Can you carry a car into an area surrounded by walls?
Really? That's how you think about it? Carrying the car?
People drive cars though the walls of buildings all the time. Sometimes on purpose as a weapon, more often just by clumsy driving, or even just forgetting the parking break, as happened to a friend of mine. This is real danger in the real world, unlike fantasies involving flamethrower-wielding maniacs. And when something ruptures the gar's gas tank, that's extremely dangerous - there's a reason they'll close a freeway when that happens in an accident, until the fire department handles it.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a key thing to realize is that many internally consistent and mathematically correct models have been built in physics, only to be discarded because they don't match reality. There are an infinite number of universes that don't exist, but math lets us describe then perfectly.
Yes, everyone in science realizes this, believe it or not (though I'll grumble about string theorists). What else do you think the scientific method is?
But he quickly realized that this "need" (as it was originally conceived) was entirely psychological/emotional in nature
I believe you've got that backwards., IIRC. GR was first published in 1915. Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe was expanding, which GR didn't explain in any way (not it it contradict). Einstein tried a couple of approaches to reconcile the new data with GR, one of which along the way was the cosmological constant. Thus far, that still seems to b the bats model (and it has nothing to do with GR).
"Explaining" an unexpected observation by shoehorning it into a term in an existing equation--taking a superfluous term and making it important again by flipping the sign and allowing it to refer to a different phenomenon--is a very weak and queasy "win"
Sure - that's science. There's always an establishment trying to explain away new data, and many trying to make a name for themselves by overturning everything with their great new theory. Sometimes the same guy doing both. But GR doesn't come into conflict with dark energy theories, any more than it does with fluid dynamics or genetics - it just doesn't explain those things.
Anyhow, it's as you've said: GR has serious unresolved issues at universal scales, but also at galactic scales (rotational issues, Dark Matter.) Additionally, it has issues at the QM level, which makes it the primary thing standing in the way of a GUT.
No, it really doesn't. There's no conflict at all between GR and dark matter, and in fact GR gives us one of the 3 sets of evidence for dark matter in the first place: gravitational lensing consistent with a large mass that we can't see. As far as QM, there's certainly more to learn, and I'd bet GR becomes a poor model at sufficiently small scale, as it assumes spacetime is smooth.
Conclusion via Occam's razor: GR is wrong. Not toss-it-in-the-garbage wrong, but wrong in the way that Newton's equations predicting the orbit of Mercury were wrong.
GR has so far successfully accurately predicted more far-fetched and surprising results than just about anything else in physics. It's the most well-tested of physical theories. There may well be a scale or conditions in which it fails, but skepticism of such claims is well justified.
I'm quite amused by your post, as it can be read equally well as an argument for either side of the current debate - well done. Not everyone shares the same values, but everyone is convinced they're in the right, and anyone smart would agree with them. The whole point of a secular state is not to pick a particular group's values and enshrine them in law: that's a theocracy (even if the religion is "progressivism"). Instead, it is to make laws based on the smooth functioning of society, so that people with differing views can work together without violence.
The few religious leaders I respect want nothing to do with laws, as they also don't support theocracy. Instead, they work to change those deeply held beliefs (which may be a work of generations) so that the conflict vanishes.
It seems the progressives here want to force your system of values on others through the government's monopoly of force, instead of by winning in the marketplace of ideas (much as the religious right have done in generations past). The religious leaders I respect, from Jesus to the current Dalai Lama never cared for force, but were remarkably. good at presenting and defending their ideas, both to believers and to non-believers, without ever just asserting "I'm just right and to disagree with me is hate speech that should be banned".
(BTW, of course there was a Jesus, don't be silly. How important he was in his time, vs ideas attributed to him later is hard to say, but Christianity never could have started rolling in the first place without some sort of charismatic leader.)
Yes, you've got the core of the scientific method right in hand. You use math to formalize some model that explains both old and new observations, then you extrapolate using the math to make predictions, then you weed out all the failures with the next set of data. Everyone in physics does understand this, except maybe the string theorists, who went off the rails some time ago and IMO are an embarrassment to the field now.
But the math is the tool that lets you make that prediction, and it's not enough for the current model to be "wrong", you have to have an alternative that successfully predicts new data. That what all the internet cranks and crackpots seem to miss: yes, fine, you can contrive limitless alternative explanations for the existing data. So what? It's all about the predictions, and those are usually meaningless without the math to back them up, to set bounds and make them falsifiable.
