Never used it. When I first started coding professionally, the platform didn't have the concept of threads. Or a stack (making re-entrant code without a stack is a pain). I find threads generally easier to get right than async operations, which are apparently back in fashion again.
Dates, including time zones and daylight savings time. Constant source of bugs.
The only safe way to deal with dates/times is to use a 64-bit int for milliseconds (UTC - always UTC). No time zone nonsense, not DST issues, safe to subtract to get a duration, easy to add a duration to, always the right answer.
Pigs are flying, Hell is frozen solid, and I agree with AmiMoJo. Putting units in your names is the best advice. (But I can still argue with you - you "_" using heretic! Eeeeeeevil!)
I've never understood why programmers have problems with threads. Almost everything is one of two models: * Solve the problem as a series of queues with worker thread pools. Really hard to mess that up. * Entire request-to-response workflow in a thread for each request. You have to be a bit careful about locking around shared objects, but usually the answer is avoiding shared objects.
If you can't get multiple threads on one machine right, how are you going to work on distributed systems?
In my experience, data and operations tend to fight duels - often to the death! Sometimes on horseback with 10 foot lances, sometimes not. Its all good fun - if you are hiding behind the servers and peeping though the gap where the backup drive should have been!
If there's one thing you shouldn't trust, it's dietary advice. I've seen all of it reverse, sometimes twice, over my life. But I'm pretty sure eating 20+ grams of sugar as a regular snack is a bad plan if you don't want to be on insulin, so maybe avoid the fruit.
I've never seen any persuasive talk, here or elsewhere. I've hear 15 years of "the science is sttled, anyone who argues is just stupid". Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
But never an argument or attempt at persuasion. You know, most people care more about pushing back against people who talk down to them than they do about being right. That's how you get Trump, BTW, you talk down to the voters. Good job, there, good job.
Trump's EPA pick is certainly disappointing. An actual conservative would eliminate the department entirely!
At this point I've heard so many "fantasy cabinet" picks it's getting silly, and I'm going to wait a bit before believing any of it. Much as I'd like to see Sarah Palin as press secretary, most if it is wishcasting right now.
In the meantime, think about how you might communicate persuasively about global warming to the 1/3rd of America who thinks it's a scam. Hint: calling them "as stupid as you can get" isn't very persuasive. This OTOH does a good job of being somewhat respectful of the other side: http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...
Populism never leads to responsible government or prosperity.
It's never pretty when the demos seizes the kratos. But it's worth remembering that democracy is primarily a circuit breaker. When the government ignores the concerns of the people too long, something ugly will certainly happen. I'll take Trump over Madam Guillotine any day.
Well, until Facebook goes back to less than 1 billion monthly users, your idea sucks for not impacting American politics.
It's not just Facebook.
US elections were very different before TV. When voter made a decision based on mostly written information and the candidates actual policy positions, plus maybe seeing a candidate once address a crowd, elections weren't about sound bites and hot takes. But the Nixon-Kennedy debate marked the beginning of a new era.
This way the same sort of "state change in voting", 56 years later. Trump was a master at getting free press in a world of 24-hour news coverage and social media and one-liners and tweets. Even less information being looked at than the TV era. Trump demonstrated that "any press is good press" as he rode the wave of "talking heads just can't stop talking about how bad he is" to victory. That's the new era - 140-character attention spans.
The content hasn't mattered much for 56 years, and matters less now. People aren't persuaded by "fake news", they've already decided based on the world around them, and grab any quote that looks good to defend that position. Clearly the media had very little actual influence this election. I doubt social media did either - people decide first, based on the real world ("it's the economy, stupid"), then talk about it on social media.
Then again, if Cali was a separate nation, it would be the 7th largest in the world. It would have to hurt a bit losing that.
Wouldn't hurt at all. Let them leave. Let it settle. Conquer them since they have no military. Impose brutal sanctions. Crush them, see them driven before us, hear the lamentations of their women. It's what's best in life.
No, it's comparing politicians' statements with facts that van be verified by anyone.
If it can be verified by anyone, we don't need fact checkers.
OTOH, I've been told it's a "fact" that all white men are racist and sexist - proven by social science in peer-reviewed papers. Anything can be a "fact" if you get a few professors to agree, and the only crowd in the world more politically biased than reporters is professors.
Most of America's calories come from corn - something like 80% if you include corn-fed animals.* Soy is a big chuck of America's protein, certainly the majority of non-animal protein.
So, yeah, aside from where we get calories and protein, California grows a lot.
* Did you know you can measure the percentage of all the carbon in any food that came from corn via a mass spectrometer? Corn's photosynthesis process (C4, vs C3 in most food plants) excludes Carbon-13.
