Hackerrank can't measure the best developers because the best developers don't waste time on hackerrank.
This is an insupportable statement.
the questions that hackerrank provides don't measure developer skill particularly well. A lot of them are more like tutorials.
And a lot of them are tricky dynamic programming problems with constraints designed to force you to find the correct algorithmic solution because any other will murder your CPU. I mean, perhaps you could sketch out a solution for this one? I was having a bit of a tough time finding the efficient solution, personally.
The simpler problems are of course far more tedious but I think it's probably not a bad way to pick up a functional programming language or two.
The more I read your post, the more silly I find it. You seem to be either unaware that there are difficult problems on this site, or you seem to doubt that other people can come up with hard programming challenges. Or, if you do not find any programming problems to be challenging, you must admit that it's possible to design challenges for lesser mortals. I may be singling myself out as the chaff rather than the wheat by saying so, but I disagree that HackerRank does not provide a reasonable measure of programming aptitude. However, even assuming that HackerRank is a terrible measure -- what better one did you have in mind?
They may not be honest arbiters of sound bites, but the facts are the contents of the research papers, not the science journalism. Have you perhaps met any Communication majors at university? Would you have trusted them to sit in on a physics exam for you? I'm sure you can contrast this with the typical holder of an advanced research degree. Now, seriously: what about these two fields and groups of people do you think has a strong overlap?
Not being a professional in that field, you are unqualified to critique the science, but there's nothing stopping you from reading research papers. I'd be happy to give a brief overview of some notable ones -- not excepting the work of Drs. Lindzen and Christy. I tend to prefer approaching scientific fields as a historical narrative of dead ends and discoveries as opposed to diving into the current research.
That article is interesting but doesn't seem to give much detail about how exactly Saudi money ends up in terrorist pockets. It's not clear to me that building mosques == funding terror. The author seems unconcerned with objectivity.
If the scientists do not want people to react to the reporting of it they need to do a better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just those who oppose their political preferences.
No, they need do no such thing. Neither does my position come with an automatic assumption of public outreach, especially not when it comes to policing politicians. Your logical fallacy is 'tu quoque' or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. It's essentially all you have since you don't have any facts on your side. Well, that and more direct forms of dishonesty.
Are you trying to imply that you opened this conversation in good faith, or are you merely sorry to be detected?
I can't speak to every decision they've ever made, but the general concept of an event-driven service manager with dependency resolution is not a poor one. It's sort of ironic that 'init' was named as such, in that it led people to focus on its role in the boot process rather than the idea of state transitions. The fundamental problem of sysvinit was that it was not a kernel process and could not make any hard guarantees about things like resource usage or even whether a given PID file corresponds with the correct active process. For most purposes these defects can be ignored, but there were as I (vaguely) recall a handful of efforts over the years to introduce these things into the kernel, the latest and most successful being cgroups.
In parallel with these developments we had multiple efforts towards speeding up the Linux boot processes, often driven by efforts to introduce Linux in the mobile space. I believe notable improvements were made to things like ureadahead/sreadahead by Intel, Canonical, and Red Hat at various times. There seems to have been a fair amount of cross-pollination in that sector. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with wanting to boot faster, and starting services in parallel is the obvious initial improvement, and dependency resolution is a further obvious improvement.
At the time systemd was written, Upstart was already taking the lead in replacing sysvinit with something completely incompatible, and OpenRC was rewriting all of the common init script activities into more sensible C libraries. So then cgroups are introduced and someone has the fairly sensible idea that they should write a service manager to use them. At this point, it makes little sense to try and introduce cgroups to sysvinit, Upstart didn't have a great dependency model, and OpenRC didn't have a strong interest in parallel boot. So if you're going to do this at all, it makes sense to try to use all the nice features you can. We should also mention both Solaris and OSX having replaced sysvinit by this time as well; Linux was to some degree catching up to the commercial Unixes in this regard.
Now, while all this was going on, there were a large group of developers and sysadmins who were making lots of things with Bash, Perl, and Unix, and making pots of money doing it. The art of the scriptable operating system was refined and perfected. In a sense, sysvinit fell victim to its own success, since it worked so well that anything which intended to replace it had to head off in a completely different direction.