The inability of GR to give a good model at universe-scale is hardly new - Einstein himself identified the need for a cosmological constant quite early on. The mystery has only deepened since - but that doesn't necessarily mean anything's wrong with GR, only that there's more to learn (dark energy is easy to describe in GR terms, but GR gives no explanation of why it's there in the first place).
If you want to be afraid of something, worry about ladders - those fuckers are dangerous. If you want a rational view of danger, then statistics, not imagination, is your friend.
Still less dangerous than a car - heck, even as a flamethrower, a car with 100-200 pounds of gasoline in the tank is a good starting point. I would think fireworks laws are more relevant here than firearms laws.
Equations can predict, but they don't prove anything.
You've got that backwards, I'm afraid. Science isn't in the business of proof; proof is the realm of mathematics and formal logic. One can prove that one equation, or other statement in a formal language, is equivalent to another under some axioms. Once cannot prove anything about the universe we inhabit.
Science is in the business of useful, predictive models. Dark matter and energy are both "dark" in the sense that we don't have one of those yet. We can characterize them, and there's been some real progress in dark matter as WIMP models predicted the CMBR data nicely, but still, there's so little data to go on. There's a forest of hypotheses for each, and not much yet to weed them out.
If the cosmological constant is, in fact, constant, then it's remarkably close to "0", which is bothersome as it requires such "fine tuning", which is another way of saying we're missing something big. Inflation models also deal with the expansion of space, but don't seem to solve the dark energy problem in any natural way. And QM also has a similar concept: in what been called the "worst prediction ever", the value predicted from QM is wrong by 120 orders of magnitude - so no help there.
Dark energy is just the latest name for the Cosmological Constant - I guess it's a better name if it's not actually constant, but the cosmologists I've seen talking about it don't like the new name either (not that anyone has a better suggestion, really). The key thing about it is that the energy density of it is insanely low - I suspect that on the quantum scale it actually "rounds to 0" the way things can in QM, where no measurement is possible at that scale. I think even at the scale of our galaxy it's a very tiny effect. It's a testament to how sparse matter really is in the universe that dark matter is the dominant effect overall.
Funny, in my world, classes called "XManager" are expected to have the "single responsibility" of X, but in a way that needs it's own thread or something to do it right - more separation than the usual class boundary. If X is too broad, expect complaints in code review.
How in the world? Trivially. They're doing it in an O(n^2) way - it's the only explanation.
If you use string concat library code naively, you can end up "copy the string, add one byte, repeat" easily enough in languages like Java. And it's not exactly breakthrough research to discover that O(n) disk can be faster than O(n^2) memory for large enough n.
Maybe I'm still not getting your point. Sure, if you need to understand the details of Unicode character composition and such because you're the one rendering the output glyphs, or you want to sort or search across different encodings of the same word, that's rough, but there's no excuse for a security failure while doing those tasks.
On your other point: the notion of "sanitizing input" is fundamentally flawed to begin with. You can never know what future framework that user data will be interacting with, and what might be interpreted as an escape sequence in that mysterious future, but you can assume that the guy doing that future work will just assume "the input was sanitized", and you're screwed. Instead, don't go there. If e.g. you need to store a user string in a SQL DB, do it in such a way that there's no possible problematic string (perhaps the DB has a way of doing queries that's guaranteed safe, for example). If e.g. you need to send a user sting inside an XML blob, just convert the user string to a hex/base64/whatever representation first - guaranteed safe.
What usecase were you thinking of that makes any of this hard at all?
A contract would have prevented that just as well as a law, is the thing. Engineering a shortage in an attempt to corner a market is hardly a new idea - it's older than the idea of commodities markets, for sure. That's why commodities contracts are carefully written, backed up by especially brutal contract law, and market rules prevent any one entity from controlling too large a position.
All of this is centuries-old best practices, and none of it requires price-fixing.
There are plenty of laws around modern markets. That's how they evolved. Trying to make some sort of anarchist strawman really doesn't make you look smart, you know.
What there aren't are prices fixed by law. It's really not that complicated a concept: government regulating product quality, fraud, and contracts: good; government setting prices or granting monopolies: bad.
You miss the point. The exact problem with retail price controls and a wholesale free market is that it's vulnerable to gaming, Enron-style. Proper markets expect every participant to be gaming the system as hard as they can. They're built on it from the start, have evolved for centuries to cope, and they work nicely for most commodities in the world - just a few government-granted monopolies left over causing problems.
