Understanding the difference between finding duplicate records by walking through a million record database and comparing each record against all other records, and doing a quicksort and just looking for duplicates as you step through the list in order, is real math. It ain't calculus, but if you don't understand the deep math behind efficient algorithms, you can't be a great programmer.
So, your assertion is that proper english, or education, or a professional attitude should be avoided because it might, in incredible rare circumstances, make you more likely to commit suicide?
People should give up thug culture, and barrio culture, and the other victimhood cultures because they lead to poor outcomes even more often than the alternative. For every rare suicide you could point out for a white male, there are hundreds of welfare thugs with kids with no father.
If you want the high paying tech jobs, comfortable cars, nice neighborhoods, good schools, stop holding on to failed cultures.
Not all latinos embrace barrio culture. Not all whites embrace "white" or "asian" culture (aka, rapping wiggers).
That all being said...
Second generation asians generally speak perfect english, and are whipped into doing so by cultural drivers that emphasize academic excellence.
Second generation hispanics often don't speak proper english, and are given a pass by cultural drivers that emphasize community, family and tradition.
The difference isn't the racial background, it's the culture. If you swapped babies at birth within these families, the outcomes would be significantly different.
Until people start rejecting thug culture, or barrio culture, and start embracing "white" or "asian" culture, with proper english, a commitment to academics, and a disavowal of violence and misogyny, they're not going to get into the well paying tech jobs.
So, transgender self-mutiliation is driven by convenience?
I dunno, man, it sounds like the people pigeonholing based on sex are the ones who believe it so much that they're willing to try mutilating themselves to get as close as they can. I don't give a rat's ass if a man wants to wear a wig and a dress, or suck off another man like a "normal woman" - be a gay cross dresser for all I care.
It sounds like the people being lazy are the ones who believe they can't act a certain way without mutilation - society has nothing to do with it. If anything, we should be counseling these non-stereotypical people to just be who they really are - people of a certain sex who behave out of typical character. It's okay not to be a "normal woman", even if you like dressing in skirts.
There's only really one transgender I've seen - XY chromosomes, with androgen insensitivity syndrome, so that the testes never descend, there is no uterus or menstruation, but otherwise the body is phenotypic female. The "I identify as some social construct that requires me to mutilate myself" thing is mental illness, pure and simple.
But, if SJWs are going to demand that transgender is a thing, and simply identifying as something makes it legitimate and true, then this goes for *everything*. People with penises can go to women's restrooms, play and dominate women's sports leagues, get affirmative action for being female, get preferential treatment in family court for being female, avoid registering for the selective service because they're female, so on and so on.
tl;dr - There is no such thing as gender differences if you believe it's simply self-identification.
Well, in general, don't pull changes into unstaged changes on tracked files...that's definitely true.
As for merges, git gets 99% of them with the three way compare automatically - easy peasy. For those that kick out, manual merge, then git add again.
I *don't* understand the need for rebase here - "confused history for everyone else"? Looking at history in say, sourcetree for visualization, a merge clearly shows what the genesis of changes are, and where the merge happens.
A good GUI is required for ease of visualization (branching, merging, pretty diffs), but for actually getting work done, git rocks on the command line.
Again, you've mistaken correlation with causality.
When a bad guy has a gun in the vicinity, much less pointing a weapon at you, your risk is already increased. Drawing a weapon to defend yourself *mitigates* that risk, rather than causes it.
But here's the real trick you're not understanding - a criminal who has no intention to shoot anyone is not going to use a gun to threaten people who might be armed. It's safe for them to threaten unarmed people, and if you live in a state that curtails the rights of self defense, then they can rationally go out with their illegal weapons and do illegal things without much risk. Add in a small, but significant possibility that the person they draw on will in fact have a weapon do defend themselves puts them at a severe disadvantage.
For example, criminals don't go up to police officers and rob them at gunpoint - even if they have the drop on the officer, and the officer's weapon is still holstered, the risk factor there just isn't worth it. But I'll tell you, if we disarmed every cop, and demanded that they only patrol with billy clubs, criminals would clearly understand that to be a cop meant you were unarmed, and take advantage of that fact.
Of course, when presented with a direct threat of a firearm by a criminal, you've got to understand timing - if the hammer is back and the finger is on the trigger, you've got very little chance of beating them to the draw. But if you get the opportunity to get the drop on them, when they're distracted and focusing on something else, I wouldn't blame anyone for taking the shot.
Now, you may be the kind of person who can't properly tell when to attempt a draw, and when to just hold back and bide your time - in this case, please, don't ever get a firearm. But if you're willing to learn, and willing to train, then there's no reason why anyone should prevent you from practicing self defense.
So...you think that people who own firearms randomly draw them in public?
Let's educate you for a moment - four rules:
1) treat every firearm as if loaded 2) never point at anything you're not willing to destroy 3) keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot 4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
Your fanciful scenario is a violation of #2.
That being said, if a criminal signals their intent to kill someone by drawing a weapon, it is a *good* thing if an armed, law abiding citizen can draw her weapon, take careful aim, be aware of what is in front of and behind her target, and gently squeeze the trigger, placing her shot in center body mass.
