It's the selectivity of it that has people pissed.
If it's just the CEO banning people who annoy the CEO (in a direct, personal way), that's silly but understandable.
If, as is so often the case on social media, it's harassment if and only if the speaker is conservative, that's different. That's a common pattern these days, and not a good one. Echo chambers aren't good for anyone, nor is chasing off half your customers a good business plan (as ESPN is discovering).
If the parents are providing for the kids, great, society's obligation is satisfied. If they aren't because they're dead, or they can't, or they're assholes, that's not the kids' fault and someone still needs to provide - both sustenance and education/acculturation.
You possibly misunderstand (or I misunderstand your post). We can directly observe the universe at times between now (universe 13.8 billion years old) and when the CMBR was emitted (universe 300k years old).
It's only the very early stuff that's indirect, and even then the properties of the universe at 300k years old tell us some very interesting things about earlier times - thus all the inflation theories.
Did Einstein ever make any claims about the speed of light being constant over time, or has a journalist just assumed he must have in order to shoe-horn his name in?
There's simply no difference between saying the speed of light changes over time, and saying the universe expands or contracts, except to make the math harder.
It much like how the "tired light" idea turns out to be mathematically equivalent to existing physics, just expressed in a way that makes the math harder.
Look, we know from direct observation that the universe was much smaller and hotter when it was 300K years old. You might argue "we don't know that there was a singularity", and that's a strong argument. You might argue "we don't know the universe keeps getting smaller or hotter the farther back you go", but that's not a scientific argument unless you have an alternative that explains all the same stuff (as Penrose has with his cyclic cosmology). But to claim everything might be steady state is just nonsense.
theories are not Laws
A law is just a terse theory. It's not a better kind of theory or anything.
healthy to always think about we might be missing out something important
Sure, but "missing something important" is very different from "all our observations might be wrong". The latter is shunned even by philosophers as pointless to consider, as it leads nowhere.
"Pi" in Nature occurs very rarely, so rarely that I'm having difficulty thinking of just one instance.
Pi is everywhere. Circles are how pi is introduced to children. Pi is everywhere waves are, and since everything is a wave, well, it comes up a lot. Of course, the pi is often hidden in the definition of units, since it gets old writing 2pi all over the place (h-bar, the Coulomb constant, etc).
Even "Zero" is a convention,
No, not really. Math isn't about counting or computation, you know. And any sort of abstract algebra needs its 0 (and its 1, if you want a field).
Much of the observable universe is the historical universe. "Long ago" and "far away" are two ways of saying the same thing. We can directly observe the universe at different stages of history back to about 300k years old (everything before that, including everything inflation-related, is indirect guesswork).
Not, that's just unit conversion stuff. Anyhow, real physics is done in units where c=1, so the exponent doesn't matter (as you'd expect, if it's just about the unit of measure).
f course KISS has it's limits, but if I can do it with an 8 person team and I'm competing with a 50 person team, I win 99%+ of the time.
On the internet, my 3 person team beat 9000 person teams 100% of the time. But bullshit aside, if you're good, why are you still managing just an 8-person team? And why is it a competition? Shouldn't both teams be doing something useful? Are you just being selfish, hoarding the top people to yourself when your org would benefit more by spreading them out?
I have been blessed with incompetent competition, and of course, I've got good instincts regarding walking away early if the client is already been blown by one of the big consultancies.
Oh, I get it now, You're a consultant. I expect you wear a tie. And shiny shoes. Well then, have fun with that.
Well, if you want to be pointlessly pedantic, "the world" is indifferent, not being a moral entity, but human society owes children support and upbringing.
Even if you're a total sociopath with no moral compass, all that separates man from beast is culture: what we teach our children about how to live in the world. Societies that don't take that seriously get replaced by those that do.
saying that communication overhead is a function of team size squared at best. Keeping core team size down is critical. I do this by doing everything possible to maintain individual productivity.
Alternatively, you might discover that "separation of concerns" is for more than just code. Just as code complexity is kept low by minimizing what one bit of code has to know about another to get things done, communication overhead within a group is kept low through division of responsibility into teams that each clearly own some subset of things. My whole career has been involved in solving problems that are just to big for a "two-pizza team".
Plus there's always plenty of tedious unchallenging work needing done for any project - letting the top people work only on cool stuff they like is the best retention approach.
Freenet solves all of those problems, and is reasonably anonymous as well (especially uploads). ot very fast, but neither is the wayback machine. Sadly, it doesn't make any retention promises, which is fundamental to an archive.
I'm not sure you could make a service with no central control, and also with infinite retention, with today's technology - the storage needs would be unbounded.
After being born, the world does not owe you a living.
I disagree. As a child, the world owes you a living. The basic definition of adulthood is that "this stops being true". We seem to have a lot of tall children these days.
The idea that you don't think that people are entitled to enough resources to live is pretty mind boggling to me.
No one is entitled to anything. The entire concept is bad.
