I'm talking about socializing with others of your own species.... They can't express or articulate an idea LOL cuz it's like IDK w/e. They are emotionally maladjusted or, at a minimum, they lack the ability to read emotion or empathize with others
Like, that's like, grody to the max! Like, gag me with a spoon! Why if the youth of today could only sound like the youth of my day, that would be the bees knees!
Sulking, angry teenagers, who's say to their parents only "just leave me alone!" - surely this is the first generation to encounter such wild, uncultured youth, whatever shall we do? (Complaints about "the youth of today are just not the men their fathers were" have been recorded for at least 2500 years, and likely from every society to leave written records.)
Here's a hint: you can socialize with others while still not being able to smell them. Socializing is about communication. Whatever the medium, whatever the dialect, if people are communicating then people are socializing. And teenagers are going to act like teenagers, regardless.
I think this "researcher" is full of shit. I think that we are still to blame for providing an easy and pervasive technological environment that allows them to bury their heads in their comfortable world of cyberspace and "social media", never having to come up for air. It's addictive as shit and they are all addicted to it. But, they're not at all interested in socializing IRL.
And they suck at riding horses, so they'll shamefully be foot soldiers when drafted into the military. And none of them have memorized a log table - how are they supposed to multiply big numbers, I ask you? And no one is apprenticed to a trade and sent off at 12 to work any more - how are they supposed to get job skills?
Instead they're off dancing the waltz and exposing their ankles like they have no shame at all. This moral decay will be the end of society I tell you!
Who to blame, who to blame? And the parents will all sing:
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should we blame the images on TV?
No!
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
Shame on Canada, foooor...
The smut we must cut,
The trash we must bash,
The laughter and fun must all be undone!
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks
Of blaming uuuuuuuuuuus!
No, no, nothing is ever the parents' fault, what could you be thinking?
I hate the command line (but then I'm not a sys admin). If I have something simple to do, a GUI gets one simple thing done fast. If I have something complex to do, I'll write a compile a program in a real language to do it. CLI scripts always seen to start simple and intelligible, but so quickly become unmaintainable garbage programs once you cope with real-world complexity. Give me a real language any day.
It's very rare to see a 240V line in an American home - very likely those are 208V lines going to the dryer connection. Most consumer power comes from three-phase lines that are 120V line-to-neutral (nominally, anyway - in some places you're doing good to get 110V), and for a higher voltage you go line-to-line, which is only 208V because the lines are 120 degrees out of phase, not 180. Industrial power is different - there you can get true 240V line-to-neutral (and 415 line-to-line).
No, that's simply not what a currency is. Never think of a currency as a store of value, but as an aid that makes barter easier. It's a way to measure value, sure, but that's different.
If you want something with intrinsic value, you need to turn your currency into wealth, by which I mean ownership of the means of production. Land, stocks, private businesses, whatever: the only assets with intrinsic value are those which produce something that people want or need. Everything else is mere convention or convenience.
Primarily because most of the world's governments haven't yet issued guidance as to whether to consider Bitcoin a commodity or a currency for purposes of calculating your taxes.
You might not realize this, but most new tax law works this way. Even once specific laws are made, they're still often ambiguous, and no one really knows what the rules are until after the first couple of court cases are decided. Don't like it? Well, I'd also prefer a flat tax.
The main thing is to report it as some sort of capital gain, to show the intent to comply with the law, and keep in touch with your tax advisor every year as clarity emerges.
We have, and can see all too clearly that the government has held its hand this long solely in an effort to play both sides of the fence.
I'm not sure what fence you're talking about. The government simply doesn't care enough about Bitcoin yet to clarify the situation. At this point various governments are just reminding people that money laundering laws still apply regardless of the intermediation.
UPS stopped making any promises mid-December, as did FedEx. They knew, and were honest and upfront about it. What more can you ask of them? You should be asking why Amazon was still making promises they knew they couldn't stand behind.
It is possible for intelligent people to understand everything you do in this area and still disagree. Things would look different on the surface, because the parliamentary politics would happen after, rather than before, the primary, but that's the extent of the difference. We'd still have the same coalitions vying for power, and the politicians would still be just as corrupt.
Just no. It's not about the math. It's not about how many parties there are. That's not how politics works. All that does is move where the inevitable compromise and coalition building happens to a different place in the system.
I get it, you want to vote for a guy who says exactly the right things, and none of the wrong things, but you don't seem to get that that won't change anything.