The narrative since then depends strongly on your point of view. Upstart has gone to a rather unlamented grave alongside Mir and a long list of other things Canonical has attempted to foist on the wider community. OpenRC remains a good option. It supports many of the same features that systemd does, but as optional elements as they have always been committed to multi-platform support. As a project designed around a Linux-kernel-only feature, systemd has had no reason to consider that. Sysvinit is hopefully no longer struggling to find maintainers, but there's not really any danger of it becoming popular again. Younger developers have other scripting languages that they like better, and everyone seems to be in a hurry to virtualize and containerize all the things -- which I'm sure that you've been around long enough to find ironic, but nevertheless it does not seem to be slowing down. Systemd appears to be doing better at keeping up with whatever the Cloud wants at any given moment (for better or worse).
I'll omit discussion of other features (binary logs, e.g.) unless you have some particular grudge against them. I generally don't mind the idea of establishing a common plumbing layer as long as their internal API is stable and well-documented, and I've not seen evidence otherwise. I do find these recent bugs to be concerning, but not so much so as to condemn the projec
Many cities in the US have congested roadways. One of the more interesting reasons for this would be that one time the auto industry decided to buy up and dismantle light rail around the country. It's almost as if there's an industry which has succeeded in convincing America to construct all its infrastructure around their product, whether or not it's a actually a good idea.
You're clearly far from objective on this issue. I'm not interested in being further baited and insulted. If you want information, it's out there. If you want to have a conversation, you can find a more respectable tone of address.
Why have people been trying to replace sysvinit? Why have you not bothered to research the origins and rationale for the project? I mean, it's definitely easier to rant against something if you know next to nothing about it, I suppose...
No, Ian Jackson was the only one to rank sysvinit over either upstart or systemd. He was also the only one to rank sysvinit higher than openrc. It was an equal split between systemd and upstart after all others were eliminated. Sysvinit lost 7:1 to both of those things, and it also lost to 'further discussion', and so it was the first option eliminated. Upstart, well...I've never seen anyone cry because it wasn't adopted that didn't work at Canonical. Generally 2-2 or 4-4 is just an overly simple way of looking at this. The one thing you *can* say is that sysvinit went down in flames.
Ian Jackson of course refused to accept this process as legitimate and has left Debian. I have very little positive to say about that kind of behavior.
ReiserFS was not that great when it was under active development, and as far as I am aware while he was the first to implement some interesting filesystem features on Linux, he did not actually invent any of those concepts. The statement about XFS/btrFS is unsupportable.
Systemd has made many correct design decisions. The valid criticisms are completely drowned by people like you who don't understand the problems it's designed to solve. There's a reason why people keep inventing replacements for sysvinit.
the economic cost to the rest of us will most likely be greater than the damage Hans did to society.
We don't measure that murder in economic terms. What a foul comparison.
has ever demonstrated that Afghanistan was completely conquered at any point in recorded history.
That's great except that you're actually arguing the semantics of "completely conquered". Afghanistan has been conquered repeatedly, and for that matter, referring to Afghanistan as if it were some sort of culturally distinct territory instead of a modern invention is rather stupid. It certainly does matter whether these were proxy wars because, as stated, a military is at least as much a means of getting soldiers and materiel moved around. Guns alone are not a fighting force. If some major government is supplying you with guns, ammunition, money, and training, then you don't get to be called a civil resistance. Again, the early history of this country is quite relevant: we did great in the Revolution when the world's second-strongest military power was draining their economy to support us, and when we relied on the militia, the Capitol burned.
The Nazis had already confiscated weapons long before they had started targeting people for nothing more than their ethnic background. They could never have accomplished the greatest mass murder up to that point in human history before the confiscation of guns so many Germans possessed.
Which would be relevant if we weren't discussing the utter failure of any of the resistance groups (i.e. those people who *did* have guns) to make any meaningful impact on the Nazi war effort.
You think the government could sustain sieges on a thousand of these?
Why would they?
What do you think The Oathkeepers is about?
Feel-good nonsense and financial self-interest. Relevant.