Find a way to contribute to society enough to make up for what you need to take from society to live. If you can't manage that, you may hope for the charity of others. You're not entitled to charity, you don't deserve charity, but since most people aren't total sociopaths in the US, you just might get charity. But understand completely it's an undeserved gift from nice people.
Failed math in high school? Let's take the canonical minimum-wage job. The CEO of McDonald's makes about $3M/year, but let's pretend we divided 10M among all McD's employees. There are 400k of them. Yay, everyone gets a raise of $25/year. Utopia inevitably follows. I can see no flaw with your plan.
Do you often eat burgers? It's been my experience that most of the people unconcerned about the costs of a higher minimum wage never eat at McDonald's, never shop at Walmart, and basically aren't the poor people who will be hurt by it.
And what's all this about "welfare and food stamps"? I thought Trump promised death camps for undesirables?
What happens next is anyone's guess. Trump is certainly not a predictable sort of guy. But Hillary will never be president! For now I'm content with that level of overthrow of the status quo.
because gun owners would overthrow the government. Right? Right?
In case you slept through the US elections, gun owner just did overthrow the government. That's the entire point of democracy: a non-violent means to overthrow the government. Popular vote is a really stupid way to run a government, but the best means yet found to remove one.
What happens next is anyone's guess. Trump is certainly not a predictable sort of guy.
Calling someone racist is how you concede a political argument, much like saying "uncle" used to be in schoolyard fights, tapping out in judo, and so on.
But you can't let people work 'just hard enough not to get fired' and be a place where anybody in their right mind would want to work.
Of course you can. Probably half the people at any job are working just hard enough not to get fired. Everyone between the strong performers and the people who actually get fired is working just hard enough not to get fired.
Or are you trying to say that an incompetent guy working hard is better than a skilled guy phoning it in? Nothing could be more untrue in software development - the only thing worse than someone incompetent is someone incompetent who writes a lot of code.
From the rumors I've heard, they've at least dropped the "firing quota" part of stack ranking, but the whole system is simply evil and counterproductive.
I've never seen, or even heard of, someone who was put on an "improvement plan" and still worked at the company afterwards. It should just be called an "employee termination plan" for honesty (at most companies it's a lot more paperwork than just giving someone a bad review, so there's no reason for a manager to go that route except as part of the termination process).
That said, it's a nice way to give a failing employee a chance to job hunt while still employed, so I can't say it's a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the selectivity of it that has people pissed.
If it's just the CEO banning people who annoy the CEO (in a direct, personal way), that's silly but understandable.
If, as is so often the case on social media, it's harassment if and only if the speaker is conservative, that's different. That's a common pattern these days, and not a good one. Echo chambers aren't good for anyone, nor is chasing off half your customers a good business plan (as ESPN is discovering).
And orphans? And kids who might as well be?
If the parents are providing for the kids, great, society's obligation is satisfied. If they aren't because they're dead, or they can't, or they're assholes, that's not the kids' fault and someone still needs to provide - both sustenance and education/acculturation.
You possibly misunderstand (or I misunderstand your post). We can directly observe the universe at times between now (universe 13.8 billion years old) and when the CMBR was emitted (universe 300k years old).
It's only the very early stuff that's indirect, and even then the properties of the universe at 300k years old tell us some very interesting things about earlier times - thus all the inflation theories.
Have you accepted Jesus Christ into your life as your personal savior?
You're about as fun to be around as the guys who turn every conversation into pushing their religion on you. Really, just stop.
Did Einstein ever make any claims about the speed of light being constant over time, or has a journalist just assumed he must have in order to shoe-horn his name in?
There's simply no difference between saying the speed of light changes over time, and saying the universe expands or contracts, except to make the math harder.
It much like how the "tired light" idea turns out to be mathematically equivalent to existing physics, just expressed in a way that makes the math harder.
Just curious, do we ever pear actions to them?
Quantum entanglement is all about particle pears!
Ah, found the on-topic thread.
Look, we know from direct observation that the universe was much smaller and hotter when it was 300K years old. You might argue "we don't know that there was a singularity", and that's a strong argument. You might argue "we don't know the universe keeps getting smaller or hotter the farther back you go", but that's not a scientific argument unless you have an alternative that explains all the same stuff (as Penrose has with his cyclic cosmology). But to claim everything might be steady state is just nonsense.
theories are not Laws
A law is just a terse theory. It's not a better kind of theory or anything.
healthy to always think about we might be missing out something important
Sure, but "missing something important" is very different from "all our observations might be wrong". The latter is shunned even by philosophers as pointless to consider, as it leads nowhere.
"Pi" in Nature occurs very rarely, so rarely that I'm having difficulty thinking of just one instance.
Pi is everywhere. Circles are how pi is introduced to children. Pi is everywhere waves are, and since everything is a wave, well, it comes up a lot. Of course, the pi is often hidden in the definition of units, since it gets old writing 2pi all over the place (h-bar, the Coulomb constant, etc).
Even "Zero" is a convention,
No, not really. Math isn't about counting or computation, you know. And any sort of abstract algebra needs its 0 (and its 1, if you want a field).
