Tesla thinks they can prove it didn't. So, assuming they actually have the proof they claim to, then the claim that the car broke down twice is a lie. And I agree, if it's a lie, then that's libel, and I think their request for damages is perfectly reasonable, pull the episode containing the lies off the air forever, and pay about as much as 2 or 3 Tesla's cost in damages.
My initial point was that I would not hire someone who chooses which language to specialize in to optimize for money. Someone is free to choose whatever they like. People who optimize for money care more about money than what kind of a job they're doing, and I feel this is born out by studies that show that the more money is on the table, the worse job people do.
And my comment about money not being correlated to quality was in response to your claim that 'not too much' and 'not too little' represents a tautology. It's not a tautology because people generally expect that there is no such thing as 'too much' because there is a general belief that more money equals higher quality. The 'not too much' side of the equation is far from obvious, and does not simply reflect a self-referential self-reinforcing statement.
It's not a tautology. The economic equation most people think about involves increasing amounts of money always resulting in better stuff. But this is wrong. More money does not equal getting better quality. In fact, after a certain point, you get a negative return on your investment. Someone who cares mostly about how much money they're getting isn't going to be doing a very good job.
Sounds like one of those wishy-washy philosophical/semantic things with no practical consequences. People put customers/clients first because that's also placing profits first, but whether you're driven by repeat business or "the goal" clients don't care and the outcome is the same. It just sounds like vague interview babble to me.
Yeah, the stock description of capitalism supports your interpretation. Unfortunately, on an individual basis, it's been proven wrong. People who are paid more do a worse job, and so do people who are paid too little. People work best when money is not the motivation to work.
And I don't doubt that it's wrong on a corporate level as well. While there are a very few exceptions to this rule, I've noticed that the most profitable companies tend to have the behavior I find most reprehensible. When money is the driving force, they do a bad job and treat their customers very poorly.
So no, I don't think that distinction is a purely semantic one. I think it's a distinction with hard, measurable real-life consequences. And in the case of individuals, I've already been proven right.
I avoid single points of failure like the plague. I don't care how much someone thinks it's "too big to fail". Single points of failure that actively discourage redundancy are even worse.
A standard does not an open and diverse ecosystem make. Microsoft Office's file formats are technically an ISO standard. But that doesn't mean anything either.
The only thing that C# has going for it in this regard is Mono. And I wouldn't touch Mono with a 10 foot pole because I'm convinced Microsoft will sue anybody out of existence who makes anything that seriously competes with them using it. They are happy to have people using it to make stuff, as long as that stuff is not perceived as a threat.
Too true; I'm motivated by a hatred of successful companies and fighting the counter-revolution in the República de Cuba.
I am fine with successful companies. I am not fine with companies that place their profit above the service or product they provide to their customers. Money is the reward, not the goal. And I'm not a communist either.
As you can imagine my Haskell is pretty exceptional.. I just wish I had more opportunities to write it.
I believe that Haskell is used commercially in a few places, but I've never encountered it.
Oh please. People are allowed to make as much money as they can. That great dream of the two cars, two storey house in a nice neighbourhood isn't paid for by passion alone.
This is true. People are allowed to make as much money as they can. But people who's choices are driven by the desire to make money are not the kind of people I want working for me. I think they, in general, do a worse job than people who have a deeper motivation to make something noteworthy, useful, or simply enjoy the technical challenge.
There have been studies that show the more money you pay people (over a certain level) the worse job they do. And all the businesses I detest the most care more about money than they do about doing something good for their customers.
Money is the reward, not the goal. I do not like being around people for whom it is the goal.
Of course, I know only slightly more Objective-C than I know about.NET because it is a single ecosystem language. *chuckle* But I don't really disagree with you.
I'd say Java is more of a liability than Mono these days. MS isn't likely to sue you -- they're just happy you're coding in C#. Oracle, on the other hand, is quite likely to announce a retroactive relicensing of Java, at, oh, around $100k per developer.
*chuckle* That is a point. I guess I'll just stick to Python. I like it better than either of them anyway.
If your choices are driven by money, you aren't the sort of programmer I'd be interested in hiring or working with. Not because I wouldn't want to pay you well, but because people who have that as a motivation tend not to do their jobs as well as people who have a more personal motivation.
Isn't C# a standard now? Doesn't Mono run on Unix? I hardly think that C# would completely disappear if MS did tomorrow (which, for the record, isn't likely to happen).
That is a point. Mono is only a horrible idea while Microsoft still exists to sue you.
