If we lived in China and could arbitrarily decide to change our infrastructure on a large scale, yes, that might be a better idea. Otherwise, no, it would not be safer, and it makes little or no sense to implement this technology before it can deal with complicated hazards. If today you want an autonomous vehicle with a dedicated lane, build light rail. Preferably on the model of Portland, not SF.
Your manner is uncivil, the quoted line is insupportable, and you seem to be confused as to its applicability. You may also be confused as to the purpose of a degree in Computer Science; it is not intended to be job training.
It would be fairly easy to rewrite your post to apply equally to CS grads who have no idea what development workflows are like, or who uses recursion to traverse a string in-order. Programming requires a great deal of theory, practicum, continuing education, and intellectual curiousity. You're not going to pick up a complete programming education anywhere, and the drive to actually be good at this job probably cannot be taught. As a profession, we need to recognize that we are a profession, and get some sort of a guild or other professional organization going, so that we can make sure that people get both theory and modern practices. What we should probably not do is expect arbitrarily well-trained developers to spring up out of the ground like Cadmus sowing dragon's teeth.
(As a side note, people's opinions of what programmers should know seems to be fairly universally biased towards their own skill set. Like the old DBA I met who pooh-poohed a Rails project because it didn't use stored procedures.)
So do you actually have any idea what gets covered in bootcamps or are you just assuming that you do? Because at the very least you're speaking extremely broadly about a fairly diverse field of educational institutions.
They have a form you can fill out here, or you can email datarequests@support.facebook.com. If you actually bother to do this, write it up and submit it to Slashdot/Hacker News. I'm sure it would be of interest.
You keep posting bitchy rants here too. These have been splendid evidence for everyone else around you for why you are unemployable. Your step one is to get over yourself; you're not important enough for these kind of histrionics. Then you're probably going to want to go to some coding meetups and get some help with your resume and attitude. Then you're probably going to want to talk to a recruiter. Figure out the soft skills and study what you need to for the interviews.
I am by the way giggling about your impression of your coding peers. I'm sure there are some smart CS grads out there that have memorized all the things, have the technical chops and coding background, and have all the soft skills too, but for the most part Sturgeon's Law is observed.
NASA produced a book some few years ago on the history of flight suits called Dressing for Altitude. It's not the world's most riveting read, but it is freely available online and it may (somewhat ironically) have the best design and typography of any book I've read.
Also in a similarly space-related bent, if anyone here has not read John Clark's Ignition! then they should certainly do so. The subtitle of the book should probably be "The secret history of rocket fuel", but the author went for "An informal history of liquid rocket propellants" instead.
38th is better than average, and 16th isn't in the worst offenders. I think that combined with the budget deficit it paints a dismal picture, but by itself your link isn't strongly supportive. In the sense that "functioning economy" implies "high GSP" I don't really want to hold rural states accountable for not having the same productivity as urban ones. That the tech centers are going off the deep end of per capita productivity and agricultural regions are not is not exactly a surprising result.
If it were necessary to oversimplify the argument, I would not disagree with the statement that red state economic policies tend to fare worse. I think it's probably more fair to not lump them all together and to look a bit deeper into this issue. By your measure, I can't consider Wisconsin to be the problem that some other states represent. However, their use of creative accounting practices to hide a billion dollars of budget deficit is thoroughly damning.
The advocatus diaboli is me says, "Ah, but are these truly red state economies? Aren't they being forced to fund social programs that many conservatives would rather get rid of?" To which I would reply that the social programs certainly seem to be popular among their beneficiaries, whether or not it matches the rhetoric, but it's a complex picture that probably demands more nuanced considerations than "red vs. blue".
Not really? According to your link, it's 16th in federal-spending-to-income-tax-dollars and 38th in federal funding as a percentage of state revenue. Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee seem to be the worst off there; to a first approximation it sort of seems like Texas is the only red state with a functioning economy. Probably the more relevant thing to note is that WI seems to have a couple-three billion dollar budget deficit, apparently depending on whether or not you're using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or the governor's numbers. So it's more like it's not at all keeping itself afloat and that we'll end up paying for it later.