"Gotta catch em all". Code that catches all exceptions all over the place, because the author wasn't comfortable with exceptions and wants each function to return an error code when there's an error, because that's the way our forefathers did it and that's the way it's done!
Well written code in a modern language can be 20% or so of the size of well-written C code. You don't have to have the "clean up block" at the bottom of each function, so you can naturally return/throw from anywhere. You don't have to test each function call for errors (unless you can actually recover from that error), you just let exceptions happen.
All the boilerplate clutter goes away, and your code becomes your business logic. Except in Java - Java just adds back that 80% boilerplate with different boilerplate because fuck Java.
result = SomeFuntion(a, b, c); if (SUCCESS != result) {
Log(ERROR, "something something something");
goto Error; }
(or whatever hack people who are scared of goto use). becomes
SomeFuntions(a, b, c);
with no mess at the bottom of the function.
The answer to not having exceptions is to think more carefully about your code. Exceptions are usually used as crutches to allow people to be lazy and messy.
Perhaps. But spend enough years cleaning up after the guys who weren't careful, and you'll vastly prefer a language that does something acceptable even when the original author was sloppy.
Let's talk about security of this website, because it illustrates what's going on here well.
The guy responsible for signing off on the security of Healthcare.gov - signing off on the waiver, mind you, not some actual audit - refused to sign. His boss signed for him and he resigned or was fired.
Last week this repeated - the new guy responsible for signing off on security - presumably the most compliant guy they could possibly find - refused to sign off. Again his boss signed for him, and he's gone.
Does anyone doubt this was happening with all areas of testing? When even management isn't willing to pretend it works, and you launch anyway to meet political goals, you sabotage the entire culture of the Test organization, when you say so clearly "rubber stamp it or get out". If this site ever works, it will be by accident.
C worries me these days, unless balanced with something modern, because the coding style that comes with good, maintainable C is entirely the wrong style in any modern language. C proves you understand pointers, and that's great don't get me wrong, but these days you had better be comfortable with exceptions too, because I'm beyond tired of seeing Pokemon code (gotta catch em all!).
Re:Short answer: no
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I got hired at both my current and previous jobs with no expertise in the languages used, and paid quite well. Experience with the problem domain, and with doing the dirty jobs senior devs volunteers for (because dammit we can't keep working this way) is what matters. In my experience, it's only really the bottom-feeder companies that are looking for a very specific tech stack instead of "smart enough to come up to speed;" the kind of places you work when you're desperate for anything, not what you want to steer towards!
Re:Short answer: no
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
How about picking the best tool for the job, rather than holding a popularity contest? Too old-fashioned?
It's good to avoid going too far off into the weeds, lest you find it impossible to hire someone to support code in some pet language, but that's not the concern here. Of the universe of languages, both mainstream and niche languages commonly used in your niche, pick the one that makes it easiest to develop and support the features in front of you.
It's pretty obvious someone is playing "what language will look best on my resume" here, and if playing that game is obvious to me from this distance, it will be glaring to hiring managers. Few people are looking for a history of "trendy" (you'd be amazed how fast "trendy" becomes "sad" in tech), while a history of doing the dirty, unpopular, work that keeps development teams productive is always welcome, long after the tech stack fades into obsolescence.
Do people still think that the problem with American politics is the way we count the votes? That corporations would own a smaller percentage of politicians if we had 3 parties? None of that matters.
This is a democracy, not a system where a few people who care a whole lot about some specific issue get to rule. When the average man cares about something, all the campaign funding in the world won't save it, and real change happens. That's quite rare of course, because the politicians try to stop just short of the average voter caring, and so you only see real response to the threat of voter revolt when they miscalculate.
And even then, don't expect new politicians, expect bills to be hastily re-written to be less attention-getting, or laws quickly "re-interpreted" to stop pissing people off just enough for the average voter to be complacent again.
You may say that's inadequate, that politicians can get away with too much, but it's still better than any other system that's ever been tried.
I don't think the willingness of nations to invade their neighbors and take their stuff has changed in any way. That's just naivety. For a while we've had the "Pax Americana", where if you weren't a puppet of America or Russia, you'd get bitchslapped for rolling tanks across your borders because we're the only ones who get to do that! (And cynicism aside, the peace is welcome.) But our power is fading fast, and all those demilitarized nations may have ugly surprises coming this century.
