Self-checkouts, for instance do not offer any savings to consumers that use them over using a checkout with a human teller, for instance.
The store saves on overall labor costs. Given how competitive grocery stores (usually) are, prices go down at least a little for all shoppers. This is an example where automation won't kill all the jobs any time soon, as many people like the human contact of the checker, and avoid the self-checkout. But one day maybe checkout-free stores (like Amazon is pioneering) will displace normal stores, due to lower price.
Supply is one variable. Delivered cost is another. Technology is mostly about the latter - technology is that which makes it cheaper to produce something.
The CEOs in Atlas Shrugged won their war by unionizing and going on strike.
More than that. Rand realized that a well-managed company could continue for a long time without its CEO, as the next tier down would be good leaders as well, so she had the striking CEOs actively destroy what they had built.
Just guessing what AC means, but assuming he's talking about Java, enum's in Java can take arbitrary values (they're just instances of a class, and so can have as much state as you'd like, including lambdas). It lets you do the equivalent of creating an interface with one method, and a class that implements that one method specifically for each enum, without all that clutter and boilerplate. But it's a bit hacky, and best kept to small, self-evident lambdas. Java-style enums, aka "class enums", let you avoid a lot of switching in general, since often you were just getting some constant value associated with each enum value.
None of that sounds right. Every heard of currying? There's no real difference between a lambda and an object full of state, beyond the syntax. Lambdas capture arbitrary state. (Plus, in real software, the results of some functions is often some measurement of some changing real-world thing.)
As long as the capital class continues to manipulate the tax code to fund government on the backs of wage earners,
Did you just feed Marx into a Markov chain generator (Marxof generator!)? Short-term capital gains and dividends are taxed the same as income. Long term gets a discount, which is a hack to account for the fact we don't inflation-adjust capital gains taxes (and a hack that of course favors the powerful - every bit of complexity in the tax system exists to favor the powerful, in any economic system).
The sensible course is to inflation-adjust capital gains, then tax them exactly as income, no distinction. So of course we'll never do that.
Feed Atlas Shrugged into a Markov generator, spit the output to text to speech via Siri/Alexa on a golf course while passing around cocaine and highballs and watch the contracts get signed.
What's the problem?
All the CEOs in Atlas Shrugged were actively destroying their companies so... yeah, who'd know the difference?
I text 'watch out' and the family usually get off the sidewalk befire I am there.
Now that's a great idea. I'd love for my car to be able to text the phone zombies stumbling into harm's way, since apparently that's the only thing that gets through.
Explain to me, what problems do lambdas solve in C++?
Lambda make for sane "list comprehension", that is, transforming a list in some simple way, or taking a simple action for each item in a list (or any other collection).
C++ was years behind pretty much every other mainstream language but C in list operations. You should never need to code a for loop to do something simple to or with each item in a list.
Also, more generally, lambdas are useful everywhere for defining function that are short, and only called from one place. As a sibling post points out, they are "function literals", and with other sorts of literals, code is more clear if your literals are simply in-line in your code, not defined elsewhere (when the value is only used once).
Returning a lambda as the result of a function is where is gets dubious: usually at that point, it's going to be more clear and easier to debug to make a named class/interface that expresses the captured functionality, with a named method. More typing, but self-documenting. Any time a lambda is used from where you can't see the definition, it's a warning sign the code may be confusing.
Skillful coding is writing code that's clear and easy to understand. Insufficient skill leaves one cheating, such as by using unions or "downcasting". From time to time I do such things, because I just can't find a simpler, more clear way without the cheating. But I always wish I could.
I never had the need to circumwent the type system, and I used plenty of languages, where you simply can't circumvent it.
Not sure what language you're using, but most have either void* or Object. The more refined version is "downcasting" a base type to a derived type. Any time you set the type of an object dynamically at runtime, you're bypassing strong type checking. And don't get me started on reflection.
I have a rather different view, as the change happened soon after the Fire phone debacle, Bezos's pet project. Seemed like the bigger investors were getting nervous about him, and moved him to a more honorary position.
In any case, the only long-term contracts I've ever seen for any AWS product is the long-term discounts for servers. Everything else seems to be hourly (or by the millisecond for Lambda, but I've yet to find a use for that). Pretty much the opposite of Oracle.
Amazon's thing is Aurora, which is some MySQL and Postgres-compatible thing I don't really understand, but they claim it's very fast. But as long as it's MySQL-compatible, I'm not really locked in.
Sorry, but if you claim that you're a college trained IT professional, I DO expect you to be able to write code on a sheet of paper that will compile.
"College trained IT professional" means "help desk guy". If you mean "developer", say that. Certainly there are a lot of developers that got ripped of by their college. OTOH, I don't expect the help desk guy to write code that compiles.