Hmm, it's almost like I mentioned increasing solar output in there somewhere. If you're arguing that a runaway warming situation is possible now or that it has historically been possible, please show your work and/or provide a citation. If you're just picking at a statement in a way that does not alter the claim being made, consider why.
Libertarians are confused anarchists, at best. However, you'll note that my definition was, "people rationalizing their dislike of being told what to do" which is far closer to your first definition than your second. Claiming some individual right is absolute will never force the real world to actually conform to that, and the concept of non-coercive government is a contradiction in terms: government is defined as a local monopoly on the use of force. If you need this lesson demonstrated to you feel free to try to implement your philosophies.
And of course the economic impact of runaway global warming should taken into consideration.
It should not. Runaway warming situations are generally not possible on Earth, at least not until the Sun expands and the oceans boil off. The stratosphere is too cold for H2O to accumulate; you may have even noticed its tendency to precipitate out of solution. Carbon sensitivity is at the wild extremes 5-6 degrees per doubling. Burning all the coal reserves would make the poles tropical and the tropics uninhabitable, but we can't actually go full-on Venus. And of course, given that the Earth has been much warmer in the past, if runaway warming were possible we wouldn't be here to discuss it. We can make things seriously unpleasant for the next 10k-100k years, but some part of that was probably projected to be an Ice Age anyway. In the long run, the planet will be fine, and humanity is quite likely to survive.
800 tons would be a cube of edge length of ~23 ft, or ~7 meters. Concrete is heavy; anything actually made of concrete will get into the hundreds-of-tons range pretty quickly. Concrete is one of the most widely used materials in the world, with over 2 billion tonnes produced annually. By the time you're complaining about the concrete usage of wind turbines you're pretty far into flimsy rationalizations.
Libertarianism is just rationalized recalcitrance. "I don't want to be told what to do." Too bad. You grew up into an adult, not a royal sovereign. If you want to start an armed insurrection, please do so, and assuming you survive do let us know when your trial date is.
Well you've definitely reduced the paper to where you can understand it, but now you've fallen below the level of intelligence required for this discussion. Reddit seems more your style.
The world has some problems. That children are occasionally insulted isn't something to get worked up about. We appreciate your clarification that you have no idea what the words "police state" mean. Your outrage is completely artificial.
I'm sure I have no problem with any given nine year old being insulted. I have no idea which one you're referring to or how they may have been insulted. Probably they were not insulted by means of vehicular assault. And given that I think boycotts are mainly a tool for announcing the stupidity of the people engaging in them, I don't mind people doing that either. Flicking fingernail clippings in someone's general direction is likely more effective than a boycott. And if you're implying that Trump has divested himself of the family business, this is not in any sense true. I mean, and this boycott does actually exist, right?
What's wrong with a boycott now? What about 'talking smack' is equivalent to running people over? Paid provocateurs is a comforting fantasy of yours. If the IRS was targeting right wing groups they suck at it, and the "wrong doing" of the last administration is also "fake news".
You're doing a wonderful job of marginalizing yourself by arguing like this. Keep it up.
That line about the US having the best justice system money can buy is meant to be sarcasm. Isn't "putting their finger on the scales of justice" what you do when you introduce money to this situation, not when you remove it?
If this site can be trusted, the global smartphone market is some 400 billion dollars annually. The total invested in Essential to date seems to be around 300 million, which is definitely real money, but not necessarily a shocking figure. Something like 30-50 billion of VC funding gets thrown around on a quarterly basis. Andy Rubin has as good a chance as anyone to be able to deliver some value for that money, and he can probably be counted on to be able to put together a good team as well. If Uber can lose billions annually without anyone batting an eye then I don't know why these guys deserve the press, or why the "...without shipping a product" angle was necessary. Are we expecting that they're somehow less likely to do with the additional funding? Is there some part of bringing a smartphone to market that's expected to be quick, cheap, and easy?
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
That you and others prefer other resolutions to the paradox does not mean that Codes of Conduct are inherently wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
If we lived in China and could arbitrarily decide to change our infrastructure on a large scale, yes, that might be a better idea. Otherwise, no, it would not be safer, and it makes little or no sense to implement this technology before it can deal with complicated hazards. If today you want an autonomous vehicle with a dedicated lane, build light rail. Preferably on the model of Portland, not SF.
