You divorce your spouse, give them custody and make your maintenance payments on time. That's it. You are now free to take risks.
If you really have that little interest in your spouse and kids, I don't see why you'd bother getting married and having them in the first place.
Having very little interest in kids != Having very little interest in procreation.
Thing is, if this works for you the payoff for your progeny is immense, and if it fails the damage to your progeny is almost insignificant. I/feel/ it's a no-brainer; that one parent should ensure survivability(sp?) of the offspring and the other parent should take the risks makes perfect sense.
It only falls apart if you buy the traditional/conservative/religious/whatever narrative: that you can only be a good parent if you sacrifice all or most of your time. If, OTOH, you're not that religious/traditional/conservative/etc then you find that society has already decided that the harm from having only a single parent is not so significant anyway, so you may as well take that no-so-significant penalty for your kids and aim for the big-time.
I'm guessing that adoption of the language is more important to them than lock-in. Perhaps take-up of Swift has been slower than they predicted and this is merely to lower the Swift barrier to entry; more Swift devs == better for Apple.
Your willingness to second-guess somebody else's family life is not a question; it's certainly arrogant and unwelcome.
a) That "somebody else" apparently doesn't find it as arrogant as you do. Do you always step into conversations and berate one of the parties when the other party isn't complaining? (Hint - some might call it arrogant)
b) I did not second-guess anyone; I pointed out (and unlike you I managed to even do it politely, I might add) that there's absolutely no need for both parents to "play it safe", and it's almost certainly better for the kids if one parent plays it safe and the other takes the risks. How the hell do you get "second-guessing" from that?
Wow, and a I thought *I* was a selfish sociopath.
Strategy amounts to throwing your own wife and kids under a bus so that you can gamble your future, and if they struggle, well, it was their fault anyways. Nope, you can keep your moonshot.
Who said anything about throwing them under a bus? If your spouse cannot at least raise kids on his/her own without your financial help then you having kids with them is most unwise, so with at least one proven stupid decision behind you then perhaps you shouldn't be taking any risks anyway.
OTOH, if you spouse is employed enough to at least raise the kids then why not take a risk? It's not like your failure will cause them to starve or similar.
TLDR; If your kids will starve without your income, forget the risk. If your lack of income means that your kids have to go without the latest iShinies, vacations away and designer clothing then grow a pair and take the fucking risk.
When it is just your life, you can take chances, when you are responsible for others then you need to take it safe.
No. You divorce your spouse, give them custody and make your maintenance payments on time. That's it. You are now free to take risks. When you fail, damage to your kids is limited to whatever your maintenance payment is. If you succeed, the reward to your kids is many times more what the maintenance payment is. Many many times more.
If your spouse is too poor to give your kids even a basic upbringing without your help then he/she had no business having kids in the first place.
Finally, if *you're* the one playing it safe, then your spouse should bloody well do what I suggested - hand you the kids, hand you the maintenance and go off and try to make a fortune. Kids get two parents - why the hell should both play it safe when playing it safe won't even allow you to pay for their college? If one parent is playing it safe then the other should be taking risks.
Yeah... seems to boil down to "nobody wanted our stuff", "had no idea how to make it into a business", and "my magical idea didn't work".
There's some real good advice buried under all the "I'm a special snowflake but the market was too stupid to see how special I am!" idiocy. Like this one, for example: 99 reasons
Growing up everyone told me I could be whatever I wanted to be.
...
That creativity that we were praised for in elementary school and that has become so central to the way we think of ourselves worthless.
We've raised a nation of people who were indoctrinated with the idea that they can do anything, or be anything that they want. We told them that their ideas were important. We lied.
In other words you cannot come up with a clear use-case.
Too bad because without that there is no reason to ever switch to IPv6
VoIP. Direct messaging services. Multiple gamers on a network playing directly with multiple other games on another network. Videophone. Remote sensors around the world.
Ever wonder why STUN was developed? Ever wonder why it still doesn't always work?
Why? Why the fuck should kids be familiar with real guns? I think you grew up in the wrong neighborhood.
I hope some day the only familiarity kids will have with guns will be in visits to a museum, where they will also see steam engines and whalebone corsets.
Really now! Are you seriously prepared to argue that abstinence works better than education?
I think you are missing the point: those immigrant doctors cannot practice until they have satisfied the union (medical council in your jurisdiction). The union limits their numbers anyway by refusing to give all off them a license to practice. The union will stop the licenses the minute a local doctor can't find employment.