Well, when a state school didn't come with a crushing debt burden, it was much less of an issue (compared to even 10 years ago it's nuts). My own solutions was to get that first job in my home city, paying peanuts, then once I had enough experience to be credible, move away. That first job wasn't so hard to get because everyone else was doing the same thing, so they were constantly hiring.
With you on the home economics. I was such a moron with money for almost the first 10 years.
Ha! That's been happening continuously since the beginning - better languages, better frameworks, etc. You almost never need to write a toolkit these days, or a script to refactor code in some simple way. I started with assembly, and for all Java's many problems, it's several times as productive. Turns out the need for programmers is mostly limited by budget, not by the universe of problems that need to be solved, and so more companies started hiring developers as the better tools made the payoff better.
You might be right, but it's such an old problem - it was a big deal 10 years ago in the Windows world as UCS2 didn't handle it. C# was actually UTF from the start, like Java, of course.
Still, crashing because of, what, a null in the input? I could certainly understand truncation (just like other incorrect display problems), but a crash?
The problem commonly is: people try to "clean" input with some stupid regex, rather than treating all user-provided strings as permanently dirty. You can do anything you need to, risk-free, with this attitude. You have to understand the encoding you use for storage/transmission (if your framework doesn't provide a way to safely, blindly store/transmit any string, then just encode the string in some way first), but that's a much, much smaller world than the universe of possible user string.
As soon as you try to render, parse or even only compare anything besides standard ASCII, you are screwed.
Render? Displaying a glyph incorrectly is one thing, but crashing or leaving some exploit open is raw incompetence. Parse? If you need to parse user input, you likely have bigger issues (if you're running user scripts or whatever). Compare? Again, you might get the order wrong (is there even a defined order for pictographic languages?), but crashing is inexcusable.
They're just bytes for fuck's sake. What kind of moron can't process them safely in this day and age?
But then, this is Chrome we're talking about - the initial release would crash with a 2-character string (";=" was it?), due to an error that never should have made it past code review - subtracting 1 from an unsigned value, then using the result as a limit in a for loop IIRC. Might as well be checking your passwords into github.
its an h1b market and will get worse and worse as time marches on. immigrants can and will work cheaper than americans, employers know this and employers know the reason for the h1b push.
Total bullshit in every way. It's like you can't think beyond your hatred of brown people. Programming is a world market, and you compete with the world for jobs. Every H1B is a person who is paid more than they would be to do the very same job in their home country! And they pay US taxes, besides. The tragedy of the H1B program is that we should just be giving them green cards instead - we surely need to tax revenue in the coming years!
The nice thing is: there are still plenty of jobs world-wide. There was a time when the labor pool in programming was increasing exponentially as every country with a CompSci program was opened to outsourcing for the first time, but that's all explored now. The world's supply of coders is expanding linearly now, as all the worlds universities crank out coders at a steady rate (plus the few like me who make it without the degree). The demand is growing faster.
The US economy just went through a long-ass downturn, nothing programming-specific about it (blame the banks and the politicians that enable them). But the big software companies are hiring like crazy now (my team has 9 open positions, it's nuts), and while you may have to move away from Arkansas to where the jobs are, that's pretty much win-win.
They should focus on improving their schools, not chasing novel fad trends.
Schools as they are teach kids to be good little manufacturing workers. That was actually a great idea 100 years ago, but now the "novel fad trend" has passed. Coding seems pretty likely to be a rewarding job skill for the next 100 years. As everything that can be automated becomes automated, there will be plenty of jobs developing that automation.
I am saying there shouldn't be consequences for what he did. Nothing on Facebook is trustworthy. Nothing done by Facebook is trustworthy. Burning Facebook to the ground, scattering the stones, and salting the earth should not have consequences.
Giving a large sum of money to prevent a group of people from enjoying basic human rights is NOT tolerance.
Yes, yes it is. It's not acceptance, but it's tolerance. Tolerance is the willingness to live and work alongside people you dislike while working to outlaw the actions you dislike. Driving people out of their jobs? Not tolerance.
Nobody's going to tell his church they have to perform same-sex marriages.
It has already started, around the edges, with non-Church wedding chapels and the like. Again, review the insanity of the eHarmony verdict. The stat will compel you to provide service against your conscience.
I see you don't understand markets. You also don't understand the very clear history of central planning committees. There's nothing therefore for us to discuss. Enjoy your community-based reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you carry a car into an area surrounded by walls?
Really? That's how you think about it? Carrying the car?