Much of the observable universe is the historical universe. "Long ago" and "far away" are two ways of saying the same thing. We can directly observe the universe at different stages of history back to about 300k years old (everything before that, including everything inflation-related, is indirect guesswork).
Not, that's just unit conversion stuff. Anyhow, real physics is done in units where c=1, so the exponent doesn't matter (as you'd expect, if it's just about the unit of measure).
You'd be amazed what a two pizza team can do.
Right up to the point it stops scaling.
f course KISS has it's limits, but if I can do it with an 8 person team and I'm competing with a 50 person team, I win 99%+ of the time.
On the internet, my 3 person team beat 9000 person teams 100% of the time. But bullshit aside, if you're good, why are you still managing just an 8-person team? And why is it a competition? Shouldn't both teams be doing something useful? Are you just being selfish, hoarding the top people to yourself when your org would benefit more by spreading them out?
I have been blessed with incompetent competition, and of course, I've got good instincts regarding walking away early if the client is already been blown by one of the big consultancies.
Oh, I get it now, You're a consultant. I expect you wear a tie. And shiny shoes. Well then, have fun with that.
Well, if you want to be pointlessly pedantic, "the world" is indifferent, not being a moral entity, but human society owes children support and upbringing.
Even if you're a total sociopath with no moral compass, all that separates man from beast is culture: what we teach our children about how to live in the world. Societies that don't take that seriously get replaced by those that do.
saying that communication overhead is a function of team size squared at best. Keeping core team size down is critical. I do this by doing everything possible to maintain individual productivity.
Alternatively, you might discover that "separation of concerns" is for more than just code. Just as code complexity is kept low by minimizing what one bit of code has to know about another to get things done, communication overhead within a group is kept low through division of responsibility into teams that each clearly own some subset of things. My whole career has been involved in solving problems that are just to big for a "two-pizza team".
Plus there's always plenty of tedious unchallenging work needing done for any project - letting the top people work only on cool stuff they like is the best retention approach.
Which has nothing to do with the discussion at head.
Also, your opinion of McDonald's is just that: some moron's opinion that doesn't matter.
Freenet solves all of those problems, and is reasonably anonymous as well (especially uploads). ot very fast, but neither is the wayback machine. Sadly, it doesn't make any retention promises, which is fundamental to an archive.
I'm not sure you could make a service with no central control, and also with infinite retention, with today's technology - the storage needs would be unbounded.
I disagree.
After being born, the world does not owe you a living.
I disagree. As a child, the world owes you a living. The basic definition of adulthood is that "this stops being true". We seem to have a lot of tall children these days.
The idea that you don't think that people are entitled to enough resources to live is pretty mind boggling to me.
No one is entitled to anything. The entire concept is bad.
Find a way to contribute to society enough to make up for what you need to take from society to live. If you can't manage that, you may hope for the charity of others. You're not entitled to charity, you don't deserve charity, but since most people aren't total sociopaths in the US, you just might get charity. But understand completely it's an undeserved gift from nice people.
Failed math in high school? Let's take the canonical minimum-wage job. The CEO of McDonald's makes about $3M/year, but let's pretend we divided 10M among all McD's employees. There are 400k of them. Yay, everyone gets a raise of $25/year. Utopia inevitably follows. I can see no flaw with your plan.
Do you often eat burgers? It's been my experience that most of the people unconcerned about the costs of a higher minimum wage never eat at McDonald's, never shop at Walmart, and basically aren't the poor people who will be hurt by it.
And what's all this about "welfare and food stamps"? I thought Trump promised death camps for undesirables?
What happens next is anyone's guess. Trump is certainly not a predictable sort of guy. But Hillary will never be president! For now I'm content with that level of overthrow of the status quo.
because gun owners would overthrow the government. Right? Right?
In case you slept through the US elections, gun owner just did overthrow the government. That's the entire point of democracy: a non-violent means to overthrow the government. Popular vote is a really stupid way to run a government, but the best means yet found to remove one.
What happens next is anyone's guess. Trump is certainly not a predictable sort of guy.
Calling someone racist is how you concede a political argument, much like saying "uncle" used to be in schoolyard fights, tapping out in judo, and so on.
But you can't let people work 'just hard enough not to get fired' and be a place where anybody in their right mind would want to work.
Of course you can. Probably half the people at any job are working just hard enough not to get fired. Everyone between the strong performers and the people who actually get fired is working just hard enough not to get fired.
Or are you trying to say that an incompetent guy working hard is better than a skilled guy phoning it in? Nothing could be more untrue in software development - the only thing worse than someone incompetent is someone incompetent who writes a lot of code.
From the rumors I've heard, they've at least dropped the "firing quota" part of stack ranking, but the whole system is simply evil and counterproductive.
I've never seen, or even heard of, someone who was put on an "improvement plan" and still worked at the company afterwards. It should just be called an "employee termination plan" for honesty (at most companies it's a lot more paperwork than just giving someone a bad review, so there's no reason for a manager to go that route except as part of the termination process).
That said, it's a nice way to give a failing employee a chance to job hunt while still employed, so I can't say it's a bad thing.