Ubuntu has gone full "Windows 8.1" in trying to appease the lowest common denominator when most people just want a desktop they recognize.
No, they aren't. I don't know who they are attempting to attract but it's certainly not the lowest common denominator. No-one seems to want the ubuntu interface, nor the gnome3 one for that matter. Not the newbies nor the present computer users.
Then you lose your offer when you're asked for a recent pay stub.
No you don't. Provide a fake payslip. Your current employer is legally bound from sharing your pay information and your future employer is legally bound from getting your pay information without your permission.
if anyone ever displays knowledge of your current pay then there is a criminal charge in their future regardless if it's the new place or the recruiter.
Everyone negotiates with full knowledge of the other parties price point or no one does. Turn about is fair play.
The biggest skill in C++ is how to read code that's got templates, generics, overloaded operators, and custom keywords.
"What do you mean they overloaded '+' to merge objects?"
"This doesn't look like C++, it looks like some foreign language."
"Oh, we reversed the meaning of + and - because the senior guy thought that the original semantics were incorrect. But only for some objects."
This. Outside of academia I've never encountered C++ written in a sane manner. Hell, even inside of academia things get a bit iffy. Things you can expect to see if you ever maintain C++ code:
* Objects passed by value which don't have a deep assignment copy constructor.
* File scope objects using other file-scope objects - "Because VS2010 ensures instantiation order."
* Dependencies with no real reason; this is especially bad on Qt projects. Why use std::vector when you can use a QVector?
* const char *use_this_later = MyQstringObject.toStdString().c_str();// Bang! There goes another foot... maybe if we had GC...
* You used copy semantics? You *meant* move semantics (This should never had made it into the standard).
* Overloaded functions - "myfunc (foo);" does something different to "myfunc (bar);", because hilariously foo and bar are different types
* Ditto for operators - "foo + bar" does something quite different to "bar + foo".
* Other than "type var[size];" there is no primitive array type. Arrays are implemented in the library, not in the language like every other sane language.
* No GC. In other languages you can get away with it, but in C++ you stand no chance - someone, somewhere back in the mists of the past, would have created a critically dependent-upon class that *will* return a temporary object that gets deleted automatically while you still have references. QString, for example.
All of the above, in addition to all of the gotcha's in C as well. In this day and age there is very little reason to use C++. If you need objects, UI, etc use Java or C#. If you don't need objects use C; at least you can trivially expose every single piece of C code you've written to other languages via a library. This lets you reuse your code. The only C++ code you'll ever expose to other languages are C-compatible functions.
I'm looking, right now, at a mountain of code, some 20+ classes, many with file-scope instantiations, every single fucking object a Qt object. The original developer noticed that the code for Qt-derived classes won't compile without a copy constructor so he very cleverly made empty copy constructors for all the classes so that even a shallow copy won't be performed. As expected, he also stores instances in containers - which means every now and then the program would give incorrect results with seemingly no predictable occurrences. It doesn't crash, mind, just gives incorrect answers.
Good luck; you'll need it.
Stay away from C++ - stick to languages that implement context-free grammars only.
On the other hand, humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity.
Are you suggesting nature gives a f about us?
He didn't. It's right there - "humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity". He's not claiming that it will be bad for nature, or the earth, or ecology in general, he's making a specific claim that it will be bad for humanity. Of course he's correct - that's practically a tautology and may indicate lack of sleep and/or concentration on his part:-)
It is not broke. It is just not view-able if not logged in.
You do know there's a difference between public content and walled-off content? From this thread it appears that you consider walled-off content to be just as public as actual public content.
Even with the number of facebook users on the web I find that actual content get's buried and ignored if the reader needs a facebook login. This story will be elsewhere, if only I was motivated enough to actually find the story.
Slashdot Mirror
So... feminists are sexist because they call for "safe spaces" for women (and trans people, and minorities)?
Genuinely curious - what's the difference between "safe spaces" and segregation?
Jesus, I bet you're a riot at parties.
I am. And don't call me Jesus :-)
You divorce your spouse, give them custody and make your maintenance payments on time. That's it. You are now free to take risks.
If you really have that little interest in your spouse and kids, I don't see why you'd bother getting married and having them in the first place.
Having very little interest in kids != Having very little interest in procreation.
Thing is, if this works for you the payoff for your progeny is immense, and if it fails the damage to your progeny is almost insignificant. I /feel/ it's a no-brainer; that one parent should ensure survivability(sp?) of the offspring and the other parent should take the risks makes perfect sense.
