I think your confidence in regulation is a little unrealistic. But to best sell the product, anybody who invented this would want it known as far and wide as possible.
You forgot one of the biggest reasons: it's completely implausible theoretically. Nuclear reactions operate at energies of at least a million times those of chemical reactions. The idea that you can have a simple, low temperature chemical reaction produce a nuclear reaction is pretty astonishing. It would require some really strong evidence.
At least not ones that allow a candidate to avoid the problem completely. However, I don't think that "implement this standard library function" is a common interview question these days.
Having skill doesn't mean you can't make mistakes. And verbally abusing people because of mistakes is an excellent way to ensure that things don't get fixed.
And? For any coding project to be successful, it has to accept new coders periodically. Behavior like Linus' behavior here drives those people away. This could easily be code written by somebody who was just starting in the project, a person who could have used some guidance as to best practices. The right thing to do is find out why the code review process failed to catch this problem.
Really, not following best coding practices is never a reason to verbally attack somebody.
What do you mean, "very carefully?" He recently went on an a many paragraphs-long rant about three lines of code. This could probably have been limited to, "Hey, this code isn't good. Here's a replacement that's a lot better." There was no reason to go on a long personal attack for what can be chalked up to simple misjudgment.
Pretty sure the main build system they were thinking of when designing Go is Google's internal build system, the open source version of which is Bazel. This is just a build system, though, and doesn't manage repositories. It also seems like it would be highly non-trivial to make use of a significant number of libraries (as you'd probably have to create your own BUILD files for each one). Versioning would be no problem, but the initial setup would be.
The word "demand" is just bad headline writing. Blame Soulskill, not tech companies. This letter is more, "You should do this because it will benefit the US in the future in a way that is important to us as well."
As for local tax breaks, a move towards federally-funded primary education would do more far more for US students, as tech companies tend to be clustered. If we got away from the idea of locally-funded education, we could actually have a system where a student in NYC could have about as much chance of getting a good education as one in rural Pennsylvania.
Thyroid cancer is one of those things that is incredibly easy to overdiagnose. Apparently about a third of people have "microtumors" in their thyroid, but only about 1 in 200,000 people die from thyroid cancer. Here's one article that talks about the problem of overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer.
I suppose it depends upon the journal, but this seems unlikely to me. From my experience in physics, authors sending papers to people who request them has long been standard practice. For the papers I published, the copyright agreements explicitly carved out this as a right I had as an author.
The drones certainly can be a danger, but I have a hard time seeing how registration would help. Seems that it'd be more reasonable to have limits on how high they can fly, and disallow flights near airports. Presumably the FAA could start requiring drone manufacturers to come up with technical solutions that would make it difficult for private drone operators to override these rules.
C++, especially C++14, provides a lot of the nice features of a language like Rust, but will interact well with all of your existing C code. Far, far more engineers understand C++ well, so having somebody else pick up the project will be much less of a burden.
The main drawback of C++ is that it can be a bit of a tricky language to use properly. There are some unfortunate caveats that require some level of expertise to write code that doesn't blow up once it goes beyond moderate complexity (I highly recommend Effective C++ as a good book to read on the subject).
Except for a relatively small number of severe genetic disorders, the knowledge of what the genome says about human health is largely unknown. The problem is that genes work in networks, and each individual gene frequently works in multiple different networks at the same time. So it's not as simple as, "has gene variant X, therefore has disease Y." Instead, one person with gene variant X might have problems, while another might have no issue at all, because there are other genes that influence how gene variant X behaves.
The fact that genes work in networks like this makes teasing out which genes have which effect into an unbelievably difficult statistical problem that would likely require an analysis of millions of DNA-health correlations to have any hope of attributing most gene-caused health problems. Nobody has done this kind of study yet, but there are a lot of crackpot doctors who are claiming to have this impossible knowledge already.
Considering that the greatest negative impacts of climate change tend to occur in low-income parts of the world, no, this isn't misplaced priorities at all. Furthermore, aggressive climate change mitigation only costs a small fraction of GDP (recent estimates put it at under 2%), so there is no reason whatsoever to believe that aggressive action to halt climate change would have any negative impact on other ways of improving quality of life around the world.