The other important change is that the sort of resources that are really valuable in the modern world can't be carried across the border any more. So you might gain by invading your neighbor for natural resources, but only if you stay. But even that's fading in usefulness as intellectual capital begins to dominate.
So, how do you invade your neighbor to steal his intellectual capital? Every nation has a spying organization, funded as well as militaries used to be, to go do just that. No one in power decided war was wrong, merely unprofitable, and so the focus has changed to where looting and pillaging actually work.
Few people understand the power of that quote. Religion doesn't maintain power over society by ensuring no one sins - that's an impossible task - but by ensuring everyone agrees that religion gets to define what sin is. Hypocrisy is thus no threat to the power of religion.
Of course, we see what the modern stand-in for religion is.
Have you used a recent IE? All of my control are on one line. It takes exactly the same screen real estate as FF.
If you like having 400 tabs opened then I can see a preference for FF, as you get more room for each tab. I don't browse that way, and I prefer applications for my platform to look like applications for my platform, not some different thing that some UI designer thought was clever.
But whichever your subjective preference there, both browsers have the same screen real estate. And both do the same thing when you press F11 on windows to devote the whole screen to the tab contents, with "pop down" tabs.
Works just like a rifle that way. Be careful never to point it at something you want to live. Responsibility is on the operator.
Truly autonomous drones, which make the kill decision themselves following any set of rules are far more disturbing to me. Humans make mistakes in wars and kill civilians, but never at the scale we could see from a bug in that kind of decision-making logic in a widely-deployed weapon.
Best to stick with human-designated targets IMO. Yes, there are evil human who will do evil things with weapons, but the downside to such malice remains much smaller than the potential downside to incompetence.
Corporations only exist because we buy their products. The government only continues to misbehave because we mostly still vote for them regardless (more concerned about seeing our hero win the big game than fixing anything). The means for fixing these products is in our hands, but democracy means that most people have to care, which is not yet the case. Are you looking for a style of government where a few people who really care a lot can rule? I don't expect you'd like that (hint: you won't be one of them).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm talking about socializing with others of your own species. ... They can't express or articulate an idea LOL cuz it's like IDK w/e. They are emotionally maladjusted or, at a minimum, they lack the ability to read emotion or empathize with others
Like, that's like, grody to the max! Like, gag me with a spoon! Why if the youth of today could only sound like the youth of my day, that would be the bees knees!
Sulking, angry teenagers, who's say to their parents only "just leave me alone!" - surely this is the first generation to encounter such wild, uncultured youth, whatever shall we do? (Complaints about "the youth of today are just not the men their fathers were" have been recorded for at least 2500 years, and likely from every society to leave written records.)
Here's a hint: you can socialize with others while still not being able to smell them. Socializing is about communication. Whatever the medium, whatever the dialect, if people are communicating then people are socializing. And teenagers are going to act like teenagers, regardless.
No, only the Fed does that, and they're very insistent about that monopoly.
I think this "researcher" is full of shit. I think that we are still to blame for providing an easy and pervasive technological environment that allows them to bury their heads in their comfortable world of cyberspace and "social media", never having to come up for air. It's addictive as shit and they are all addicted to it. But, they're not at all interested in socializing IRL.
And they suck at riding horses, so they'll shamefully be foot soldiers when drafted into the military. And none of them have memorized a log table - how are they supposed to multiply big numbers, I ask you? And no one is apprenticed to a trade and sent off at 12 to work any more - how are they supposed to get job skills?
Instead they're off dancing the waltz and exposing their ankles like they have no shame at all. This moral decay will be the end of society I tell you!
Who to blame, who to blame? And the parents will all sing:
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should we blame the images on TV?
No!
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
Shame on Canada, foooor...
The smut we must cut,
The trash we must bash,
The laughter and fun must all be undone!
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks
Of blaming uuuuuuuuuuus!
No, no, nothing is ever the parents' fault, what could you be thinking?
I hate the command line (but then I'm not a sys admin). If I have something simple to do, a GUI gets one simple thing done fast. If I have something complex to do, I'll write a compile a program in a real language to do it. CLI scripts always seen to start simple and intelligible, but so quickly become unmaintainable garbage programs once you cope with real-world complexity. Give me a real language any day.