Remember when Cliven Bundy in NV had his land appropriated by the BLM and hundreds of supporters caused the government to back down?
Um...okay...so this is called "going off the rails". The National Park Service was attempting to confiscate his cattle, And -- the BLM, really? You couldn't 'win' some sort of equally-imaginary battle against the Boy Scouts or some organization with a little teeth? You're also not winning sympathy by claiming as a hero someone whose sole claim to fame is refusing to pay a bill. And you may have noticed that he is currently being tried for that, and that one of his supporters received a 68-year sentence two days ago.
Your moral ideas about the way the world should be do not make a collection of rampant individualists an effective fighting force. There are at best a handful of historical examples to the contrary. Most often it's just a way to get massacred by a real army.
Okay, I read some history books. Afghanistan is everybody's favorite place to have a proxy war, so that's why that happened. Now go look at everywhere else that they didn't have a major government backing them up. Take a look at all the unsuccessful Nazi resistances. Take a look at Ruby Ridge. Take a look at every country that ever subjugated another.
The point of a modern military is not the "boots on the ground", but the infrastructure that gets them there armed, equipped, on time, with good intel about their surroundings. And in general, it's more efficient to have a rank structure where one guy at the top can send a bunch of people out to kill or be killed without having to hold a war council: this is a tough thing to evolve as a militia.
For the best argument against the second amendment ever, we can look to the war of 1812, where the more numerous militia completely failed to prevent the British from burning down Washington, D.C.. At which point our leaders decided that standing armies were maybe not such a terrible thing after all and started funding an army and a navy. They didn't update the Constitution to reflect this change of heart, and now we're stuck with it.
Given that no one has tried to repeat this militia nonsense, not even ourselves, we can suggest that this is probably a terrible idea. However, if you want to champion it, you should probably either be advocating for the elimination of the military. If not you should be aware that what you're advocating for is very much not in line with the Founders' views.
The way we vote sucks. Ending FPTP will result in more populist governments. These have their own problems, but we've gone too far down the road of republicanism to the point where the People have very little autonomy themselves, not even to select their leaders. That's sort of the central premise of Trumpism, that by doing this thing that all these establishment types hate, they must be having a real effect on the country. I almost wish it could be true.
We've been researching and theorizing about how best to elect leaders since (unfortunately) just after this country was founded. It's time we applied that knowledge.
And if you were really cynical then you could view this as society valuing these things accurately: schoolchildren have a much better ROI. Old people are just waiting to die anyway, right? Gramps just needs to hurry along, and some good old fashioned poverty oughta clear that right up. Just don't kick the bucket before the healthcare system extracts as much wealth as possible from you/your family.
Thank you for responding. I'm afraid that I must continue to disagree with you. I don't think that food:human life is a good analogy to electricity:computation, as food is necessary for life, and computation is often performed without electricity. The most popular alternative would probably be the mechanism of the human mind. This is an argument of definition: the only way that one can consider electricity an essential requirement of computation is to redefine the term to exclude all other forms of computation.
From the user's or programmer's perspective computer is designed to be a tool for symbolic/logical manipulation, and the underlying mechanisms are entirely hidden. This is actually necessary to the modern concept of an electric computer, as bit sequences are stored and transmitted in many different ways: as radio signals, as magnetically aligned sectors on a disk, as a charge in a capacitor, or as a signal on a bus. This is not an easily-pierced abstraction, and when it does fail it's usually synonymous with hardware failure. As logical constructs, these zeros and ones should be considered as derivative from mathematics, not electricity.
The original claim was that computer science required a knowledge of physics, which is broadly incorrect. There are places such as information theory and quantum computing where physics and CS intersect, but it's entirely possible to have a career in CS without ever considering the computer as more than a logical abstraction: Turing and Dijkstra proved all their theorems with fountain pens. If you're particularly gifted you might program this way today (although using something like APL might be advisable).
So in general, we may say that the real world as a whole is incidental to computer science, in much the same way that in mathematics we consider the real world to be a special case:) Software engineers should know a bit more about the real world, but probably not much more than high school physics. If you want to do anything remotely interesting with hardware, you would of course have far more need of a strong physics background, but probably there are more applications than not which are hardware-agnostic.