Look at the actual study. The headline is BS. The study is about college students. If you think that the data is inaccurate, you haven't spent much time doing intern interviews or screening fresh college hires. 5% being able to write acceptable code sounds about write to me, as does "about half" being unable to even write code that compiles.
There are always people who defend this with "college isn't a vocation program". Well, fuck that. If you spend $100k (or your regional equivalent) on a programming-related degree, and you're not capable of coding when you graduate, you got took.
I don't know why it has to be branded as racist and India is an irrelevance to the point. The fact is, when companies scrape the bottom of the barrel for least cost this is what they get.
While this may well be true, the headline has nothing to do with TFA. TFA (I know, I know) is about engineering students not workers employed in the field. Of course, if you go with the cheapest source of outsourcing, you get the company that hires from that unfit 95%.
You're making the same erroneous assumption as the GP, that you can predict the utility of as-yet-undiscovered science.
Flawed argument. If you can't predict it will be valuable, don't fund it all at. Burden of proof is on the person asking for money that there will be some ROI.
But then, I think you can make some predictions based on the trends from the past 100 years.
Not if the product requires LHC-like energies to create, but there's no reason to believe that's necessarily the case.
The farther away you have to go from the conditions we face in order to find unanswered questions, the less useful those answers are likely to be.
Particle physics is becoming more distant from daily life as time passes. Not to say there haven't been some cool knock-off technologies from the work to create the LHC in the first place, but it's increasingly unlikely as energies increase that we'll discover something productizable.
There are other reasons to fund science, of course, but the LHC wasn't exactly cheap. I think the best hope for a higher-energy collider in the future is if the cost of building it decreases due to automation/robotics. And that doesn't seem so far-fetched in the decades to come.
See, that just goes to show you how risky it is to use a phone while driving... AC managed to accidentally tap both the Preview AND submit buttons before they finished typing!
Slashdot Mirror
Self-checkouts, for instance do not offer any savings to consumers that use them over using a checkout with a human teller, for instance.
The store saves on overall labor costs. Given how competitive grocery stores (usually) are, prices go down at least a little for all shoppers. This is an example where automation won't kill all the jobs any time soon, as many people like the human contact of the checker, and avoid the self-checkout. But one day maybe checkout-free stores (like Amazon is pioneering) will displace normal stores, due to lower price.
Supply is one variable. Delivered cost is another. Technology is mostly about the latter - technology is that which makes it cheaper to produce something.
The CEOs in Atlas Shrugged won their war by unionizing and going on strike.
More than that. Rand realized that a well-managed company could continue for a long time without its CEO, as the next tier down would be good leaders as well, so she had the striking CEOs actively destroy what they had built.
When functional programmers talk about state they're referring to mutable state. What you are describing is simply data.
That isn't a function, not in the mathematical sense.
Until functional programmers start speaking the same language as people in industry, we'll keep rolling our eyes and ignoring you.
Just guessing what AC means, but assuming he's talking about Java, enum's in Java can take arbitrary values (they're just instances of a class, and so can have as much state as you'd like, including lambdas). It lets you do the equivalent of creating an interface with one method, and a class that implements that one method specifically for each enum, without all that clutter and boilerplate. But it's a bit hacky, and best kept to small, self-evident lambdas. Java-style enums, aka "class enums", let you avoid a lot of switching in general, since often you were just getting some constant value associated with each enum value.
"To understand recursion in programming, first we must discuss recursion in programming".
To understand recursion, first we must understand recursion, and then we must understand tail recursion.
To understand recursion, we must incrementally increase our understanding of primitive recursion.
None of that sounds right. Every heard of currying? There's no real difference between a lambda and an object full of state, beyond the syntax. Lambdas capture arbitrary state. (Plus, in real software, the results of some functions is often some measurement of some changing real-world thing.)
As has been throughout history, and yet automation always makes things cheaper.
As long as the capital class continues to manipulate the tax code to fund government on the backs of wage earners,
Did you just feed Marx into a Markov chain generator (Marxof generator!)? Short-term capital gains and dividends are taxed the same as income. Long term gets a discount, which is a hack to account for the fact we don't inflation-adjust capital gains taxes (and a hack that of course favors the powerful - every bit of complexity in the tax system exists to favor the powerful, in any economic system).
The sensible course is to inflation-adjust capital gains, then tax them exactly as income, no distinction. So of course we'll never do that.
Feed Atlas Shrugged into a Markov generator, spit the output to text to speech via Siri/Alexa on a golf course while passing around cocaine and highballs and watch the contracts get signed.
What's the problem?
All the CEOs in Atlas Shrugged were actively destroying their companies so ... yeah, who'd know the difference?
I text 'watch out' and the family usually get off the sidewalk befire I am there.