People drive cars though the walls of buildings all the time. Sometimes on purpose as a weapon, more often just by clumsy driving, or even just forgetting the parking break, as happened to a friend of mine. This is real danger in the real world, unlike fantasies involving flamethrower-wielding maniacs. And when something ruptures the gar's gas tank, that's extremely dangerous - there's a reason they'll close a freeway when that happens in an accident, until the fire department handles it.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a key thing to realize is that many internally consistent and mathematically correct models have been built in physics, only to be discarded because they don't match reality. There are an infinite number of universes that don't exist, but math lets us describe then perfectly.
Yes, everyone in science realizes this, believe it or not (though I'll grumble about string theorists). What else do you think the scientific method is?
But he quickly realized that this "need" (as it was originally conceived) was entirely psychological/emotional in nature
I believe you've got that backwards., IIRC. GR was first published in 1915. Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe was expanding, which GR didn't explain in any way (not it it contradict). Einstein tried a couple of approaches to reconcile the new data with GR, one of which along the way was the cosmological constant. Thus far, that still seems to b the bats model (and it has nothing to do with GR).
"Explaining" an unexpected observation by shoehorning it into a term in an existing equation--taking a superfluous term and making it important again by flipping the sign and allowing it to refer to a different phenomenon--is a very weak and queasy "win"
Sure - that's science. There's always an establishment trying to explain away new data, and many trying to make a name for themselves by overturning everything with their great new theory. Sometimes the same guy doing both. But GR doesn't come into conflict with dark energy theories, any more than it does with fluid dynamics or genetics - it just doesn't explain those things.
Anyhow, it's as you've said: GR has serious unresolved issues at universal scales, but also at galactic scales (rotational issues, Dark Matter.) Additionally, it has issues at the QM level, which makes it the primary thing standing in the way of a GUT.
No, it really doesn't. There's no conflict at all between GR and dark matter, and in fact GR gives us one of the 3 sets of evidence for dark matter in the first place: gravitational lensing consistent with a large mass that we can't see. As far as QM, there's certainly more to learn, and I'd bet GR becomes a poor model at sufficiently small scale, as it assumes spacetime is smooth.
Conclusion via Occam's razor: GR is wrong. Not toss-it-in-the-garbage wrong, but wrong in the way that Newton's equations predicting the orbit of Mercury were wrong.
GR has so far successfully accurately predicted more far-fetched and surprising results than just about anything else in physics. It's the most well-tested of physical theories. There may well be a scale or conditions in which it fails, but skepticism of such claims is well justified.
I'm quite amused by your post, as it can be read equally well as an argument for either side of the current debate - well done. Not everyone shares the same values, but everyone is convinced they're in the right, and anyone smart would agree with them. The whole point of a secular state is not to pick a particular group's values and enshrine them in law: that's a theocracy (even if the religion is "progressivism"). Instead, it is to make laws based on the smooth functioning of society, so that people with differing views can work together without violence.
The few religious leaders I respect want nothing to do with laws, as they also don't support theocracy. Instead, they work to change those deeply held beliefs (which may be a work of generations) so that the conflict vanishes.
It seems the progressives here want to force your system of values on others through the government's monopoly of force, instead of by winning in the marketplace of ideas (much as the religious right have done in generations past). The religious leaders I respect, from Jesus to the current Dalai Lama never cared for force, but were remarkably. good at presenting and defending their ideas, both to believers and to non-believers, without ever just asserting "I'm just right and to disagree with me is hate speech that should be banned".
(BTW, of course there was a Jesus, don't be silly. How important he was in his time, vs ideas attributed to him later is hard to say, but Christianity never could have started rolling in the first place without some sort of charismatic leader.)
Yes, you've got the core of the scientific method right in hand. You use math to formalize some model that explains both old and new observations, then you extrapolate using the math to make predictions, then you weed out all the failures with the next set of data. Everyone in physics does understand this, except maybe the string theorists, who went off the rails some time ago and IMO are an embarrassment to the field now.
But the math is the tool that lets you make that prediction, and it's not enough for the current model to be "wrong", you have to have an alternative that successfully predicts new data. That what all the internet cranks and crackpots seem to miss: yes, fine, you can contrive limitless alternative explanations for the existing data. So what? It's all about the predictions, and those are usually meaningless without the math to back them up, to set bounds and make them falsifiable.
The inability of GR to give a good model at universe-scale is hardly new - Einstein himself identified the need for a cosmological constant quite early on. The mystery has only deepened since - but that doesn't necessarily mean anything's wrong with GR, only that there's more to learn (dark energy is easy to describe in GR terms, but GR gives no explanation of why it's there in the first place).