And Microsoft could go away. It isn't like there's a deific mandate that they continue to exist. Personally, they seem like they're a pretty sorry company nowadays. Little better than IBM was in the late 90s.
I don't want to hire people who take jobs to make money. I want to hire people who take jobs because they love them and consider the money making to be the thing that allows them to continue doing what they love.
I agree that the person who wrote the piece this article is about has a point. I don't think I'd go so far as he does, but I can definitely see why.NET would be a negative, as well as having a Java-only resume.
In truth, I've always been mystified as to why anybody would invest the time or energy in learning so much about Microsoft's platforms. It's not like that knowledge would do you much good if Microsoft were to simply vanish from the planet.
On the other hand, all the stuff I've learned about computing outside the Microsoft world will do me a whole ton of good even if several major vendors leave the planet. If RedHat dies, for example, it's not like my Linux knowledge is useless. If the FSF dies, my knowledge of C++ gleaned by using g++ isn't useless. If Oracle goes up in a puff of smoke, my knowledge of Java will not go to waste.
But if Microsoft were to utterly disappear, we'd have about 5-10 years of useful programming that could be done before all the other platforms outpaced your aging, no-longer-maintained platform so far that a good 60% of your knowledge was useless. It's a dead end because you've inextricably tied yourself to one, and only one vendor.
And recognizing this trap for what it is goes a long way in my evaluation of a candidate.
I think most of these are from Microsofties, or astroturfing PR people employed by Microsoft. The biggest thing Microsoft wants to do now is tarnish Google's image in any way they can, while trying miserably to acquire something like that image for themselves.
Of course, now I'm falling into the stereotype of Microsoft bashing. Unfortunately, Microsoft has earned it through past actions.
Apple is practically obligated to pull the app, given the fact they're willing to act as the morality police for their users, though it might take them awhile because they like to pretend they 'think different'. RIM is a lily-livered chicken with no willingness to take any kind of stand for fear of offending anybody. It's also not a surprise they pulled the app. And Google is standing by their principles, and won't pull the app unless its actually illegal.
The world is acting according to my expectations in this regard. And once again, its Google I have the most respect for.
I don't care about anybody's 'safety' either. Nobody is ever 'safe'.
If our own government were really as concerned with our 'safety' as it claims to be, they would stop propping up authoritarian regimes. The people in those countries know exactly why their dictators are so hard to depose, and they take it out on us, the people of the US. The best way to make sure people don't get hurt is to make sure there's no good reason for them to be a target in the first place.
And I don't expect Wikileaks to be concerned with people's safety any more than I expect that of our own government. Selling 'safety' is the way to hoodwink a coward, and our politicians are only too aware of this fact.
I consider it a great courtesy that Wikileaks went to the lengths it did (which I think are quite extraordinary) to remove material that would directly lead to foot soldiers and spies being assassinated. I don't in any way consider it their responsibility.
Any and all abuses relating to copyright law will largely not make it into the public eye via the traditional news media. The traditional news media is owned by organizations that think they stand to gain from tougher copyright enforcement. So if any of this is reported at all, it will be reported in a positive light.
You are seriously dumb, deluded or both if you think that the people running Wikileaks are in the least concerned with what a bunch of rednecks in the US think is criminal behavior on their part. I'm not exactly a fan of Wikileaks, but their behavior has made their agenda crystal clear, and this release perfectly fits it and represents no change whatsoever in their general mode of operation.
Wikileaks is out to end secrecy being used as a cover for things that are embarrassing on the part of people with power and money. That's their mission and goal. And it's very telling that you think it's "detracting from their crimes" when it happens to other people, but think it's criminal when it happens to our own government.
Yes and no... it shouldn't be possible to find grounds in law for the suit to proceed. You have the right to sue anybody you want to, but if you do so without sufficient legal grounds you are typically held liable for needlessly tying up the court system.
Tortious interference with employment should generally only have even a vague chance of working if the person gave the employer false information, or information that they were under obligation to keep secret, or they clearly benefitted materially from giving the information to the employer. Publicly calling for someone to be fired because of a clear conflict of interest that's truthful and well documented should be laughed out of court, and certainly shouldn't result in any sort of finding for the plaintiff.
The one guy would have no power to do that to the other guy if the power of government didn't back the first guy up. This is a case of government interference, even if it's a civil matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla thinks they can prove it didn't. So, assuming they actually have the proof they claim to, then the claim that the car broke down twice is a lie. And I agree, if it's a lie, then that's libel, and I think their request for damages is perfectly reasonable, pull the episode containing the lies off the air forever, and pay about as much as 2 or 3 Tesla's cost in damages.