Current average cost of nuclear power is about 0.76 cents per kWh. For solar, it's about 0.17 cents per kWh (naturally this varies based upon solar conditions, but most developing nations have very good solar conditions). The cost of solar is still dropping. Yes, solar has some other added costs, but it's got quite a lot of headroom compared to nuclear.
Except nuclear power isn't all that great compared to other technologies any longer. Nuclear power has always been quite expensive, but beneficial in that it's much safer and cleaner than fossil fuel alternatives. But now we have even better alternatives, primarily wind and solar power. There just isn't much good reason to pursue nuclear fission as a power source any longer.
Now, if by "nuclear ambitions" you mean weapons, well, nobody should have nuclear weapons. We should be pressuring nations to destroy their nuclear arsenals, not advocating that more nations build them.
The great thing is also, that with Apple heavily backing it you don't have to worry if it's worth picking up unlike lots of other nice, but small and not widely used languages.
Unless you end up working for a project whose target platform is anything but Apple. Your chances of encountering Swift on a program targeting any other platform is close to nil.
Pretty much. Swift seems to be a good language, but largely unremarkable. I doubt it would have much of a chance of significant adoption if Objective-C wasn't so terrible.
It's not that they got rid of the structure entirely, but they allow more self-determination. Basically this amounts to trusting your employees to know their jobs. I'm sure that just as with any corporation, there are some decisions that are mandated from upper-level management (such as overall strategy decisions to prevent teams from working at cross-purposes), but they still trust the employees to find the best way to implement those decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your confidence in regulation is a little unrealistic. But to best sell the product, anybody who invented this would want it known as far and wide as possible.
You forgot one of the biggest reasons: it's completely implausible theoretically. Nuclear reactions operate at energies of at least a million times those of chemical reactions. The idea that you can have a simple, low temperature chemical reaction produce a nuclear reaction is pretty astonishing. It would require some really strong evidence.
At least not ones that allow a candidate to avoid the problem completely. However, I don't think that "implement this standard library function" is a common interview question these days.
Having skill doesn't mean you can't make mistakes. And verbally abusing people because of mistakes is an excellent way to ensure that things don't get fixed.
And? For any coding project to be successful, it has to accept new coders periodically. Behavior like Linus' behavior here drives those people away. This could easily be code written by somebody who was just starting in the project, a person who could have used some guidance as to best practices. The right thing to do is find out why the code review process failed to catch this problem.
Really, not following best coding practices is never a reason to verbally attack somebody.
What do you mean, "very carefully?" He recently went on an a many paragraphs-long rant about three lines of code. This could probably have been limited to, "Hey, this code isn't good. Here's a replacement that's a lot better." There was no reason to go on a long personal attack for what can be chalked up to simple misjudgment.
Fallout 3 was released in late 2008, and includes the People's Republic of America Radio. Presumably they thought it was a good idea?
Also, as Google now understands context for queries, simply using a phrase such as "go language" provides good results.
Pretty sure the main build system they were thinking of when designing Go is Google's internal build system, the open source version of which is Bazel. This is just a build system, though, and doesn't manage repositories. It also seems like it would be highly non-trivial to make use of a significant number of libraries (as you'd probably have to create your own BUILD files for each one). Versioning would be no problem, but the initial setup would be.
That's why "golang" is frequently used to explicitly refer to the language.
The word "demand" is just bad headline writing. Blame Soulskill, not tech companies. This letter is more, "You should do this because it will benefit the US in the future in a way that is important to us as well."
As for local tax breaks, a move towards federally-funded primary education would do more far more for US students, as tech companies tend to be clustered. If we got away from the idea of locally-funded education, we could actually have a system where a student in NYC could have about as much chance of getting a good education as one in rural Pennsylvania.