That number includes debt owed by the federal government to itself. The bad day for the US is not when we have lots of outstanding debt, but when no one wants it any more. The actual $13.62T of debt is an enormous bet that the US will remain solvent. No informed persons worry about hyperinflation, and the topic of public debt is not particularly relevant. The SEC is attempting to regulate ICO tokens as investment vehicles because people keep trying to use them as such. There is zero reason to believe in the rest of your fantasies.
Statistically, trans people are the ones with "actual problems". And I would be happy to keep this to myself except that doesn't seem to free me from people trying to pass laws against my existence. If you retards didn't get so riled up by "perverts" then it wouldn't be a political issue at all. Trans people are nearly universally poor (and go ahead and tell me what you think about giving one a job), disorganized, and typically having some sort of ongoing health issue. The few transgender activists I know are struggling to get any attention from anyone, and I've never heard word one about legislation. Generally the struggle is to get people to acknowledge there's any sort of problem in the first place. Case in point: your post.
The difference between you and trans people is that no one cares about trans people. No matter what problems you might have, people will act like you deserve them. Medical issues? Meh. Shoulda thought of that before you were queer. Legal issues? Well, that's just what happens to "those people". Get raped or assaulted? You probably provoked it. And statistically all of those things happen at a rate far exceeding the normal population. I live in one of the safest corners of the queerest city in the US, and my friends are surprised that I don't carry mace.
We don't want anything from you. We're too busy "dealing with it". No one's asking people to stop abusing trans people, just maybe stop treating our lives like a political toy as well. I don't necessarily mind having to constantly worry about becoming a hate crime statistic, but enshrining prejudice in law is another level of violation.
Slashdot Mirror
Hackerrank can't measure the best developers because the best developers don't waste time on hackerrank.
This is an insupportable statement.
the questions that hackerrank provides don't measure developer skill particularly well. A lot of them are more like tutorials.
And a lot of them are tricky dynamic programming problems with constraints designed to force you to find the correct algorithmic solution because any other will murder your CPU. I mean, perhaps you could sketch out a solution for this one? I was having a bit of a tough time finding the efficient solution, personally.
The simpler problems are of course far more tedious but I think it's probably not a bad way to pick up a functional programming language or two.
The more I read your post, the more silly I find it. You seem to be either unaware that there are difficult problems on this site, or you seem to doubt that other people can come up with hard programming challenges. Or, if you do not find any programming problems to be challenging, you must admit that it's possible to design challenges for lesser mortals. I may be singling myself out as the chaff rather than the wheat by saying so, but I disagree that HackerRank does not provide a reasonable measure of programming aptitude. However, even assuming that HackerRank is a terrible measure -- what better one did you have in mind?
They may not be honest arbiters of sound bites, but the facts are the contents of the research papers, not the science journalism. Have you perhaps met any Communication majors at university? Would you have trusted them to sit in on a physics exam for you? I'm sure you can contrast this with the typical holder of an advanced research degree. Now, seriously: what about these two fields and groups of people do you think has a strong overlap?
Not being a professional in that field, you are unqualified to critique the science, but there's nothing stopping you from reading research papers. I'd be happy to give a brief overview of some notable ones -- not excepting the work of Drs. Lindzen and Christy. I tend to prefer approaching scientific fields as a historical narrative of dead ends and discoveries as opposed to diving into the current research.
Of course it does. What doesn't work is when that's your only line of defense. Keeping sensitive stuff secret is obviously part of good security.
Mod parent up.
That article is interesting but doesn't seem to give much detail about how exactly Saudi money ends up in terrorist pockets. It's not clear to me that building mosques == funding terror. The author seems unconcerned with objectivity.
If the scientists do not want people to react to the reporting of it they need to do a better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just those who oppose their political preferences.
No, they need do no such thing. Neither does my position come with an automatic assumption of public outreach, especially not when it comes to policing politicians. Your logical fallacy is 'tu quoque' or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. It's essentially all you have since you don't have any facts on your side. Well, that and more direct forms of dishonesty.