I'm thinking you must be a software engineer.
Your manner is uncivil, the quoted line is insupportable, and you seem to be confused as to its applicability. You may also be confused as to the purpose of a degree in Computer Science; it is not intended to be job training.
It would be fairly easy to rewrite your post to apply equally to CS grads who have no idea what development workflows are like, or who uses recursion to traverse a string in-order. Programming requires a great deal of theory, practicum, continuing education, and intellectual curiousity. You're not going to pick up a complete programming education anywhere, and the drive to actually be good at this job probably cannot be taught. As a profession, we need to recognize that we are a profession, and get some sort of a guild or other professional organization going, so that we can make sure that people get both theory and modern practices. What we should probably not do is expect arbitrarily well-trained developers to spring up out of the ground like Cadmus sowing dragon's teeth.
(As a side note, people's opinions of what programmers should know seems to be fairly universally biased towards their own skill set. Like the old DBA I met who pooh-poohed a Rails project because it didn't use stored procedures.)
So do you actually have any idea what gets covered in bootcamps or are you just assuming that you do? Because at the very least you're speaking extremely broadly about a fairly diverse field of educational institutions.
Link is here. Sorry for not using preview.
They have a form you can fill out here, or you can email datarequests@support.facebook.com. If you actually bother to do this, write it up and submit it to Slashdot/Hacker News. I'm sure it would be of interest.
You keep posting bitchy rants here too. These have been splendid evidence for everyone else around you for why you are unemployable. Your step one is to get over yourself; you're not important enough for these kind of histrionics. Then you're probably going to want to go to some coding meetups and get some help with your resume and attitude. Then you're probably going to want to talk to a recruiter. Figure out the soft skills and study what you need to for the interviews.
I am by the way giggling about your impression of your coding peers. I'm sure there are some smart CS grads out there that have memorized all the things, have the technical chops and coding background, and have all the soft skills too, but for the most part Sturgeon's Law is observed.
NASA produced a book some few years ago on the history of flight suits called Dressing for Altitude. It's not the world's most riveting read, but it is freely available online and it may (somewhat ironically) have the best design and typography of any book I've read.
Also in a similarly space-related bent, if anyone here has not read John Clark's Ignition! then they should certainly do so. The subtitle of the book should probably be "The secret history of rocket fuel", but the author went for "An informal history of liquid rocket propellants" instead.
38th is better than average, and 16th isn't in the worst offenders. I think that combined with the budget deficit it paints a dismal picture, but by itself your link isn't strongly supportive. In the sense that "functioning economy" implies "high GSP" I don't really want to hold rural states accountable for not having the same productivity as urban ones. That the tech centers are going off the deep end of per capita productivity and agricultural regions are not is not exactly a surprising result.
If it were necessary to oversimplify the argument, I would not disagree with the statement that red state economic policies tend to fare worse. I think it's probably more fair to not lump them all together and to look a bit deeper into this issue. By your measure, I can't consider Wisconsin to be the problem that some other states represent. However, their use of creative accounting practices to hide a billion dollars of budget deficit is thoroughly damning.
The advocatus diaboli is me says, "Ah, but are these truly red state economies? Aren't they being forced to fund social programs that many conservatives would rather get rid of?" To which I would reply that the social programs certainly seem to be popular among their beneficiaries, whether or not it matches the rhetoric, but it's a complex picture that probably demands more nuanced considerations than "red vs. blue".
Not really? According to your link, it's 16th in federal-spending-to-income-tax-dollars and 38th in federal funding as a percentage of state revenue. Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee seem to be the worst off there; to a first approximation it sort of seems like Texas is the only red state with a functioning economy. Probably the more relevant thing to note is that WI seems to have a couple-three billion dollar budget deficit, apparently depending on whether or not you're using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or the governor's numbers. So it's more like it's not at all keeping itself afloat and that we'll end up paying for it later.
Yeah, this sounds like it was written by ULA's marketing department. Makes me wish I could short their stock.