Who is going to hold politicians accountable for lying, if not the media?
The media wholesale abandoned any last shreds of credibility this election favor of (fairly openly and overtly) doing whatever they could to make Trump lose. They lost both all credibility and the election, and so no longer serve any useful purpose to anyone.
There doesn't seem to be anyone any more who will put fact-checking before politics.
(And because he beat her at her own game, on her home turn. Her whole political career has been based on being so vicious and nasty that no one would dare cross her. And it turns out Trump was even more vicious and nasty. And Americans love that shit.)
That was a pretty big part of it IMO. Hillary and Trump battled it out in the arena of reality TV. Turns out Trump is good at that. Seems a bad way to run elections, but it's the way we have for now.
Same thing: the media abandoned truth for truthiness years ago. If it fits the narrative, it's a "fact" - every paper will tell you so. If it's inconvenient, it's not a fact, and all the papers agree.
"Fact-checking" is just weasel words for "control the narrative." Politicians lie. Voters understand that fact.
That sort of characterization is exactly why Trump won. Can it even penetrate your arrogance that you might be wrong? That restricting immigration based on current economic temperature might not be racist? That the global warming debate might not be due to lack of understanding about what CO2 does, and instead be about "so now what"? That the one full of hate here and now is, well, you?
There are many kinds of democracy. Our kind is a representative republic. At the federal level, both the rights of the people and the rights of the states are given weight. I think that's a good system, because I think states' rights, and diversity of governance between states, is important. Heck, I'd like to return to senators being appointed by state governments.
Dear self-appointed elite who thinks he's smarter than rural America:
Fuck off. You are not a higher caste. You do not know better than rural America what's likely to be best for rural America. You are not a better person, not smarter, not wiser; you're just some guy. Get over yourself.
Your advice is not wanted, but more importantly, your arrogance is offensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Never used it. When I first started coding professionally, the platform didn't have the concept of threads. Or a stack (making re-entrant code without a stack is a pain). I find threads generally easier to get right than async operations, which are apparently back in fashion again.
Dates, including time zones and daylight savings time. Constant source of bugs.
The only safe way to deal with dates/times is to use a 64-bit int for milliseconds (UTC - always UTC). No time zone nonsense, not DST issues, safe to subtract to get a duration, easy to add a duration to, always the right answer.
Pigs are flying, Hell is frozen solid, and I agree with AmiMoJo. Putting units in your names is the best advice. (But I can still argue with you - you "_" using heretic! Eeeeeeevil!)
C'mon. Threads -- I concur wholeheartedly
I've never understood why programmers have problems with threads. Almost everything is one of two models:
* Solve the problem as a series of queues with worker thread pools. Really hard to mess that up.
* Entire request-to-response workflow in a thread for each request. You have to be a bit careful about locking around shared objects, but usually the answer is avoiding shared objects.
If you can't get multiple threads on one machine right, how are you going to work on distributed systems?
data and operations are duals
In my experience, data and operations tend to fight duels - often to the death! Sometimes on horseback with 10 foot lances, sometimes not. Its all good fun - if you are hiding behind the servers and peeping though the gap where the backup drive should have been!
Thus spake the master programmer.
If there's one thing you shouldn't trust, it's dietary advice. I've seen all of it reverse, sometimes twice, over my life. But I'm pretty sure eating 20+ grams of sugar as a regular snack is a bad plan if you don't want to be on insulin, so maybe avoid the fruit.
beef is such an incredibly wasteful means of producing food
Waste is a silly term for something there's no shortage of.
Anyways, if you want to subsist on corn, bread, and meat along with pill vitamins, good luck to you.
Been working for the last 20 years (well, include wheat there too). I'm not a girl, I don't eat salads.
I've never seen any persuasive talk, here or elsewhere. I've hear 15 years of "the science is sttled, anyone who argues is just stupid". Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
But never an argument or attempt at persuasion. You know, most people care more about pushing back against people who talk down to them than they do about being right. That's how you get Trump, BTW, you talk down to the voters. Good job, there, good job.
Trump's EPA pick is certainly disappointing. An actual conservative would eliminate the department entirely!
At this point I've heard so many "fantasy cabinet" picks it's getting silly, and I'm going to wait a bit before believing any of it. Much as I'd like to see Sarah Palin as press secretary, most if it is wishcasting right now.
In the meantime, think about how you might communicate persuasively about global warming to the 1/3rd of America who thinks it's a scam. Hint: calling them "as stupid as you can get" isn't very persuasive. This OTOH does a good job of being somewhat respectful of the other side: http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...
