The point is, cheap high-calorie, high-protein food is a good thing to have available. Getting to a place, as the world gradually is, where being overweight is more of a health concern than starvation is a good thing.
I get it: you're proud of your snobbery about fast food, and you're virtue-signalling as hard as you can. But the things you hold against it are virtues in other circumstances.
But you can do that without licensing: the penalty for doing wiring wrong can include being legally barred from doing such work. The only legit argument for licensing electricians is that it's significantly more complicated than it looks, and can't really be learned on the job safely. Licensing forces expensive training, and in this case it's a reasonable trade-off. The same can't be said for all skilled trades, which is why state licensing is such a patchwork.
That's because you misunderstand it. Allow me to explain.
In a free market, companies don't 'evolve' to innovate. Innovation isn't the end goal, surviving and profiting is.
Individuals of a species don't evolve either. Survival and reproduction is their goal. Evolution is something that a population does. Just as the statistical distribution of alleles in a population changes over time, the statistical distribution of business practices in a market changes over time. E.g. the slow fade of brick-and-mortar stores in many sectors.
A free market is about the profitability and survival being the end goal and whatever achieves that is what happens.
So, yeah, just like nature.
licensing applies to people who could endanger your wellbeing through incompetence or negligence
Everyone you meet could endanger your wellbeing through incompetence or negligence. Some people do want to license all human interaction, just like there are some anarchists, but reasonable people just want professional licensing to exist only where there's some risk of harm significantly beyond normal activities.
Licensing an electrician: makes sense to most people. Someone braiding hair: not so much. So, it's possible to have too much licensing, and thus the discussion of how much is too much is a reasonable one without a simple answer.
The man's as close to curing cancer as anyone can claim to be. Why the fuck should we care about crass comments? You seriously want to not cure cancer as a tradeoff for people not hearing the occasional offensive comment?
There are people on/. who find it necessary to change their nics. Policing that shit is necessary to keep the trolling here to a survivable level. You can bet we'll connect your old "name" to your new one. Sure, sure, you're imagining a different sue case, but you have to think about the consequences of rules, not the intent behind them.
On a team of software engineers, technical ability comes before social ability. Writing code is a core requirement of the job, if you can't do it, you cannot contribute as a software engineer.
Certainly, that needs to be a part of any software dev interview. But if you're not doing code reviews, you're doing it wrong. And code reviews require persuasive communication to have the needed value.
alking to other folks is the job of the manager and product lead. Yeah, being able to do some of that as a software engineer is good, but it's secondary.
design is a core part of the job, and everyone does some design. You have to convince others that your design is good, and you have to be able to learn from others why your design is not good, and you have to be able to question the design of others in a way they're receptive to.
Or, shorter, if you're not doing design reviews, you're doing it wrong. And design reviews require persuasive communication to have the needed value.
Further, if you're a senior engineer at one of the big shops, you do more communicating than coding (except at Facebook, I believe, but they're odd that way). If you're merely a good individual coder, you'll fail at the job as you're expected to make the team better.
More importantly, people can learn to be more social over time,
Most people can't just as most people can't change their IQ. It's possible, and sure it's more likely than raising IQ, but it's still quite rare. And if your a company like Google that fires people who say the wrong thing, you surely don't want to make that assumption that people can change during a job interview!
What is a "fact"? That's not a scientific term, so how are you using it? It's very close to a "measurement", which is the basis for all science. Sure, there's some judgement involved as to what personality traits make one better at software development, and it undoubtedly varies by field, but the measured differences between the statistical distributions in men and women are certainly facts. The fact that in the Scandi countries, where great pains have been taken to remove social pressure and allow people to choose the career of their choice, engineering is 95% male and nursing is 95% female is, well, a fact.
So, it's a fact there are differences in preference. It's a fact there are differences in ability - though how to weigh those differences is a matter of judgement.
It's also a fast that Google interviews for dev positions in the way least likely to produce gender equality, by focusing narrowly on the most technical aspects of the job and ignoring measuring the social aspects of the jobs entirely from what I saw. FFS Google, if you want more women, then interview as if software development was the team effort it actually is!
They are based around cryptography, thus the name.
They are based around math, not secret writing. "Crypto" had been jargon for the science of cryptography for decades. Bitcoin makes use of a tiny corner of crypto-oriented math, sure, but that's hardly the interesting thing about it.