Odd idea. Have you ever considered reading the science?
Are you trying to imply that you opened this conversation in good faith, or are you merely sorry to be detected?
I can't speak to every decision they've ever made, but the general concept of an event-driven service manager with dependency resolution is not a poor one. It's sort of ironic that 'init' was named as such, in that it led people to focus on its role in the boot process rather than the idea of state transitions. The fundamental problem of sysvinit was that it was not a kernel process and could not make any hard guarantees about things like resource usage or even whether a given PID file corresponds with the correct active process. For most purposes these defects can be ignored, but there were as I (vaguely) recall a handful of efforts over the years to introduce these things into the kernel, the latest and most successful being cgroups.
In parallel with these developments we had multiple efforts towards speeding up the Linux boot processes, often driven by efforts to introduce Linux in the mobile space. I believe notable improvements were made to things like ureadahead/sreadahead by Intel, Canonical, and Red Hat at various times. There seems to have been a fair amount of cross-pollination in that sector. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with wanting to boot faster, and starting services in parallel is the obvious initial improvement, and dependency resolution is a further obvious improvement.
At the time systemd was written, Upstart was already taking the lead in replacing sysvinit with something completely incompatible, and OpenRC was rewriting all of the common init script activities into more sensible C libraries. So then cgroups are introduced and someone has the fairly sensible idea that they should write a service manager to use them. At this point, it makes little sense to try and introduce cgroups to sysvinit, Upstart didn't have a great dependency model, and OpenRC didn't have a strong interest in parallel boot. So if you're going to do this at all, it makes sense to try to use all the nice features you can. We should also mention both Solaris and OSX having replaced sysvinit by this time as well; Linux was to some degree catching up to the commercial Unixes in this regard.
Now, while all this was going on, there were a large group of developers and sysadmins who were making lots of things with Bash, Perl, and Unix, and making pots of money doing it. The art of the scriptable operating system was refined and perfected. In a sense, sysvinit fell victim to its own success, since it worked so well that anything which intended to replace it had to head off in a completely different direction.
The narrative since then depends strongly on your point of view. Upstart has gone to a rather unlamented grave alongside Mir and a long list of other things Canonical has attempted to foist on the wider community. OpenRC remains a good option. It supports many of the same features that systemd does, but as optional elements as they have always been committed to multi-platform support. As a project designed around a Linux-kernel-only feature, systemd has had no reason to consider that. Sysvinit is hopefully no longer struggling to find maintainers, but there's not really any danger of it becoming popular again. Younger developers have other scripting languages that they like better, and everyone seems to be in a hurry to virtualize and containerize all the things -- which I'm sure that you've been around long enough to find ironic, but nevertheless it does not seem to be slowing down. Systemd appears to be doing better at keeping up with whatever the Cloud wants at any given moment (for better or worse).
I'll omit discussion of other features (binary logs, e.g.) unless you have some particular grudge against them. I generally don't mind the idea of establishing a common plumbing layer as long as their internal API is stable and well-documented, and I've not seen evidence otherwise. I do find these recent bugs to be concerning, but not so much so as to condemn the projec
The same people committing crimes over and over. That's a fact. Eliminate them, and crime drops to nearly zero. That's basic common sense.
The tragedy of life is not that we spend so much time rediscovering basic truths, but that we spend so much time rediscovering basic idiocies.
Many cities in the US have congested roadways. One of the more interesting reasons for this would be that one time the auto industry decided to buy up and dismantle light rail around the country. It's almost as if there's an industry which has succeeded in convincing America to construct all its infrastructure around their product, whether or not it's a actually a good idea.
You're clearly far from objective on this issue. I'm not interested in being further baited and insulted. If you want information, it's out there. If you want to have a conversation, you can find a more respectable tone of address.
Why have people been trying to replace sysvinit? Why have you not bothered to research the origins and rationale for the project? I mean, it's definitely easier to rant against something if you know next to nothing about it, I suppose...