Thyroid cancer is one of those things that is incredibly easy to overdiagnose. Apparently about a third of people have "microtumors" in their thyroid, but only about 1 in 200,000 people die from thyroid cancer. Here's one article that talks about the problem of overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer.
I suppose it depends upon the journal, but this seems unlikely to me. From my experience in physics, authors sending papers to people who request them has long been standard practice. For the papers I published, the copyright agreements explicitly carved out this as a right I had as an author.
The drones certainly can be a danger, but I have a hard time seeing how registration would help. Seems that it'd be more reasonable to have limits on how high they can fly, and disallow flights near airports. Presumably the FAA could start requiring drone manufacturers to come up with technical solutions that would make it difficult for private drone operators to override these rules.
C++, especially C++14, provides a lot of the nice features of a language like Rust, but will interact well with all of your existing C code. Far, far more engineers understand C++ well, so having somebody else pick up the project will be much less of a burden.
The main drawback of C++ is that it can be a bit of a tricky language to use properly. There are some unfortunate caveats that require some level of expertise to write code that doesn't blow up once it goes beyond moderate complexity (I highly recommend Effective C++ as a good book to read on the subject).
Realistically, it will be a combination of renewables. Solar and wind will be the biggest components, but there are other options as well.
Except for a relatively small number of severe genetic disorders, the knowledge of what the genome says about human health is largely unknown. The problem is that genes work in networks, and each individual gene frequently works in multiple different networks at the same time. So it's not as simple as, "has gene variant X, therefore has disease Y." Instead, one person with gene variant X might have problems, while another might have no issue at all, because there are other genes that influence how gene variant X behaves.
The fact that genes work in networks like this makes teasing out which genes have which effect into an unbelievably difficult statistical problem that would likely require an analysis of millions of DNA-health correlations to have any hope of attributing most gene-caused health problems. Nobody has done this kind of study yet, but there are a lot of crackpot doctors who are claiming to have this impossible knowledge already.
Considering that the greatest negative impacts of climate change tend to occur in low-income parts of the world, no, this isn't misplaced priorities at all. Furthermore, aggressive climate change mitigation only costs a small fraction of GDP (recent estimates put it at under 2%), so there is no reason whatsoever to believe that aggressive action to halt climate change would have any negative impact on other ways of improving quality of life around the world.
Current average cost of nuclear power is about 0.76 cents per kWh. For solar, it's about 0.17 cents per kWh (naturally this varies based upon solar conditions, but most developing nations have very good solar conditions). The cost of solar is still dropping. Yes, solar has some other added costs, but it's got quite a lot of headroom compared to nuclear.
Except nuclear power isn't all that great compared to other technologies any longer. Nuclear power has always been quite expensive, but beneficial in that it's much safer and cleaner than fossil fuel alternatives. But now we have even better alternatives, primarily wind and solar power. There just isn't much good reason to pursue nuclear fission as a power source any longer.
Now, if by "nuclear ambitions" you mean weapons, well, nobody should have nuclear weapons. We should be pressuring nations to destroy their nuclear arsenals, not advocating that more nations build them.
The great thing is also, that with Apple heavily backing it you don't have to worry if it's worth picking up unlike lots of other nice, but small and not widely used languages.
Unless you end up working for a project whose target platform is anything but Apple. Your chances of encountering Swift on a program targeting any other platform is close to nil.
Pretty much. Swift seems to be a good language, but largely unremarkable. I doubt it would have much of a chance of significant adoption if Objective-C wasn't so terrible.
It's not that they got rid of the structure entirely, but they allow more self-determination. Basically this amounts to trusting your employees to know their jobs. I'm sure that just as with any corporation, there are some decisions that are mandated from upper-level management (such as overall strategy decisions to prevent teams from working at cross-purposes), but they still trust the employees to find the best way to implement those decisions.
Probably through something along the lines of periodic peer reviews that are evaluated by committees.
Unions increase the wages of all workers. The decline of unions has directly led to a decline in real wages across the board.
This really shouldn't be hard to understand. Unions increase the bargaining power of workers, and wages depend upon worker bargaining power.