It only falls apart if you buy the traditional/conservative/religious/whatever narrative: that you can only be a good parent if you sacrifice all or most of your time. If, OTOH, you're not that religious/traditional/conservative/etc then you find that society has already decided that the harm from having only a single parent is not so significant anyway, so you may as well take that no-so-significant penalty for your kids and aim for the big-time.
I'm guessing that adoption of the language is more important to them than lock-in. Perhaps take-up of Swift has been slower than they predicted and this is merely to lower the Swift barrier to entry; more Swift devs == better for Apple.
Who sings praises for their fiance's ex-boyfriends?
My ex-wife's new husband sang my praises much to her dismay :-)
(Nice guy, as I eventually found out. Drove a daihatsu (sp?)).
Your willingness to second-guess somebody else's family life is not a question; it's certainly arrogant and unwelcome.
a) That "somebody else" apparently doesn't find it as arrogant as you do. Do you always step into conversations and berate one of the parties when the other party isn't complaining? (Hint - some might call it arrogant)
b) I did not second-guess anyone; I pointed out (and unlike you I managed to even do it politely, I might add) that there's absolutely no need for both parents to "play it safe", and it's almost certainly better for the kids if one parent plays it safe and the other takes the risks. How the hell do you get "second-guessing" from that?
Wow, and a I thought *I* was a selfish sociopath. Strategy amounts to throwing your own wife and kids under a bus so that you can gamble your future, and if they struggle, well, it was their fault anyways. Nope, you can keep your moonshot.
Who said anything about throwing them under a bus? If your spouse cannot at least raise kids on his/her own without your financial help then you having kids with them is most unwise, so with at least one proven stupid decision behind you then perhaps you shouldn't be taking any risks anyway.
OTOH, if you spouse is employed enough to at least raise the kids then why not take a risk? It's not like your failure will cause them to starve or similar.
TLDR; If your kids will starve without your income, forget the risk. If your lack of income means that your kids have to go without the latest iShinies, vacations away and designer clothing then grow a pair and take the fucking risk.
heh, interesting view. Did you do as you suggested here?
Yup!
When it is just your life, you can take chances, when you are responsible for others then you need to take it safe.
No. You divorce your spouse, give them custody and make your maintenance payments on time. That's it. You are now free to take risks. When you fail, damage to your kids is limited to whatever your maintenance payment is. If you succeed, the reward to your kids is many times more what the maintenance payment is. Many many times more.
If your spouse is too poor to give your kids even a basic upbringing without your help then he/she had no business having kids in the first place.
Finally, if *you're* the one playing it safe, then your spouse should bloody well do what I suggested - hand you the kids, hand you the maintenance and go off and try to make a fortune. Kids get two parents - why the hell should both play it safe when playing it safe won't even allow you to pay for their college? If one parent is playing it safe then the other should be taking risks.
Yeah ... seems to boil down to "nobody wanted our stuff", "had no idea how to make it into a business", and "my magical idea didn't work".
There's some real good advice buried under all the "I'm a special snowflake but the market was too stupid to see how special I am!" idiocy. Like this one, for example: 99 reasons
(Yes, I RTFA *and* I clicked the links)
Actually, some good advice after all:
Growing up everyone told me I could be whatever I wanted to be.
...
That creativity that we were praised for in elementary school and that has become so central to the way we think of ourselves worthless.
We've raised a nation of people who were indoctrinated with the idea that they can do anything, or be anything that they want. We told them that their ideas were important. We lied.
It's not just the idea that might be bad - look at this gem from one of the founders of a doomed startup:
Don’t pay employees with cash (they aren’t passionate then)
It's not too hard to see why the platform never got built (one of the other things he complained about - platform never got built).
In other words you cannot come up with a clear use-case.
Too bad because without that there is no reason to ever switch to IPv6
VoIP. Direct messaging services. Multiple gamers on a network playing directly with multiple other games on another network. Videophone. Remote sensors around the world.
Ever wonder why STUN was developed? Ever wonder why it still doesn't always work?
to familiarize kids with real guns
Why? Why the fuck should kids be familiar with real guns? I think you grew up in the wrong neighborhood.
I hope some day the only familiarity kids will have with guns will be in visits to a museum, where they will also see steam engines and whalebone corsets.
Really now! Are you seriously prepared to argue that abstinence works better than education?