Hmm, it's almost like I mentioned increasing solar output in there somewhere. If you're arguing that a runaway warming situation is possible now or that it has historically been possible, please show your work and/or provide a citation. If you're just picking at a statement in a way that does not alter the claim being made, consider why.
Libertarians are confused anarchists, at best. However, you'll note that my definition was, "people rationalizing their dislike of being told what to do" which is far closer to your first definition than your second. Claiming some individual right is absolute will never force the real world to actually conform to that, and the concept of non-coercive government is a contradiction in terms: government is defined as a local monopoly on the use of force. If you need this lesson demonstrated to you feel free to try to implement your philosophies.
And of course the economic impact of runaway global warming should taken into consideration.
It should not. Runaway warming situations are generally not possible on Earth, at least not until the Sun expands and the oceans boil off. The stratosphere is too cold for H2O to accumulate; you may have even noticed its tendency to precipitate out of solution. Carbon sensitivity is at the wild extremes 5-6 degrees per doubling. Burning all the coal reserves would make the poles tropical and the tropics uninhabitable, but we can't actually go full-on Venus. And of course, given that the Earth has been much warmer in the past, if runaway warming were possible we wouldn't be here to discuss it. We can make things seriously unpleasant for the next 10k-100k years, but some part of that was probably projected to be an Ice Age anyway. In the long run, the planet will be fine, and humanity is quite likely to survive.
800 tons would be a cube of edge length of ~23 ft, or ~7 meters. Concrete is heavy; anything actually made of concrete will get into the hundreds-of-tons range pretty quickly. Concrete is one of the most widely used materials in the world, with over 2 billion tonnes produced annually. By the time you're complaining about the concrete usage of wind turbines you're pretty far into flimsy rationalizations.
Libertarianism is just rationalized recalcitrance. "I don't want to be told what to do." Too bad. You grew up into an adult, not a royal sovereign. If you want to start an armed insurrection, please do so, and assuming you survive do let us know when your trial date is.
Well you've definitely reduced the paper to where you can understand it, but now you've fallen below the level of intelligence required for this discussion. Reddit seems more your style.
The world has some problems. That children are occasionally insulted isn't something to get worked up about. We appreciate your clarification that you have no idea what the words "police state" mean. Your outrage is completely artificial.
I'm sure I have no problem with any given nine year old being insulted. I have no idea which one you're referring to or how they may have been insulted. Probably they were not insulted by means of vehicular assault. And given that I think boycotts are mainly a tool for announcing the stupidity of the people engaging in them, I don't mind people doing that either. Flicking fingernail clippings in someone's general direction is likely more effective than a boycott. And if you're implying that Trump has divested himself of the family business, this is not in any sense true. I mean, and this boycott does actually exist, right?
What's wrong with a boycott now? What about 'talking smack' is equivalent to running people over? Paid provocateurs is a comforting fantasy of yours. If the IRS was targeting right wing groups they suck at it, and the "wrong doing" of the last administration is also "fake news".
You're doing a wonderful job of marginalizing yourself by arguing like this. Keep it up.
That line about the US having the best justice system money can buy is meant to be sarcasm. Isn't "putting their finger on the scales of justice" what you do when you introduce money to this situation, not when you remove it?
It's a shame that Popper isn't alive to see your detailed refutation of his views.
If this site can be trusted, the global smartphone market is some 400 billion dollars annually. The total invested in Essential to date seems to be around 300 million, which is definitely real money, but not necessarily a shocking figure. Something like 30-50 billion of VC funding gets thrown around on a quarterly basis. Andy Rubin has as good a chance as anyone to be able to deliver some value for that money, and he can probably be counted on to be able to put together a good team as well. If Uber can lose billions annually without anyone batting an eye then I don't know why these guys deserve the press, or why the "...without shipping a product" angle was necessary. Are we expecting that they're somehow less likely to do with the additional funding? Is there some part of bringing a smartphone to market that's expected to be quick, cheap, and easy?
Apparently it's a slow news day.
This is called the paradox of tolerance. Karl Popper concluded that:
That you and others prefer other resolutions to the paradox does not mean that Codes of Conduct are inherently wrong.
This conversation is going in circles because you think that semantic arguments are more worthwhile than debating facts.