It's very rare to see a 240V line in an American home - very likely those are 208V lines going to the dryer connection. Most consumer power comes from three-phase lines that are 120V line-to-neutral (nominally, anyway - in some places you're doing good to get 110V), and for a higher voltage you go line-to-line, which is only 208V because the lines are 120 degrees out of phase, not 180. Industrial power is different - there you can get true 240V line-to-neutral (and 415 line-to-line).
Can cash be stolen over the TV?
There are entire industries devoted to it, from televangelism to "three easy payments of only $19.95".
No, that's simply not what a currency is. Never think of a currency as a store of value, but as an aid that makes barter easier. It's a way to measure value, sure, but that's different.
If you want something with intrinsic value, you need to turn your currency into wealth, by which I mean ownership of the means of production. Land, stocks, private businesses, whatever: the only assets with intrinsic value are those which produce something that people want or need. Everything else is mere convention or convenience.
Primarily because most of the world's governments haven't yet issued guidance as to whether to consider Bitcoin a commodity or a currency for purposes of calculating your taxes.
You might not realize this, but most new tax law works this way. Even once specific laws are made, they're still often ambiguous, and no one really knows what the rules are until after the first couple of court cases are decided. Don't like it? Well, I'd also prefer a flat tax.
The main thing is to report it as some sort of capital gain, to show the intent to comply with the law, and keep in touch with your tax advisor every year as clarity emerges.
We have, and can see all too clearly that the government has held its hand this long solely in an effort to play both sides of the fence.
I'm not sure what fence you're talking about. The government simply doesn't care enough about Bitcoin yet to clarify the situation. At this point various governments are just reminding people that money laundering laws still apply regardless of the intermediation.
Until today I though Dogecoin was a running internet joke. Wow. Poe law in full effect.
UPS stopped making any promises mid-December, as did FedEx. They knew, and were honest and upfront about it. What more can you ask of them? You should be asking why Amazon was still making promises they knew they couldn't stand behind.
It is possible for intelligent people to understand everything you do in this area and still disagree. Things would look different on the surface, because the parliamentary politics would happen after, rather than before, the primary, but that's the extent of the difference. We'd still have the same coalitions vying for power, and the politicians would still be just as corrupt.
Just no. It's not about the math. It's not about how many parties there are. That's not how politics works. All that does is move where the inevitable compromise and coalition building happens to a different place in the system.
I get it, you want to vote for a guy who says exactly the right things, and none of the wrong things, but you don't seem to get that that won't change anything.
What's Pokemon code?
"Gotta catch em all". Code that catches all exceptions all over the place, because the author wasn't comfortable with exceptions and wants each function to return an error code when there's an error, because that's the way our forefathers did it and that's the way it's done!
Well written code in a modern language can be 20% or so of the size of well-written C code. You don't have to have the "clean up block" at the bottom of each function, so you can naturally return/throw from anywhere. You don't have to test each function call for errors (unless you can actually recover from that error), you just let exceptions happen.
All the boilerplate clutter goes away, and your code becomes your business logic. Except in Java - Java just adds back that 80% boilerplate with different boilerplate because fuck Java.
result = SomeFuntion(a, b, c);
if (SUCCESS != result)
{
Log(ERROR, "something something something");
goto Error;
}
(or whatever hack people who are scared of goto use). becomes
SomeFuntions(a, b, c);
with no mess at the bottom of the function.
The answer to not having exceptions is to think more carefully about your code. Exceptions are usually used as crutches to allow people to be lazy and messy.
Perhaps. But spend enough years cleaning up after the guys who weren't careful, and you'll vastly prefer a language that does something acceptable even when the original author was sloppy.
Let's talk about security of this website, because it illustrates what's going on here well.
The guy responsible for signing off on the security of Healthcare.gov - signing off on the waiver, mind you, not some actual audit - refused to sign. His boss signed for him and he resigned or was fired.
Last week this repeated - the new guy responsible for signing off on security - presumably the most compliant guy they could possibly find - refused to sign off. Again his boss signed for him, and he's gone.
Does anyone doubt this was happening with all areas of testing? When even management isn't willing to pretend it works, and you launch anyway to meet political goals, you sabotage the entire culture of the Test organization, when you say so clearly "rubber stamp it or get out". If this site ever works, it will be by accident.
C worries me these days, unless balanced with something modern, because the coding style that comes with good, maintainable C is entirely the wrong style in any modern language. C proves you understand pointers, and that's great don't get me wrong, but these days you had better be comfortable with exceptions too, because I'm beyond tired of seeing Pokemon code (gotta catch em all!).
