(sound of forks clinking on plates)
Frank: Whelp, looks like we solved the "spaghetti mystery".
Joe: How about we solve the "cheeseburger mystery" next week?
Bob: (trying to talk with a full mouth)...mmm...with math!
No, you can't get rid of the programmers, but yes, in my experience it is the most educated who make the absolute worst programmers. Violent disregard for maintainability of any sort.
Not because they're stupid, but because that's not what they're hired to do. Academics often make terrible engineers.
Back in the day, there was no printer security to speak of, and we had HP printers available all over the WAN. I got bored one day so I set their default messages to perplexing things such as "INSERT COIN", or "OUT OF CHOCOLATE". This was when most people were still afraid of the arrival of computers in the workplace - credulous, nearly to a man - so the effect was very satisfying.
And I also wrote a program to simulate a dirty mouse (back when they had balls). Gave it to one of the IT guys and we heard the lady in shipping and receiving beating the shit out of it on her desk, and he ran over to stop her but we were both laughing until we had tears.
Both the summary and the article fail to describe the main idea behind what such "proper treatment" is, and that alone was the only interesting thing about the story.
I came here looking for someone with a proper background to weigh in... but apparently nobody who's commented actually read the paper. Oh well.
That is nonsense on all accounts, front end code has nothing to do with processors, RAM, OS etc. And if you don't use a browser agnostic framework but code for every browser yourself: you are an idiot.
Yeah, because nobody develops front-ends that don't run inside broswers, right?
Sure they do.
And how exactly do you address the "CPU problem" then, or the OS?
A front-end running inside of a browser is CPU and OS agnostic.
How much RAM you use is hardly under your control... unless you are experienced and use tricks.
That is nonsense on all accounts, front end code has nothing to do with processors, RAM, OS etc.
And if you don't use a browser agnostic framework but code for every browser yourself: you are an idiot.
Yeah, because nobody develops front-ends that don't run inside broswers, right?
No amount of cleverness is going to get around the fundamental flaw that HTML is not suitable for application design. Look at the bag full of awkward, pain-in-the-ass workarounds cobbled up in JavaScript to address UI problems we solved 20 years ago. Doesn't matter how long they bang away at it, the problem isn't going to go away until they acknowledge this a move on.
Interestingly, back in the old days the common carrier status was what the ISPs used to argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for material like child porn, regular porn, copyrighted material, hate speech, etc. that traversed their networks. Now they want to relinquish the common carrier status. How long do you think it's going to be before some attorney or DA figures this out and goes after them?
it's a good thing for a single person to command that much wealth.
The total net worth of all Americans is about $90 trillion. $100 billion is less than 0.1% of that. John Rockefeller once owned 2% of all the wealth in America, so Bezos is 20-fold poorer.
A democracy can't survive that kind of power imbalance.
That would be a concern if all "the rich" were on the same side. They aren't. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. The WaPo exposed Roy Moore's sexploits, and has championed other liberal causes. This cancels out the Koch Brothers.
Something's got to give.
"The rich" have had undue influence for at least the last 10,000 years (wealth accumulation mostly coincided with the invention of agriculture). Yet somehow we have muddled through.
I tried my hand at writing science fiction with this idea years ago.
Inspired by recent advances in solar power and energy storage, a young scientist invents insect-sized drones that control pests on crops by piercing them. It's an new, environmentally friendly, chemical-free way of farming: mechanical pesticide. The some bright spark at the pentagon realizes that, in sufficient numbers, the technology can be a new, 4th class of weapon of mass destruction, one that the US is free to openly develop and use because there are no treaties banning it yet. Nothing nuclear, chemical, or biological - being tiny, they just bore into a vein and take a ride into your heart. And to reflect their derision for human life, they decide to continue calling the machines "pesticide".
I never published because I thought the story was both too horrible and too credible.
The Orville is a true to form Star Trek show disguised as generic sci-fi.
No, it's not. One gets no sense that The Orville's characters feel like they belong to a strong organization they deeply believe in - to them, what they do is simply a job, and not a career. There's no higher purpose, and no reason at all, apparently, for them to be "out there", except to take a paycheck, bicker, and make jokes. This failure hits Seth's character the worst, where purpose is all the more important to see in a captain: he is given position of authority - what Weber calls rational-legal authority - but his role is completely devoid of any charismatic or traditional elements of authority. Unlike Star Trek, The Orville's conception of what life will be like in the future is nihilistic and dystopian at its heart.
The Family Guy-style humor makes this lack of purpose worse, because it makes it hard to take any of the characters seriously and therefore care about them. Paradoxically, the more seriously a show takes its premise and its characters, the more opportunities there are to have extremely funny, memorable humor. This series will have no Tuvok choking the shit out of Neelix, or "get the cheese to sickbay" moments.
For these reasons,The Orville is not good science fiction. And - notwithstanding Discovery - it doesn't compare favorably at all to Star Trek.
You are the problem. You are not part of the problem, your demographic is the problem.
If you get most of your news from Facebook you need to shut the fuck up, because you are the uninformed idiot the rest of us laugh at.