It's not that you get a gun, and are therefore more likely to get shot.
It's that you are already at higher risk, and you get a gun to mitigate that risk.
Even if you don't choose to arm yourself, others who do act as a vaccination for you, making the calculus of criminals less likely to confront victims because of the chance they might be armed. If even just 5% of law abiding citizens carried concealed, the average criminal is going to make a very different decision when the impulse to beat, rape, or rob comes over them.
Bottom line - if you can't be safe with a gun, don't get a gun. But if you're willing to learn, regularly train, and behave responsibly, please, learn, get one, and continue to train. The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns, whether or not they're wearing badges or not.
Mod parent up - smart guns won't change the real problem of stupid gangbangers and clever criminals.
The problem is culture - culture that glorifies misogyny, violence, lack of education, and a victimhood agenda. We need inner city gangbangers to be ashamed that they can't speak proper english, or hold down humble minimum wage jobs, or have kids only when they're married.
It's Cosby time.
NAACP representatives weren't laughing during Bill Cosby's remarks Monday night at a D.C. gala commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Cosby, who was honored for his massive donations to black colleges, had organizers gasping when he contrasted the '60s civil-rights pioneers with some of today's African-Americans.
"These people marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around," he declared. "The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids - $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.'
"I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is'... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"
Turning to criminal justice, he said, "These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, saying, 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"
Cosby's blunt appraisal left Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert and NAACP President Kweisi Mfume looking "stone-faced," The Washington Post reports. Theodore Shaw, head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, was quick to tell the crowd that most people on welfare are not black.
How about microstamping the four rules on every slide?:)
1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded 2. Don't point at anything you're not willing to destroy 3. Don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire 4. Be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
Crawling my way up the corporate food chain, while outperforming people not only 10-20 years my senior, but with 10-20 years more "experience", was a long slog.
Now that I'm the guy with the 10-20 years more experience, I'm noticing that my peers who have been around for the same amount of time, with the same "years of experience" have not really gotten better over the years. Some plateau at around 2 years, in, others at 5 years, but very, very few continue to grow at any appreciable rate.
The big problem here is that there just isn't enough spread in the typical salary ranges to adequately compensate people based on their productivity. Typical rates run from 80k/year to 160k/year, so you can theoretically pay someone for doing twice as much work with twice as much pay, but very often, you've got a small cadre of folks who provide 10x or even 20x the productivity of their colleagues. None of them are making 800k, or 1.6m/year.
...purchasers of apple products should pay more tax.
I mean, if you run a business, and your costs go up, don't you have to start charging more? Or are they suggesting apple employees should be paid less?
"The NCEP/ NCAR reanalysis data is not a purely observed data set. It is a mix of real observations with model simulations using the method of temporal and spatial assimilation in an atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM). Insofar as different data platforms have been used in construction of the reanalysis, long-term trends calculated from it may be non-physical."
We have programmed a model that hard codes generally drier poleward ends of Hadley cells - we don't have sufficient observational data to state that this has already happened, or will happen in the future, under any conditions.
It's our inability to accurately predict the consequences that is most worrying. Uncertainty is not our friend.
Agreed - and we must admit that we have the same inability to predict the consequences of increased human CO2 emissions as we have the consequences of dramatically reducing human CO2 emissions. Uncertainty is not our friend, but it is our constant companion, and all of our choices, even the ones we prefer, are subject to its whims.
Many corals do not face huge daily pH changes. These are most at risk.
Name a single coral reef on the planet that doesn't have pH changes greater than.1 every day.
Some places get wetter, some get drier.
And that can happen with or without any global average temperature change.
Think about it for a moment - I give you ten six-sided dice - the average of which, is 3. This could be half of them 4s, and half of them 2s. Or it could be half of them 5s, and half of them 1s. Without changing the average, I could have specific distributions which vary wider than others.
So, I could go from half 5s, half 1s, with an average of three, and then move the average up to 4 with every die being a 4, and have *less* variation with a higher average.
Put another way, nothing about the average gives you any information about the distribution.
Think about that for one more moment.
Nothing about the average gives you any information about the distribution.
The mathematical exercise of generating an average *destroys* information. It literally wipes out usable information in turning thousands of numbers into a single representative number.
What matters for temperature isn't the global average, it is the specific distribution - and none of the climate models are any good at that yet.
As for "rain prefers to fall where it is cooler", I think you misunderstand precipitation - what you're looking for is warm, soggy air hitting cold air. What matters isn't "where it is cooler" but where the boundaries of hot and cold collide. Again, it is the specific *distribution* of heat which is important here, not the average temperature of one site to another.
The bottom line is this - the weather of the planet earth is well beyond our capacity to reliably predict much more than a few days at any given point in time, and it is *weather* that matters, not some artificial average derived over space and time.