If you want to be afraid of something, worry about ladders - those fuckers are dangerous. If you want a rational view of danger, then statistics, not imagination, is your friend.
Still less dangerous than a car - heck, even as a flamethrower, a car with 100-200 pounds of gasoline in the tank is a good starting point. I would think fireworks laws are more relevant here than firearms laws.
Equations can predict, but they don't prove anything.
You've got that backwards, I'm afraid. Science isn't in the business of proof; proof is the realm of mathematics and formal logic. One can prove that one equation, or other statement in a formal language, is equivalent to another under some axioms. Once cannot prove anything about the universe we inhabit.
Science is in the business of useful, predictive models. Dark matter and energy are both "dark" in the sense that we don't have one of those yet. We can characterize them, and there's been some real progress in dark matter as WIMP models predicted the CMBR data nicely, but still, there's so little data to go on. There's a forest of hypotheses for each, and not much yet to weed them out.
If the cosmological constant is, in fact, constant, then it's remarkably close to "0", which is bothersome as it requires such "fine tuning", which is another way of saying we're missing something big. Inflation models also deal with the expansion of space, but don't seem to solve the dark energy problem in any natural way. And QM also has a similar concept: in what been called the "worst prediction ever", the value predicted from QM is wrong by 120 orders of magnitude - so no help there.
Dark energy is just the latest name for the Cosmological Constant - I guess it's a better name if it's not actually constant, but the cosmologists I've seen talking about it don't like the new name either (not that anyone has a better suggestion, really). The key thing about it is that the energy density of it is insanely low - I suspect that on the quantum scale it actually "rounds to 0" the way things can in QM, where no measurement is possible at that scale. I think even at the scale of our galaxy it's a very tiny effect. It's a testament to how sparse matter really is in the universe that dark matter is the dominant effect overall.
Funny, in my world, classes called "XManager" are expected to have the "single responsibility" of X, but in a way that needs it's own thread or something to do it right - more separation than the usual class boundary. If X is too broad, expect complaints in code review.
How in the world? Trivially. They're doing it in an O(n^2) way - it's the only explanation.
If you use string concat library code naively, you can end up "copy the string, add one byte, repeat" easily enough in languages like Java. And it's not exactly breakthrough research to discover that O(n) disk can be faster than O(n^2) memory for large enough n.
Are you doing your part? Click here to learn more.
I see "semantic content" all over the place - but the words are all linked to advertisements, not explanations. Sad, really.
Maybe I'm still not getting your point. Sure, if you need to understand the details of Unicode character composition and such because you're the one rendering the output glyphs, or you want to sort or search across different encodings of the same word, that's rough, but there's no excuse for a security failure while doing those tasks.
On your other point: the notion of "sanitizing input" is fundamentally flawed to begin with. You can never know what future framework that user data will be interacting with, and what might be interpreted as an escape sequence in that mysterious future, but you can assume that the guy doing that future work will just assume "the input was sanitized", and you're screwed. Instead, don't go there. If e.g. you need to store a user string in a SQL DB, do it in such a way that there's no possible problematic string (perhaps the DB has a way of doing queries that's guaranteed safe, for example). If e.g. you need to send a user sting inside an XML blob, just convert the user string to a hex/base64/whatever representation first - guaranteed safe.
What usecase were you thinking of that makes any of this hard at all?
A contract would have prevented that just as well as a law, is the thing. Engineering a shortage in an attempt to corner a market is hardly a new idea - it's older than the idea of commodities markets, for sure. That's why commodities contracts are carefully written, backed up by especially brutal contract law, and market rules prevent any one entity from controlling too large a position.
All of this is centuries-old best practices, and none of it requires price-fixing.
There are plenty of laws around modern markets. That's how they evolved. Trying to make some sort of anarchist strawman really doesn't make you look smart, you know.
What there aren't are prices fixed by law. It's really not that complicated a concept: government regulating product quality, fraud, and contracts: good; government setting prices or granting monopolies: bad.
You miss the point. The exact problem with retail price controls and a wholesale free market is that it's vulnerable to gaming, Enron-style. Proper markets expect every participant to be gaming the system as hard as they can. They're built on it from the start, have evolved for centuries to cope, and they work nicely for most commodities in the world - just a few government-granted monopolies left over causing problems.