Populism never leads to responsible government or prosperity.
It's never pretty when the demos seizes the kratos. But it's worth remembering that democracy is primarily a circuit breaker. When the government ignores the concerns of the people too long, something ugly will certainly happen. I'll take Trump over Madam Guillotine any day.
Well, until Facebook goes back to less than 1 billion monthly users, your idea sucks for not impacting American politics.
It's not just Facebook.
US elections were very different before TV. When voter made a decision based on mostly written information and the candidates actual policy positions, plus maybe seeing a candidate once address a crowd, elections weren't about sound bites and hot takes. But the Nixon-Kennedy debate marked the beginning of a new era.
This way the same sort of "state change in voting", 56 years later. Trump was a master at getting free press in a world of 24-hour news coverage and social media and one-liners and tweets. Even less information being looked at than the TV era. Trump demonstrated that "any press is good press" as he rode the wave of "talking heads just can't stop talking about how bad he is" to victory. That's the new era - 140-character attention spans.
The content hasn't mattered much for 56 years, and matters less now. People aren't persuaded by "fake news", they've already decided based on the world around them, and grab any quote that looks good to defend that position. Clearly the media had very little actual influence this election. I doubt social media did either - people decide first, based on the real world ("it's the economy, stupid"), then talk about it on social media.
I have a simple and 100% effective strategy for avoiding fake news on Facebook. I think it's a fairly common strategy for Slashdotters.
Sort of like this?
We do live off calories and protein. Everything else is luxury, or can be had via a pill.
Then again, if Cali was a separate nation, it would be the 7th largest in the world. It would have to hurt a bit losing that.
Wouldn't hurt at all. Let them leave. Let it settle. Conquer them since they have no military. Impose brutal sanctions. Crush them, see them driven before us, hear the lamentations of their women. It's what's best in life.
No, it's comparing politicians' statements with facts that van be verified by anyone.
If it can be verified by anyone, we don't need fact checkers.
OTOH, I've been told it's a "fact" that all white men are racist and sexist - proven by social science in peer-reviewed papers. Anything can be a "fact" if you get a few professors to agree, and the only crowd in the world more politically biased than reporters is professors.
Yeah, Houston used to be really nice, but then a mass of liberals, assholes, and others like Ratzo moved there. It's shit now. Similar to Austin.
Most of America's calories come from corn - something like 80% if you include corn-fed animals.* Soy is a big chuck of America's protein, certainly the majority of non-animal protein.
So, yeah, aside from where we get calories and protein, California grows a lot.
* Did you know you can measure the percentage of all the carbon in any food that came from corn via a mass spectrometer? Corn's photosynthesis process (C4, vs C3 in most food plants) excludes Carbon-13.
Who is going to hold politicians accountable for lying, if not the media?
The media wholesale abandoned any last shreds of credibility this election favor of (fairly openly and overtly) doing whatever they could to make Trump lose. They lost both all credibility and the election, and so no longer serve any useful purpose to anyone.
There doesn't seem to be anyone any more who will put fact-checking before politics.
(And because he beat her at her own game, on her home turn. Her whole political career has been based on being so vicious and nasty that no one would dare cross her. And it turns out Trump was even more vicious and nasty. And Americans love that shit.)
That was a pretty big part of it IMO. Hillary and Trump battled it out in the arena of reality TV. Turns out Trump is good at that. Seems a bad way to run elections, but it's the way we have for now.
Same thing: the media abandoned truth for truthiness years ago. If it fits the narrative, it's a "fact" - every paper will tell you so. If it's inconvenient, it's not a fact, and all the papers agree.
"Fact-checking" is just weasel words for "control the narrative." Politicians lie. Voters understand that fact.
That sort of characterization is exactly why Trump won. Can it even penetrate your arrogance that you might be wrong? That restricting immigration based on current economic temperature might not be racist? That the global warming debate might not be due to lack of understanding about what CO2 does, and instead be about "so now what"? That the one full of hate here and now is, well, you?
There are many kinds of democracy. Our kind is a representative republic. At the federal level, both the rights of the people and the rights of the states are given weight. I think that's a good system, because I think states' rights, and diversity of governance between states, is important. Heck, I'd like to return to senators being appointed by state governments.
Dear self-appointed elite who thinks he's smarter than rural America:
Fuck off. You are not a higher caste. You do not know better than rural America what's likely to be best for rural America. You are not a better person, not smarter, not wiser; you're just some guy. Get over yourself.
Your advice is not wanted, but more importantly, your arrogance is offensive.
The electoral college is an average of states' rights as per the Senate, and the common vote as per the House. Seems like the right approach to me.