past it was well over 65%. Right now there are more people playing smartphone games than there are people watching sport (combined). This is why I think sports viewership numbers are going to dive down to the same level as videogame viewership numbers.
Yes, there is a market. But I doubt that it will ever become any bigger than for other niche games like chess or curling. There are also fans of either, but neither has any kind of mass appeal.
I broadly agree with you. However I expect interest in "traditional" sports to fall as well - all the arguments against videogames as a spectator sport are the same for football as a spectator sport. The only thing these sports have in their favour is momentum - every watches a match/talks about a match because their friends are all watching/talking about a match.
Watching sports was a draw when kids had little else to do. Now, they've got a ton of other activities more interesting than watching a match. They've also got lots of ways for social groupings whilst previously the best way for a group to get together was at a match (as spectators).
I suspect that within a few generations football will be limited to a niche like chess is - only the parents of the kids who play will follow the sport.
Current iPhones can already fold in half, if you push hard enough. Wake me up when we can unfold them back into a functional state.
You're folding it wrong!
I see what you did there - bravo!
Don't you mean courage?
That's why Apple will never produce a foldable phone... those filthy, uncouth users might choose to fold it in half, instantly doubling its thickness.
They already make a foldable phone. Of course, you can only fold it once...
I wonder if he didn't want to go the post-factual route for some kind of moral reason, or if he just didn't foresee the rise of anti-intellectualism and post-truth politics. It's similar to the mistake that the Remain campaign made during the Brexit referendum - they assumed that reason and addressing people's concerns, which they worked very hard to understand, would work. They had all the profiling and polling data, the focus groups. They heard people saying that they wanted hard data, factual information and the truth. They just didn't realize that what people really wanted was to have their existing views validated and to be told it's not them, it's the world that's wrong.
You bring up the Brexit in almost every post. You present it as "the ignorant racist masses voted with their irrationally", while in truth the rulers got their asses handed to them. You want to spin the brexit as some sort of bad thing, but time will tell - thus far all of the doom and gloom has failed to materialise.
In this case there is apparently a very real possibility that the ruling class will get a bloodied nose. You appear to think that all of the ruled classes should be concerned about the well-being of their rulers. You are, of course, incorrect.
> When this study was done for job interviews, the test was always low class black names vs. obvious middle/upper class white names.
Bullshit. They used names like Jamal and Lakisha. Those both are names from the african continent, neither are 'ghetto' mispronunciations of everyday products.
How the hell did you get modded up? Ever been to the African continent? Those aren't African-continent names, those are ghetto names. Names from the African continent are nowhere close to the names they used. Names like Jamal and Lakisha are clearly not the same as Xolani, Busiswe, Tembelihle, Musi, Lindiwe, etc. Those who don't have ethnic names either have English words seen by locals as auspicious (Hope, Precious, Patience, Blessing, Virtue, etc) or have Anglo names (Richard, Elvis, Mike, George, etc).
Names of African-continent descent are easy to spot as they are rooted in some variant of either French or the older Bantu languages. You, and the idiots who voted you up, have obviously never been to Africa. Before you spout off like an expert you should perhaps go vacation there first.
Yes and when it was done for job interviews the same resume with different names got different responses. So it's not about the quality of the person's skills and credentials. It's simply because the person was easily identifiable as black.
No, it's because the person is easily identifiable as being from a background which wishes to stand out, with the double whammy being that the background and/or culture being identified by the name is not viewed as particularly desirable.
When a demographic is more willing to assimilate, they are more accepted by the assimilating society. When a demographic puts its culture over assimilation then, yes, society tends to avoid that particular culture.
Skin colour has nothing to do with it, it's culture that puts people off.