Oh for christ's sake get a grip. Facebook doesn't make news, it shows it from other sources. Back when I used it, I subscribed to a few news organizations like NPR. Seeing summaries of their stuff in my news feed, and browsing their stories on their Facebook page, didn't change the content of what I read at all. It's no different than now, only I don't see all the retarded trollolololo comments any more so I'm not provoked into yelling at people... like I'm doing right now.
My experience is that at the low end of that 20:1 ratio is the dead weight that should never be in the programming profession. Those are the people you should really fire. A more reasonable number between an average contributor and a top contributor is 2:1 or 3:1... and you sometimes see that big a gap in pay.
Counting this dead weight, which is everywhere, the ratio is actually worse.
I worked with one man that accomplished exactly nothing in seven months. So that's infinity:1.
Worse than that is broken work that becomes more expensive to correct than it took to write. Now we're into negative territory.
I see negative ratios all the time. People coding, who could have been used far better if they were made to sit in a corner and not allowed near a computer at all.
I'm always distracted trying to decide if I need to read a foot note right at the moment I come across it, or finish the current paragraph, often going on to the next page. For this reason I prefer endnotes.
Personally I find the worst offense is when the links are apparently automatically generated from randomly-picked keywords. Phys.org does this, and the links merely redirect to a "news tagged with" search, which is IMO worse than useless.
And the operator would learn just as quickly what the words PROTECTED SPECIES means, wouldn't be difficult, but very expensive, and they'd learn pretty quick to leave the eagles alone.
Are you deliberately being thick?
The idea is to annoy, not harm. A drone swarm isn't going to harm an eagle any more than the crows can.
Slashdot Mirror
The state's wiretapping law makes no distinction to whether or not the people being listened to are "anonymous".
It also doesn't matter if conversations aren't "recorded" - all the law cares about is interception (and they are recorded - saved as text).
Lastly, it doesn't matter if the students all agree to the presence of these devices, that doesn't cover visitors.
So why isn't this illegal?
(sound of forks clinking on plates) ...mmm ...with math!
Frank: Whelp, looks like we solved the "spaghetti mystery".
Joe: How about we solve the "cheeseburger mystery" next week?
Bob: (trying to talk with a full mouth)
No, you can't get rid of the programmers, but yes, in my experience it is the most educated who make the absolute worst programmers. Violent disregard for maintainability of any sort.
Not because they're stupid, but because that's not what they're hired to do. Academics often make terrible engineers.
Most programming is a trade.
Back in the day, there was no printer security to speak of, and we had HP printers available all over the WAN. I got bored one day so I set their default messages to perplexing things such as "INSERT COIN", or "OUT OF CHOCOLATE". This was when most people were still afraid of the arrival of computers in the workplace - credulous, nearly to a man - so the effect was very satisfying.
And I also wrote a program to simulate a dirty mouse (back when they had balls). Gave it to one of the IT guys and we heard the lady in shipping and receiving beating the shit out of it on her desk, and he ran over to stop her but we were both laughing until we had tears.
Man, those were the days.
The game doesn't exist.
Even the developer's own website doesn't have a download link, or even screenshots.
Sic - Wikipedia
No one would ever make $100Bn back on Instagram because it would be obsolete before you could ever make enough cash from selling the users' data.
You just shot down your own argument in the same sentence you made it.
What if it's the already-collected users' data that is worth most of that $100B?
Both the summary and the article fail to describe the main idea behind what such "proper treatment" is, and that alone was the only interesting thing about the story.
I came here looking for someone with a proper background to weigh in... but apparently nobody who's commented actually read the paper. Oh well.
That is nonsense on all accounts, front end code has nothing to do with processors, RAM, OS etc. And if you don't use a browser agnostic framework but code for every browser yourself: you are an idiot.
Yeah, because nobody develops front-ends that don't run inside broswers, right?
Sure they do. ... unless you are experienced and use tricks.
And how exactly do you address the "CPU problem" then, or the OS?
A front-end running inside of a browser is CPU and OS agnostic.
How much RAM you use is hardly under your control
Did we have a reading comprehension failure?
That is nonsense on all accounts, front end code has nothing to do with processors, RAM, OS etc. And if you don't use a browser agnostic framework but code for every browser yourself: you are an idiot.
Yeah, because nobody develops front-ends that don't run inside broswers, right?
So we tailor their class times to their biological rhythms and they turn into adults with juvenile biological rhythms. Will they ever really grow up?
Someone apparently doesn't understand what "juvenile" means.
Much of America's legal framework actually came from studying multi-tribe gatherings of tribes, banding together to end cycles of violence.
Here's the Extra History take on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Dude. Thank you for posting that. Makes me wish they'd taught history differently in school.
Maybe some day the guys who made Avatar: The Legend of Korra will pick that story up and make it a series.
No amount of cleverness is going to get around the fundamental flaw that HTML is not suitable for application design. Look at the bag full of awkward, pain-in-the-ass workarounds cobbled up in JavaScript to address UI problems we solved 20 years ago. Doesn't matter how long they bang away at it, the problem isn't going to go away until they acknowledge this a move on.