No, Ian Jackson was the only one to rank sysvinit over either upstart or systemd. He was also the only one to rank sysvinit higher than openrc. It was an equal split between systemd and upstart after all others were eliminated. Sysvinit lost 7:1 to both of those things, and it also lost to 'further discussion', and so it was the first option eliminated. Upstart, well...I've never seen anyone cry because it wasn't adopted that didn't work at Canonical. Generally 2-2 or 4-4 is just an overly simple way of looking at this. The one thing you *can* say is that sysvinit went down in flames.
Ian Jackson of course refused to accept this process as legitimate and has left Debian. I have very little positive to say about that kind of behavior.
ReiserFS was not that great when it was under active development, and as far as I am aware while he was the first to implement some interesting filesystem features on Linux, he did not actually invent any of those concepts. The statement about XFS/btrFS is unsupportable.
Systemd has made many correct design decisions. The valid criticisms are completely drowned by people like you who don't understand the problems it's designed to solve. There's a reason why people keep inventing replacements for sysvinit.
the economic cost to the rest of us will most likely be greater than the damage Hans did to society.
We don't measure that murder in economic terms. What a foul comparison.
Rating: pants on fire.
This comment brought to you from Bizarro World.
has ever demonstrated that Afghanistan was completely conquered at any point in recorded history.
That's great except that you're actually arguing the semantics of "completely conquered". Afghanistan has been conquered repeatedly, and for that matter, referring to Afghanistan as if it were some sort of culturally distinct territory instead of a modern invention is rather stupid. It certainly does matter whether these were proxy wars because, as stated, a military is at least as much a means of getting soldiers and materiel moved around. Guns alone are not a fighting force. If some major government is supplying you with guns, ammunition, money, and training, then you don't get to be called a civil resistance. Again, the early history of this country is quite relevant: we did great in the Revolution when the world's second-strongest military power was draining their economy to support us, and when we relied on the militia, the Capitol burned.
The Nazis had already confiscated weapons long before they had started targeting people for nothing more than their ethnic background. They could never have accomplished the greatest mass murder up to that point in human history before the confiscation of guns so many Germans possessed.
Which would be relevant if we weren't discussing the utter failure of any of the resistance groups (i.e. those people who *did* have guns) to make any meaningful impact on the Nazi war effort.
You think the government could sustain sieges on a thousand of these?
Why would they?
What do you think The Oathkeepers is about?
Feel-good nonsense and financial self-interest. Relevant.
Remember when Cliven Bundy in NV had his land appropriated by the BLM and hundreds of supporters caused the government to back down?
Um...okay...so this is called "going off the rails". The National Park Service was attempting to confiscate his cattle, And -- the BLM, really? You couldn't 'win' some sort of equally-imaginary battle against the Boy Scouts or some organization with a little teeth? You're also not winning sympathy by claiming as a hero someone whose sole claim to fame is refusing to pay a bill. And you may have noticed that he is currently being tried for that, and that one of his supporters received a 68-year sentence two days ago.
Your moral ideas about the way the world should be do not make a collection of rampant individualists an effective fighting force. There are at best a handful of historical examples to the contrary. Most often it's just a way to get massacred by a real army.
Okay, I read some history books. Afghanistan is everybody's favorite place to have a proxy war, so that's why that happened. Now go look at everywhere else that they didn't have a major government backing them up. Take a look at all the unsuccessful Nazi resistances. Take a look at Ruby Ridge. Take a look at every country that ever subjugated another.
The point of a modern military is not the "boots on the ground", but the infrastructure that gets them there armed, equipped, on time, with good intel about their surroundings. And in general, it's more efficient to have a rank structure where one guy at the top can send a bunch of people out to kill or be killed without having to hold a war council: this is a tough thing to evolve as a militia.
For the best argument against the second amendment ever, we can look to the war of 1812, where the more numerous militia completely failed to prevent the British from burning down Washington, D.C.. At which point our leaders decided that standing armies were maybe not such a terrible thing after all and started funding an army and a navy. They didn't update the Constitution to reflect this change of heart, and now we're stuck with it.
Given that no one has tried to repeat this militia nonsense, not even ourselves, we can suggest that this is probably a terrible idea. However, if you want to champion it, you should probably either be advocating for the elimination of the military. If not you should be aware that what you're advocating for is very much not in line with the Founders' views.