My initial point was that I would not hire someone who chooses which language to specialize in to optimize for money. Someone is free to choose whatever they like. People who optimize for money care more about money than what kind of a job they're doing, and I feel this is born out by studies that show that the more money is on the table, the worse job people do.
And my comment about money not being correlated to quality was in response to your claim that 'not too much' and 'not too little' represents a tautology. It's not a tautology because people generally expect that there is no such thing as 'too much' because there is a general belief that more money equals higher quality. The 'not too much' side of the equation is far from obvious, and does not simply reflect a self-referential self-reinforcing statement.
It's not a tautology. The economic equation most people think about involves increasing amounts of money always resulting in better stuff. But this is wrong. More money does not equal getting better quality. In fact, after a certain point, you get a negative return on your investment. Someone who cares mostly about how much money they're getting isn't going to be doing a very good job.
Sounds like one of those wishy-washy philosophical/semantic things with no practical consequences. People put customers/clients first because that's also placing profits first, but whether you're driven by repeat business or "the goal" clients don't care and the outcome is the same. It just sounds like vague interview babble to me.
Yeah, the stock description of capitalism supports your interpretation. Unfortunately, on an individual basis, it's been proven wrong. People who are paid more do a worse job, and so do people who are paid too little. People work best when money is not the motivation to work.
And I don't doubt that it's wrong on a corporate level as well. While there are a very few exceptions to this rule, I've noticed that the most profitable companies tend to have the behavior I find most reprehensible. When money is the driving force, they do a bad job and treat their customers very poorly.
So no, I don't think that distinction is a purely semantic one. I think it's a distinction with hard, measurable real-life consequences. And in the case of individuals, I've already been proven right.
I see another addict of centralization.
I avoid single points of failure like the plague. I don't care how much someone thinks it's "too big to fail". Single points of failure that actively discourage redundancy are even worse.
A standard does not an open and diverse ecosystem make. Microsoft Office's file formats are technically an ISO standard. But that doesn't mean anything either.
The only thing that C# has going for it in this regard is Mono. And I wouldn't touch Mono with a 10 foot pole because I'm convinced Microsoft will sue anybody out of existence who makes anything that seriously competes with them using it. They are happy to have people using it to make stuff, as long as that stuff is not perceived as a threat.
Too true; I'm motivated by a hatred of successful companies and fighting the counter-revolution in the República de Cuba.
I am fine with successful companies. I am not fine with companies that place their profit above the service or product they provide to their customers. Money is the reward, not the goal. And I'm not a communist either.
As you can imagine my Haskell is pretty exceptional.. I just wish I had more opportunities to write it.
I believe that Haskell is used commercially in a few places, but I've never encountered it.
Oh please. People are allowed to make as much money as they can. That great dream of the two cars, two storey house in a nice neighbourhood isn't paid for by passion alone.
This is true. People are allowed to make as much money as they can. But people who's choices are driven by the desire to make money are not the kind of people I want working for me. I think they, in general, do a worse job than people who have a deeper motivation to make something noteworthy, useful, or simply enjoy the technical challenge.
There have been studies that show the more money you pay people (over a certain level) the worse job they do. And all the businesses I detest the most care more about money than they do about doing something good for their customers.
Money is the reward, not the goal. I do not like being around people for whom it is the goal.
Of course, I know only slightly more Objective-C than I know about .NET because it is a single ecosystem language. *chuckle* But I don't really disagree with you.
I'd say Java is more of a liability than Mono these days. MS isn't likely to sue you -- they're just happy you're coding in C#. Oracle, on the other hand, is quite likely to announce a retroactive relicensing of Java, at, oh, around $100k per developer.
*chuckle* That is a point. I guess I'll just stick to Python. I like it better than either of them anyway.
If your choices are driven by money, you aren't the sort of programmer I'd be interested in hiring or working with. Not because I wouldn't want to pay you well, but because people who have that as a motivation tend not to do their jobs as well as people who have a more personal motivation.
Isn't C# a standard now? Doesn't Mono run on Unix? I hardly think that C# would completely disappear if MS did tomorrow (which, for the record, isn't likely to happen).
That is a point. Mono is only a horrible idea while Microsoft still exists to sue you.
And Microsoft could go away. It isn't like there's a deific mandate that they continue to exist. Personally, they seem like they're a pretty sorry company nowadays. Little better than IBM was in the late 90s.