Here on Slashdot, could be please not use "crypto" as an abbreviation for cryptocurrency? We lost the war for "hacker", and we may lose the war for "crypto", but can we at least not be idiots in Slashdot headlines?
The UX designers went for 'trendy minimalism' rather than allowing users with existing understanding of UI paradigms to leverage them. It's easily the worst UI I've worked with, and I configure Sonicwalls for a living.
Perhaps I'm assuming more intelligence than is warranted, but I just assumed the UX designers went for "parent proof", and succeeded. Kids use Snapchat specifically because their parents don't.
If you don't know what Mt. Gox was, then you have really no place investing in this sort of thing
Magic the Gathering Online Exchange. Always seemed appropriate to me - it's tulips all the way down. Funny part is, Magic cards have proven to have more dependable lasting value than altcoins.
That's because a mathematician is interested in a different sort of optimization: reducing a problem to a second problem that's already well understood. Even if that second problem is far more complex in practice than the first: the mathematician is optimizing "time spent solving the problem". Which, after all, is what we keep saying about software development: engineer time is more valuable than computer time. Not always true in practice of course.
Ha, this is awesome. The 3Blue1Brown guy sends a bunch of YouTube math and physics channels a disguised interview question to see whether they know graph theory. Also a great list of YouTube channels to follow. Will the popularizers who aren't math profs figure it out, or will they make a Parker Square of it?
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, cheap high-calorie, high-protein food is a good thing to have available. Getting to a place, as the world gradually is, where being overweight is more of a health concern than starvation is a good thing.
I get it: you're proud of your snobbery about fast food, and you're virtue-signalling as hard as you can. But the things you hold against it are virtues in other circumstances.
I see someone has never involuntarily gone a day without food.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The stated goal of the rule is X, but the effect of the rule will be Y. That's the thing about rules.
But you can do that without licensing: the penalty for doing wiring wrong can include being legally barred from doing such work. The only legit argument for licensing electricians is that it's significantly more complicated than it looks, and can't really be learned on the job safely. Licensing forces expensive training, and in this case it's a reasonable trade-off. The same can't be said for all skilled trades, which is why state licensing is such a patchwork.
Sorry - I don't buy the evolution analogy.
That's because you misunderstand it. Allow me to explain.
In a free market, companies don't 'evolve' to innovate. Innovation isn't the end goal, surviving and profiting is.
Individuals of a species don't evolve either. Survival and reproduction is their goal. Evolution is something that a population does. Just as the statistical distribution of alleles in a population changes over time, the statistical distribution of business practices in a market changes over time. E.g. the slow fade of brick-and-mortar stores in many sectors.
A free market is about the profitability and survival being the end goal and whatever achieves that is what happens.
So, yeah, just like nature.
licensing applies to people who could endanger your wellbeing through incompetence or negligence
Everyone you meet could endanger your wellbeing through incompetence or negligence. Some people do want to license all human interaction, just like there are some anarchists, but reasonable people just want professional licensing to exist only where there's some risk of harm significantly beyond normal activities.
Licensing an electrician: makes sense to most people. Someone braiding hair: not so much. So, it's possible to have too much licensing, and thus the discussion of how much is too much is a reasonable one without a simple answer.
So what name do you prefer for "identity politics zealots"? I find calling them "useful idiots of Post-Modernism" far too unwieldy.
Real law has a "reasonable person" test: if a reasonable person would mistake the cardboard sword for a real weapon, than sure, it's assault.
SJW kangaroo courts don't have such a test: if a person is accused, as the accuser is "less privileged", the accused is guilty.
The man's as close to curing cancer as anyone can claim to be. Why the fuck should we care about crass comments? You seriously want to not cure cancer as a tradeoff for people not hearing the occasional offensive comment?
I hear what you're saying, but the Google social network icon next to your name tell me you don't really mean it.
There are people on /. who find it necessary to change their nics. Policing that shit is necessary to keep the trolling here to a survivable level. You can bet we'll connect your old "name" to your new one. Sure, sure, you're imagining a different sue case, but you have to think about the consequences of rules, not the intent behind them.
To be fair, they're praying for the establishment of neo-Leninism in America, and just haven't read history.
It's the Fermat's Margin Note strategy for winning - or at least not losing - slashdot arguments.