I got hired at both my current and previous jobs with no expertise in the languages used, and paid quite well. Experience with the problem domain, and with doing the dirty jobs senior devs volunteers for (because dammit we can't keep working this way) is what matters. In my experience, it's only really the bottom-feeder companies that are looking for a very specific tech stack instead of "smart enough to come up to speed;" the kind of places you work when you're desperate for anything, not what you want to steer towards!
How about picking the best tool for the job, rather than holding a popularity contest? Too old-fashioned?
It's good to avoid going too far off into the weeds, lest you find it impossible to hire someone to support code in some pet language, but that's not the concern here. Of the universe of languages, both mainstream and niche languages commonly used in your niche, pick the one that makes it easiest to develop and support the features in front of you.
It's pretty obvious someone is playing "what language will look best on my resume" here, and if playing that game is obvious to me from this distance, it will be glaring to hiring managers. Few people are looking for a history of "trendy" (you'd be amazed how fast "trendy" becomes "sad" in tech), while a history of doing the dirty, unpopular, work that keeps development teams productive is always welcome, long after the tech stack fades into obsolescence.
Do people still think that the problem with American politics is the way we count the votes? That corporations would own a smaller percentage of politicians if we had 3 parties? None of that matters.
This is a democracy, not a system where a few people who care a whole lot about some specific issue get to rule. When the average man cares about something, all the campaign funding in the world won't save it, and real change happens. That's quite rare of course, because the politicians try to stop just short of the average voter caring, and so you only see real response to the threat of voter revolt when they miscalculate.
And even then, don't expect new politicians, expect bills to be hastily re-written to be less attention-getting, or laws quickly "re-interpreted" to stop pissing people off just enough for the average voter to be complacent again.
You may say that's inadequate, that politicians can get away with too much, but it's still better than any other system that's ever been tried.
I don't think the willingness of nations to invade their neighbors and take their stuff has changed in any way. That's just naivety. For a while we've had the "Pax Americana", where if you weren't a puppet of America or Russia, you'd get bitchslapped for rolling tanks across your borders because we're the only ones who get to do that! (And cynicism aside, the peace is welcome.) But our power is fading fast, and all those demilitarized nations may have ugly surprises coming this century.
The other important change is that the sort of resources that are really valuable in the modern world can't be carried across the border any more. So you might gain by invading your neighbor for natural resources, but only if you stay. But even that's fading in usefulness as intellectual capital begins to dominate.
So, how do you invade your neighbor to steal his intellectual capital? Every nation has a spying organization, funded as well as militaries used to be, to go do just that. No one in power decided war was wrong, merely unprofitable, and so the focus has changed to where looting and pillaging actually work.
Few people understand the power of that quote. Religion doesn't maintain power over society by ensuring no one sins - that's an impossible task - but by ensuring everyone agrees that religion gets to define what sin is. Hypocrisy is thus no threat to the power of religion.
Of course, we see what the modern stand-in for religion is.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Fool me four times, that's just embarrassing?
Have you used a recent IE? All of my control are on one line. It takes exactly the same screen real estate as FF.
If you like having 400 tabs opened then I can see a preference for FF, as you get more room for each tab. I don't browse that way, and I prefer applications for my platform to look like applications for my platform, not some different thing that some UI designer thought was clever.
But whichever your subjective preference there, both browsers have the same screen real estate. And both do the same thing when you press F11 on windows to devote the whole screen to the tab contents, with "pop down" tabs.
Works just like a rifle that way. Be careful never to point it at something you want to live. Responsibility is on the operator.
Truly autonomous drones, which make the kill decision themselves following any set of rules are far more disturbing to me. Humans make mistakes in wars and kill civilians, but never at the scale we could see from a bug in that kind of decision-making logic in a widely-deployed weapon.
Best to stick with human-designated targets IMO. Yes, there are evil human who will do evil things with weapons, but the downside to such malice remains much smaller than the potential downside to incompetence.
Corporations only exist because we buy their products. The government only continues to misbehave because we mostly still vote for them regardless (more concerned about seeing our hero win the big game than fixing anything). The means for fixing these products is in our hands, but democracy means that most people have to care, which is not yet the case. Are you looking for a style of government where a few people who really care a lot can rule? I don't expect you'd like that (hint: you won't be one of them).