I don't want to hire people who take jobs to make money. I want to hire people who take jobs because they love them and consider the money making to be the thing that allows them to continue doing what they love.
I agree that the person who wrote the piece this article is about has a point. I don't think I'd go so far as he does, but I can definitely see why .NET would be a negative, as well as having a Java-only resume.
In truth, I've always been mystified as to why anybody would invest the time or energy in learning so much about Microsoft's platforms. It's not like that knowledge would do you much good if Microsoft were to simply vanish from the planet.
On the other hand, all the stuff I've learned about computing outside the Microsoft world will do me a whole ton of good even if several major vendors leave the planet. If RedHat dies, for example, it's not like my Linux knowledge is useless. If the FSF dies, my knowledge of C++ gleaned by using g++ isn't useless. If Oracle goes up in a puff of smoke, my knowledge of Java will not go to waste.
But if Microsoft were to utterly disappear, we'd have about 5-10 years of useful programming that could be done before all the other platforms outpaced your aging, no-longer-maintained platform so far that a good 60% of your knowledge was useless. It's a dead end because you've inextricably tied yourself to one, and only one vendor.
And recognizing this trap for what it is goes a long way in my evaluation of a candidate.
I think most of these are from Microsofties, or astroturfing PR people employed by Microsoft. The biggest thing Microsoft wants to do now is tarnish Google's image in any way they can, while trying miserably to acquire something like that image for themselves.
Of course, now I'm falling into the stereotype of Microsoft bashing. Unfortunately, Microsoft has earned it through past actions.
Yes, that does make sense. Though I would expect RIM to also respond to outcry from random people if it got loud enough.
Apple is practically obligated to pull the app, given the fact they're willing to act as the morality police for their users, though it might take them awhile because they like to pretend they 'think different'. RIM is a lily-livered chicken with no willingness to take any kind of stand for fear of offending anybody. It's also not a surprise they pulled the app. And Google is standing by their principles, and won't pull the app unless its actually illegal.
The world is acting according to my expectations in this regard. And once again, its Google I have the most respect for.
I don't care about anybody's 'safety' either. Nobody is ever 'safe'.
If our own government were really as concerned with our 'safety' as it claims to be, they would stop propping up authoritarian regimes. The people in those countries know exactly why their dictators are so hard to depose, and they take it out on us, the people of the US. The best way to make sure people don't get hurt is to make sure there's no good reason for them to be a target in the first place.
And I don't expect Wikileaks to be concerned with people's safety any more than I expect that of our own government. Selling 'safety' is the way to hoodwink a coward, and our politicians are only too aware of this fact.
I consider it a great courtesy that Wikileaks went to the lengths it did (which I think are quite extraordinary) to remove material that would directly lead to foot soldiers and spies being assassinated. I don't in any way consider it their responsibility.
Any and all abuses relating to copyright law will largely not make it into the public eye via the traditional news media. The traditional news media is owned by organizations that think they stand to gain from tougher copyright enforcement. So if any of this is reported at all, it will be reported in a positive light.
You are seriously dumb, deluded or both if you think that the people running Wikileaks are in the least concerned with what a bunch of rednecks in the US think is criminal behavior on their part. I'm not exactly a fan of Wikileaks, but their behavior has made their agenda crystal clear, and this release perfectly fits it and represents no change whatsoever in their general mode of operation.
Wikileaks is out to end secrecy being used as a cover for things that are embarrassing on the part of people with power and money. That's their mission and goal. And it's very telling that you think it's "detracting from their crimes" when it happens to other people, but think it's criminal when it happens to our own government.
Yes and no... it shouldn't be possible to find grounds in law for the suit to proceed. You have the right to sue anybody you want to, but if you do so without sufficient legal grounds you are typically held liable for needlessly tying up the court system.
Tortious interference with employment should generally only have even a vague chance of working if the person gave the employer false information, or information that they were under obligation to keep secret, or they clearly benefitted materially from giving the information to the employer. Publicly calling for someone to be fired because of a clear conflict of interest that's truthful and well documented should be laughed out of court, and certainly shouldn't result in any sort of finding for the plaintiff.
And the laws that allowed the suit to proceed.
The one guy would have no power to do that to the other guy if the power of government didn't back the first guy up. This is a case of government interference, even if it's a civil matter.
Is it really easier to write this than to just proofread your fucking post?
Generally, I do not catch errors in proofreading a post shortly after I've written it. 20 minutes afterward, I'm much more likely to.