I think you are missing the point: those immigrant doctors cannot practice until they have satisfied the union (medical council in your jurisdiction). The union limits their numbers anyway by refusing to give all off them a license to practice. The union will stop the licenses the minute a local doctor can't find employment.
Ubuntu has gone full "Windows 8.1" in trying to appease the lowest common denominator when most people just want a desktop they recognize.
No, they aren't. I don't know who they are attempting to attract but it's certainly not the lowest common denominator. No-one seems to want the ubuntu interface, nor the gnome3 one for that matter. Not the newbies nor the present computer users.
Then you lose your offer when you're asked for a recent pay stub.
No you don't. Provide a fake payslip. Your current employer is legally bound from sharing your pay information and your future employer is legally bound from getting your pay information without your permission.
if anyone ever displays knowledge of your current pay then there is a criminal charge in their future regardless if it's the new place or the recruiter.
Everyone negotiates with full knowledge of the other parties price point or no one does. Turn about is fair play.
The biggest skill in C++ is how to read code that's got templates, generics, overloaded operators, and custom keywords.
"What do you mean they overloaded '+' to merge objects?"
"This doesn't look like C++, it looks like some foreign language."
"Oh, we reversed the meaning of + and - because the senior guy thought that the original semantics were incorrect. But only for some objects."
This. Outside of academia I've never encountered C++ written in a sane manner. Hell, even inside of academia things get a bit iffy. Things you can expect to see if you ever maintain C++ code:
* Objects passed by value which don't have a deep assignment copy constructor.
* File scope objects using other file-scope objects - "Because VS2010 ensures instantiation order."
* Dependencies with no real reason; this is especially bad on Qt projects. Why use std::vector when you can use a QVector?
* const char *use_this_later = MyQstringObject.toStdString().c_str(); // Bang! There goes another foot... maybe if we had GC...
* You used copy semantics? You *meant* move semantics (This should never had made it into the standard).
* Overloaded functions - "myfunc (foo);" does something different to "myfunc (bar);", because hilariously foo and bar are different types
* Ditto for operators - "foo + bar" does something quite different to "bar + foo".
* Other than "type var[size];" there is no primitive array type. Arrays are implemented in the library, not in the language like every other sane language.
* No GC. In other languages you can get away with it, but in C++ you stand no chance - someone, somewhere back in the mists of the past, would have created a critically dependent-upon class that *will* return a temporary object that gets deleted automatically while you still have references. QString, for example.
All of the above, in addition to all of the gotcha's in C as well. In this day and age there is very little reason to use C++. If you need objects, UI, etc use Java or C#. If you don't need objects use C; at least you can trivially expose every single piece of C code you've written to other languages via a library. This lets you reuse your code. The only C++ code you'll ever expose to other languages are C-compatible functions.
I'm looking, right now, at a mountain of code, some 20+ classes, many with file-scope instantiations, every single fucking object a Qt object. The original developer noticed that the code for Qt-derived classes won't compile without a copy constructor so he very cleverly made empty copy constructors for all the classes so that even a shallow copy won't be performed. As expected, he also stores instances in containers - which means every now and then the program would give incorrect results with seemingly no predictable occurrences. It doesn't crash, mind, just gives incorrect answers.
Good luck; you'll need it.
Stay away from C++ - stick to languages that implement context-free grammars only.
We will have to agree to disagree on definitions.
I can live with that :-)
On the other hand, humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity.
Are you suggesting nature gives a f about us?
He didn't. It's right there - "humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity". He's not claiming that it will be bad for nature, or the earth, or ecology in general, he's making a specific claim that it will be bad for humanity. Of course he's correct - that's practically a tautology and may indicate lack of sleep and/or concentration on his part :-)
your link is still broken.
It is not broke. It is just not view-able if not logged in.
You do know there's a difference between public content and walled-off content? From this thread it appears that you consider walled-off content to be just as public as actual public content.
Facebook isn't free last time I checked - you pay with your privacy. It's still payment (and yes, I *have* a fb account).
Even with the number of facebook users on the web I find that actual content get's buried and ignored if the reader needs a facebook login. This story will be elsewhere, if only I was motivated enough to actually find the story.
Samzenpus wasn't thinking anything, he was relying on statistics and surprisingly many of us see the photo just fine.
"Surprisingly"? Surely you meant "unsurprisingly"?
How do toy soldiers encourage little boys to pursue computer programming?
(Hint: it doesn't, and you know this. You probably also realised by now that your narrative is full of holes.)