The way we vote sucks. Ending FPTP will result in more populist governments. These have their own problems, but we've gone too far down the road of republicanism to the point where the People have very little autonomy themselves, not even to select their leaders. That's sort of the central premise of Trumpism, that by doing this thing that all these establishment types hate, they must be having a real effect on the country. I almost wish it could be true.
We've been researching and theorizing about how best to elect leaders since (unfortunately) just after this country was founded. It's time we applied that knowledge.
And if you were really cynical then you could view this as society valuing these things accurately: schoolchildren have a much better ROI. Old people are just waiting to die anyway, right? Gramps just needs to hurry along, and some good old fashioned poverty oughta clear that right up. Just don't kick the bucket before the healthcare system extracts as much wealth as possible from you/your family.
Thank you for responding. I'm afraid that I must continue to disagree with you. I don't think that food:human life is a good analogy to electricity:computation, as food is necessary for life, and computation is often performed without electricity. The most popular alternative would probably be the mechanism of the human mind. This is an argument of definition: the only way that one can consider electricity an essential requirement of computation is to redefine the term to exclude all other forms of computation.
From the user's or programmer's perspective computer is designed to be a tool for symbolic/logical manipulation, and the underlying mechanisms are entirely hidden. This is actually necessary to the modern concept of an electric computer, as bit sequences are stored and transmitted in many different ways: as radio signals, as magnetically aligned sectors on a disk, as a charge in a capacitor, or as a signal on a bus. This is not an easily-pierced abstraction, and when it does fail it's usually synonymous with hardware failure. As logical constructs, these zeros and ones should be considered as derivative from mathematics, not electricity.
The original claim was that computer science required a knowledge of physics, which is broadly incorrect. There are places such as information theory and quantum computing where physics and CS intersect, but it's entirely possible to have a career in CS without ever considering the computer as more than a logical abstraction: Turing and Dijkstra proved all their theorems with fountain pens. If you're particularly gifted you might program this way today (although using something like APL might be advisable).
So in general, we may say that the real world as a whole is incidental to computer science, in much the same way that in mathematics we consider the real world to be a special case :) Software engineers should know a bit more about the real world, but probably not much more than high school physics. If you want to do anything remotely interesting with hardware, you would of course have far more need of a strong physics background, but probably there are more applications than not which are hardware-agnostic.
the US is already 20 TRILLION in debt
That number includes debt owed by the federal government to itself. The bad day for the US is not when we have lots of outstanding debt, but when no one wants it any more. The actual $13.62T of debt is an enormous bet that the US will remain solvent. No informed persons worry about hyperinflation, and the topic of public debt is not particularly relevant. The SEC is attempting to regulate ICO tokens as investment vehicles because people keep trying to use them as such. There is zero reason to believe in the rest of your fantasies.
This is a lie and you are a liar.
Statistically, trans people are the ones with "actual problems". And I would be happy to keep this to myself except that doesn't seem to free me from people trying to pass laws against my existence. If you retards didn't get so riled up by "perverts" then it wouldn't be a political issue at all. Trans people are nearly universally poor (and go ahead and tell me what you think about giving one a job), disorganized, and typically having some sort of ongoing health issue. The few transgender activists I know are struggling to get any attention from anyone, and I've never heard word one about legislation. Generally the struggle is to get people to acknowledge there's any sort of problem in the first place. Case in point: your post.
The difference between you and trans people is that no one cares about trans people. No matter what problems you might have, people will act like you deserve them. Medical issues? Meh. Shoulda thought of that before you were queer. Legal issues? Well, that's just what happens to "those people". Get raped or assaulted? You probably provoked it. And statistically all of those things happen at a rate far exceeding the normal population. I live in one of the safest corners of the queerest city in the US, and my friends are surprised that I don't carry mace.
We don't want anything from you. We're too busy "dealing with it". No one's asking people to stop abusing trans people, just maybe stop treating our lives like a political toy as well. I don't necessarily mind having to constantly worry about becoming a hate crime statistic, but enshrining prejudice in law is another level of violation.