Well, when a state school didn't come with a crushing debt burden, it was much less of an issue (compared to even 10 years ago it's nuts). My own solutions was to get that first job in my home city, paying peanuts, then once I had enough experience to be credible, move away. That first job wasn't so hard to get because everyone else was doing the same thing, so they were constantly hiring.
With you on the home economics. I was such a moron with money for almost the first 10 years.
Ha! That's been happening continuously since the beginning - better languages, better frameworks, etc. You almost never need to write a toolkit these days, or a script to refactor code in some simple way. I started with assembly, and for all Java's many problems, it's several times as productive. Turns out the need for programmers is mostly limited by budget, not by the universe of problems that need to be solved, and so more companies started hiring developers as the better tools made the payoff better.
Have you ever developed any system more complicated than a college project?
One or two; one or two. Somehow I've never managed to develop one that would crash due to malformed input, however.
You might be right, but it's such an old problem - it was a big deal 10 years ago in the Windows world as UCS2 didn't handle it. C# was actually UTF from the start, like Java, of course.
Still, crashing because of, what, a null in the input? I could certainly understand truncation (just like other incorrect display problems), but a crash?
UTF8 has nothing to do with it.
The problem commonly is: people try to "clean" input with some stupid regex, rather than treating all user-provided strings as permanently dirty. You can do anything you need to, risk-free, with this attitude. You have to understand the encoding you use for storage/transmission (if your framework doesn't provide a way to safely, blindly store/transmit any string, then just encode the string in some way first), but that's a much, much smaller world than the universe of possible user string.
As soon as you try to render, parse or even only compare anything besides standard ASCII, you are screwed.
Render? Displaying a glyph incorrectly is one thing, but crashing or leaving some exploit open is raw incompetence. Parse? If you need to parse user input, you likely have bigger issues (if you're running user scripts or whatever). Compare? Again, you might get the order wrong (is there even a defined order for pictographic languages?), but crashing is inexcusable.
They're just bytes for fuck's sake. What kind of moron can't process them safely in this day and age?
But then, this is Chrome we're talking about - the initial release would crash with a 2-character string (";=" was it?), due to an error that never should have made it past code review - subtracting 1 from an unsigned value, then using the result as a limit in a for loop IIRC. Might as well be checking your passwords into github.
its an h1b market and will get worse and worse as time marches on. immigrants can and will work cheaper than americans, employers know this and employers know the reason for the h1b push.
Total bullshit in every way. It's like you can't think beyond your hatred of brown people. Programming is a world market, and you compete with the world for jobs. Every H1B is a person who is paid more than they would be to do the very same job in their home country! And they pay US taxes, besides. The tragedy of the H1B program is that we should just be giving them green cards instead - we surely need to tax revenue in the coming years!
The nice thing is: there are still plenty of jobs world-wide. There was a time when the labor pool in programming was increasing exponentially as every country with a CompSci program was opened to outsourcing for the first time, but that's all explored now. The world's supply of coders is expanding linearly now, as all the worlds universities crank out coders at a steady rate (plus the few like me who make it without the degree). The demand is growing faster.
The US economy just went through a long-ass downturn, nothing programming-specific about it (blame the banks and the politicians that enable them). But the big software companies are hiring like crazy now (my team has 9 open positions, it's nuts), and while you may have to move away from Arkansas to where the jobs are, that's pretty much win-win.
They should focus on improving their schools, not chasing novel fad trends.
Schools as they are teach kids to be good little manufacturing workers. That was actually a great idea 100 years ago, but now the "novel fad trend" has passed. Coding seems pretty likely to be a rewarding job skill for the next 100 years. As everything that can be automated becomes automated, there will be plenty of jobs developing that automation.
I am saying there shouldn't be consequences for what he did. Nothing on Facebook is trustworthy. Nothing done by Facebook is trustworthy. Burning Facebook to the ground, scattering the stones, and salting the earth should not have consequences.
Giving a large sum of money to prevent a group of people from enjoying basic human rights is NOT tolerance.
Yes, yes it is. It's not acceptance, but it's tolerance. Tolerance is the willingness to live and work alongside people you dislike while working to outlaw the actions you dislike. Driving people out of their jobs? Not tolerance.
Nobody's going to tell his church they have to perform same-sex marriages.
It has already started, around the edges, with non-Church wedding chapels and the like. Again, review the insanity of the eHarmony verdict. The stat will compel you to provide service against your conscience.
I see you don't understand markets. You also don't understand the very clear history of central planning committees. There's nothing therefore for us to discuss. Enjoy your community-based reality.