Interestingly, back in the old days the common carrier status was what the ISPs used to argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for material like child porn, regular porn, copyrighted material, hate speech, etc. that traversed their networks. Now they want to relinquish the common carrier status. How long do you think it's going to be before some attorney or DA figures this out and goes after them?
None that want to keep their careers.
No, we fight wars with kid gloves. If we fought like our enemies it would be bloody, swift, and one sided. Also the world would never forgive us.
Oh boy do you need to learn your history.
it's a good thing for a single person to command that much wealth.
The total net worth of all Americans is about $90 trillion. $100 billion is less than 0.1% of that. John Rockefeller once owned 2% of all the wealth in America, so Bezos is 20-fold poorer.
A democracy can't survive that kind of power imbalance.
That would be a concern if all "the rich" were on the same side. They aren't. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. The WaPo exposed Roy Moore's sexploits, and has championed other liberal causes. This cancels out the Koch Brothers.
Something's got to give.
"The rich" have had undue influence for at least the last 10,000 years (wealth accumulation mostly coincided with the invention of agriculture). Yet somehow we have muddled through.
The roots of inequality: Researchers chart rising inequality across millennia
Truth About Markets: Why Some Countries Are Rich And Others Remain Poor
Capital (Piketty)
Wealth Inequality in America
I tried my hand at writing science fiction with this idea years ago.
Inspired by recent advances in solar power and energy storage, a young scientist invents insect-sized drones that control pests on crops by piercing them. It's an new, environmentally friendly, chemical-free way of farming: mechanical pesticide. The some bright spark at the pentagon realizes that, in sufficient numbers, the technology can be a new, 4th class of weapon of mass destruction, one that the US is free to openly develop and use because there are no treaties banning it yet. Nothing nuclear, chemical, or biological - being tiny, they just bore into a vein and take a ride into your heart. And to reflect their derision for human life, they decide to continue calling the machines "pesticide".
I never published because I thought the story was both too horrible and too credible.
Wealth Inequality in America
The Orville is a true to form Star Trek show disguised as generic sci-fi.
No, it's not. One gets no sense that The Orville's characters feel like they belong to a strong organization they deeply believe in - to them, what they do is simply a job, and not a career. There's no higher purpose, and no reason at all, apparently, for them to be "out there", except to take a paycheck, bicker, and make jokes. This failure hits Seth's character the worst, where purpose is all the more important to see in a captain: he is given position of authority - what Weber calls rational-legal authority - but his role is completely devoid of any charismatic or traditional elements of authority. Unlike Star Trek, The Orville's conception of what life will be like in the future is nihilistic and dystopian at its heart.
The Family Guy-style humor makes this lack of purpose worse, because it makes it hard to take any of the characters seriously and therefore care about them. Paradoxically, the more seriously a show takes its premise and its characters, the more opportunities there are to have extremely funny, memorable humor. This series will have no Tuvok choking the shit out of Neelix, or "get the cheese to sickbay" moments.
For these reasons,The Orville is not good science fiction. And - notwithstanding Discovery - it doesn't compare favorably at all to Star Trek.
for the Northeast, especially Maine and Massachusetts. We're not bug scientists, but a lot of us noticed that something's been wrong for a few years.
The states don't appear to be interested in funding any studies though. On guy actually said - I kid you not - if we don't study it, it doesn't exist.
You are the problem. You are not part of the problem, your demographic is the problem. If you get most of your news from Facebook you need to shut the fuck up, because you are the uninformed idiot the rest of us laugh at.
Oh for christ's sake get a grip. Facebook doesn't make news, it shows it from other sources. Back when I used it, I subscribed to a few news organizations like NPR. Seeing summaries of their stuff in my news feed, and browsing their stories on their Facebook page, didn't change the content of what I read at all. It's no different than now, only I don't see all the retarded trollolololo comments any more so I'm not provoked into yelling at people... like I'm doing right now.
My experience is that at the low end of that 20:1 ratio is the dead weight that should never be in the programming profession. Those are the people you should really fire. A more reasonable number between an average contributor and a top contributor is 2:1 or 3:1... and you sometimes see that big a gap in pay.
Counting this dead weight, which is everywhere, the ratio is actually worse.
I worked with one man that accomplished exactly nothing in seven months. So that's infinity:1.
Worse than that is broken work that becomes more expensive to correct than it took to write. Now we're into negative territory.
I see negative ratios all the time. People coding, who could have been used far better if they were made to sit in a corner and not allowed near a computer at all.
I'm always distracted trying to decide if I need to read a foot note right at the moment I come across it, or finish the current paragraph, often going on to the next page. For this reason I prefer endnotes.
The problem of too many links or their misuse has been discussed in depth at TV Tropes.
Personally I find the worst offense is when the links are apparently automatically generated from randomly-picked keywords. Phys.org does this, and the links merely redirect to a "news tagged with" search, which is IMO worse than useless.
And the operator would learn just as quickly what the words PROTECTED SPECIES means, wouldn't be difficult, but very expensive, and they'd learn pretty quick to leave the eagles alone.
Are you deliberately being thick?
The idea is to annoy, not harm. A drone swarm isn't going to harm an eagle any more than the crows can.
Some people have jobs, you know.