Ha, very well put! That summarizes all the arguments in that last JDvGoog post in one sentence.
On a team of software engineers, technical ability comes before social ability. Writing code is a core requirement of the job, if you can't do it, you cannot contribute as a software engineer.
Certainly, that needs to be a part of any software dev interview. But if you're not doing code reviews, you're doing it wrong. And code reviews require persuasive communication to have the needed value.
alking to other folks is the job of the manager and product lead. Yeah, being able to do some of that as a software engineer is good, but it's secondary.
design is a core part of the job, and everyone does some design. You have to convince others that your design is good, and you have to be able to learn from others why your design is not good, and you have to be able to question the design of others in a way they're receptive to.
Or, shorter, if you're not doing design reviews, you're doing it wrong. And design reviews require persuasive communication to have the needed value.
Further, if you're a senior engineer at one of the big shops, you do more communicating than coding (except at Facebook, I believe, but they're odd that way). If you're merely a good individual coder, you'll fail at the job as you're expected to make the team better.
More importantly, people can learn to be more social over time,
Most people can't just as most people can't change their IQ. It's possible, and sure it's more likely than raising IQ, but it's still quite rare. And if your a company like Google that fires people who say the wrong thing, you surely don't want to make that assumption that people can change during a job interview!
So, you figure they could have attracted a higher grade of management who actually had the vision needed to saving the company ... by paying them less?
What is a "fact"? That's not a scientific term, so how are you using it? It's very close to a "measurement", which is the basis for all science. Sure, there's some judgement involved as to what personality traits make one better at software development, and it undoubtedly varies by field, but the measured differences between the statistical distributions in men and women are certainly facts. The fact that in the Scandi countries, where great pains have been taken to remove social pressure and allow people to choose the career of their choice, engineering is 95% male and nursing is 95% female is, well, a fact.
So, it's a fact there are differences in preference. It's a fact there are differences in ability - though how to weigh those differences is a matter of judgement.
It's also a fast that Google interviews for dev positions in the way least likely to produce gender equality, by focusing narrowly on the most technical aspects of the job and ignoring measuring the social aspects of the jobs entirely from what I saw. FFS Google, if you want more women, then interview as if software development was the team effort it actually is!
They are based around cryptography, thus the name.
They are based around math, not secret writing. "Crypto" had been jargon for the science of cryptography for decades. Bitcoin makes use of a tiny corner of crypto-oriented math, sure, but that's hardly the interesting thing about it.
Here on Slashdot, could be please not use "crypto" as an abbreviation for cryptocurrency? We lost the war for "hacker", and we may lose the war for "crypto", but can we at least not be idiots in Slashdot headlines?
Wow, if you put as much effort into learning Windows as you do into excuse making for why you don't need to, you'd be good at it by now.
The UX designers went for 'trendy minimalism' rather than allowing users with existing understanding of UI paradigms to leverage them. It's easily the worst UI I've worked with, and I configure Sonicwalls for a living.
Perhaps I'm assuming more intelligence than is warranted, but I just assumed the UX designers went for "parent proof", and succeeded. Kids use Snapchat specifically because their parents don't.
I'm not generally a stickler for spelling or usage, but this one sticks in my craw.
For one I agree with you, for all in tents and porpoises.
It's like Google is bound and determined to repeat each of Microsoft's greatest mistakes.
No, Google, we don't need to new virus vector. We've got plenty, thanks.
If you don't know what Mt. Gox was, then you have really no place investing in this sort of thing
Magic the Gathering Online Exchange. Always seemed appropriate to me - it's tulips all the way down. Funny part is, Magic cards have proven to have more dependable lasting value than altcoins.
There are ads on your internet? You need a better internet.
That's because a mathematician is interested in a different sort of optimization: reducing a problem to a second problem that's already well understood. Even if that second problem is far more complex in practice than the first: the mathematician is optimizing "time spent solving the problem". Which, after all, is what we keep saying about software development: engineer time is more valuable than computer time. Not always true in practice of course.
Ha, this is awesome. The 3Blue1Brown guy sends a bunch of YouTube math and physics channels a disguised interview question to see whether they know graph theory. Also a great list of YouTube channels to follow. Will the popularizers who aren't math profs figure it out, or will they make a Parker Square of it?