Now that's a great idea. I'd love for my car to be able to text the phone zombies stumbling into harm's way, since apparently that's the only thing that gets through.
Static type checking is where all the value comes from. Finding errors at the most convenient time. But every mainstream language has an escape hatch.
Explain to me, what problems do lambdas solve in C++?
Lambda make for sane "list comprehension", that is, transforming a list in some simple way, or taking a simple action for each item in a list (or any other collection).
C++ was years behind pretty much every other mainstream language but C in list operations. You should never need to code a for loop to do something simple to or with each item in a list.
Also, more generally, lambdas are useful everywhere for defining function that are short, and only called from one place. As a sibling post points out, they are "function literals", and with other sorts of literals, code is more clear if your literals are simply in-line in your code, not defined elsewhere (when the value is only used once).
Returning a lambda as the result of a function is where is gets dubious: usually at that point, it's going to be more clear and easier to debug to make a named class/interface that expresses the captured functionality, with a named method. More typing, but self-documenting. Any time a lambda is used from where you can't see the definition, it's a warning sign the code may be confusing.
Skillful coding is writing code that's clear and easy to understand. Insufficient skill leaves one cheating, such as by using unions or "downcasting". From time to time I do such things, because I just can't find a simpler, more clear way without the cheating. But I always wish I could.
Never be proud of writing obscure code.
I never had the need to circumwent the type system, and I used plenty of languages, where you simply can't circumvent it.
Not sure what language you're using, but most have either void* or Object. The more refined version is "downcasting" a base type to a derived type. Any time you set the type of an object dynamically at runtime, you're bypassing strong type checking. And don't get me started on reflection.
I have a rather different view, as the change happened soon after the Fire phone debacle, Bezos's pet project. Seemed like the bigger investors were getting nervous about him, and moved him to a more honorary position.
In any case, the only long-term contracts I've ever seen for any AWS product is the long-term discounts for servers. Everything else seems to be hourly (or by the millisecond for Lambda, but I've yet to find a use for that). Pretty much the opposite of Oracle.
Amazon's thing is Aurora, which is some MySQL and Postgres-compatible thing I don't really understand, but they claim it's very fast. But as long as it's MySQL-compatible, I'm not really locked in.
AWS doesn't have much to do with Amazon retail - they even have different CEOs.
Sorry, but if you claim that you're a college trained IT professional, I DO expect you to be able to write code on a sheet of paper that will compile.
"College trained IT professional" means "help desk guy". If you mean "developer", say that. Certainly there are a lot of developers that got ripped of by their college. OTOH, I don't expect the help desk guy to write code that compiles.
Look at the actual study. The headline is BS. The study is about college students. If you think that the data is inaccurate, you haven't spent much time doing intern interviews or screening fresh college hires. 5% being able to write acceptable code sounds about write to me, as does "about half" being unable to even write code that compiles.
There are always people who defend this with "college isn't a vocation program". Well, fuck that. If you spend $100k (or your regional equivalent) on a programming-related degree, and you're not capable of coding when you graduate, you got took.
I don't know why it has to be branded as racist and India is an irrelevance to the point. The fact is, when companies scrape the bottom of the barrel for least cost this is what they get.
While this may well be true, the headline has nothing to do with TFA. TFA (I know, I know) is about engineering students not workers employed in the field. Of course, if you go with the cheapest source of outsourcing, you get the company that hires from that unfit 95%.
You're making the same erroneous assumption as the GP, that you can predict the utility of as-yet-undiscovered science.
Flawed argument. If you can't predict it will be valuable, don't fund it all at. Burden of proof is on the person asking for money that there will be some ROI.
But then, I think you can make some predictions based on the trends from the past 100 years.
Not if the product requires LHC-like energies to create, but there's no reason to believe that's necessarily the case.
The farther away you have to go from the conditions we face in order to find unanswered questions, the less useful those answers are likely to be.
Particle physics is becoming more distant from daily life as time passes. Not to say there haven't been some cool knock-off technologies from the work to create the LHC in the first place, but it's increasingly unlikely as energies increase that we'll discover something productizable.
There are other reasons to fund science, of course, but the LHC wasn't exactly cheap. I think the best hope for a higher-energy collider in the future is if the cost of building it decreases due to automation/robotics. And that doesn't seem so far-fetched in the decades to come.
Oh yes, and The Martian too. I really think it's probably the best hard sci fi film ever made
I think you might be a bit biased here.
See, that just goes to show you how risky it is to use a phone while driving... AC managed to accidentally tap both the Preview AND submit buttons before they finished typing!
Slashdot has a preview button?
In this configuration, futzing with it is exactly like someone futzing with their stereo controls.
Oh, you can do it all through steering wheel controls and/or physical knobs, without ever looking at it? Neat if so.