Wow, that's a lot of apocalyptic thinking to wade through:)
Since warming increases water vapor, and increased water vapor means more precipitation, you've got to be making an argument that this more precipitation magically happens only over the ocean causing more droughts over land. I don't think there's any reasonable proposed mechanism for that kind of peculiar distribution.
As for coral, human run off impacts matter, CO2 levels don't. pH levels around corals vary *hugely* on a daily and even hourly basis, so imagining some nearly immeasurable average pH change as having any sort of real effect is again, mistaking "average" as being useful at all.
Blaming a major extinction event tens of thousands of the years in the future on coal plants today is like blaming hurricane strikes on florida on the gays - it's laughable.
Now, given that you're at least willing to consider costs, would you change your mind if it was shown that it is more expensive to try and fix a "maybe" now, rather than invest in adaptation for *any* change that comes, regardless of its origin?
Slashdot Mirror
When "innocent muslims" take a stand and disavow sharia, I'll be happy to support them.
Those that refuse to disavow capital punishment for being a homosexual are complicit in these types of terror attacks.
Understanding the difference between finding duplicate records by walking through a million record database and comparing each record against all other records, and doing a quicksort and just looking for duplicates as you step through the list in order, is real math. It ain't calculus, but if you don't understand the deep math behind efficient algorithms, you can't be a great programmer.
So, your assertion is that proper english, or education, or a professional attitude should be avoided because it might, in incredible rare circumstances, make you more likely to commit suicide?
People should give up thug culture, and barrio culture, and the other victimhood cultures because they lead to poor outcomes even more often than the alternative. For every rare suicide you could point out for a white male, there are hundreds of welfare thugs with kids with no father.
If you want the high paying tech jobs, comfortable cars, nice neighborhoods, good schools, stop holding on to failed cultures.
Not all latinos embrace barrio culture. Not all whites embrace "white" or "asian" culture (aka, rapping wiggers).
That all being said...
Second generation asians generally speak perfect english, and are whipped into doing so by cultural drivers that emphasize academic excellence.
Second generation hispanics often don't speak proper english, and are given a pass by cultural drivers that emphasize community, family and tradition.
The difference isn't the racial background, it's the culture. If you swapped babies at birth within these families, the outcomes would be significantly different.
...culture does.
Until people start rejecting thug culture, or barrio culture, and start embracing "white" or "asian" culture, with proper english, a commitment to academics, and a disavowal of violence and misogyny, they're not going to get into the well paying tech jobs.
So, transgender self-mutiliation is driven by convenience?
I dunno, man, it sounds like the people pigeonholing based on sex are the ones who believe it so much that they're willing to try mutilating themselves to get as close as they can. I don't give a rat's ass if a man wants to wear a wig and a dress, or suck off another man like a "normal woman" - be a gay cross dresser for all I care.
It sounds like the people being lazy are the ones who believe they can't act a certain way without mutilation - society has nothing to do with it. If anything, we should be counseling these non-stereotypical people to just be who they really are - people of a certain sex who behave out of typical character. It's okay not to be a "normal woman", even if you like dressing in skirts.
There's only really one transgender I've seen - XY chromosomes, with androgen insensitivity syndrome, so that the testes never descend, there is no uterus or menstruation, but otherwise the body is phenotypic female. The "I identify as some social construct that requires me to mutilate myself" thing is mental illness, pure and simple.
But, if SJWs are going to demand that transgender is a thing, and simply identifying as something makes it legitimate and true, then this goes for *everything*. People with penises can go to women's restrooms, play and dominate women's sports leagues, get affirmative action for being female, get preferential treatment in family court for being female, avoid registering for the selective service because they're female, so on and so on.
tl;dr - There is no such thing as gender differences if you believe it's simply self-identification.
All men should be counted as women because #transgender.
Corollary: all whites should be counted as black because #transracial.
If you're making changes that require more than one line to summarize, maybe you should commit more often?
Staying out of stream and delaying commits locally and pushes to origin is one of the massive anti-patterns of almost every VCS.
Well, in general, don't pull changes into unstaged changes on tracked files...that's definitely true.
As for merges, git gets 99% of them with the three way compare automatically - easy peasy. For those that kick out, manual merge, then git add again.
I *don't* understand the need for rebase here - "confused history for everyone else"? Looking at history in say, sourcetree for visualization, a merge clearly shows what the genesis of changes are, and where the merge happens.
A good GUI is required for ease of visualization (branching, merging, pretty diffs), but for actually getting work done, git rocks on the command line.
Typical workflow:
git pull
git add .
git commit -am "name: some message"
git push
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Anything more obscure, just look it up in the book: https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2
Favorite git GUI? sourcetreeapp.com
Again, you've mistaken correlation with causality.
When a bad guy has a gun in the vicinity, much less pointing a weapon at you, your risk is already increased. Drawing a weapon to defend yourself *mitigates* that risk, rather than causes it.
But here's the real trick you're not understanding - a criminal who has no intention to shoot anyone is not going to use a gun to threaten people who might be armed. It's safe for them to threaten unarmed people, and if you live in a state that curtails the rights of self defense, then they can rationally go out with their illegal weapons and do illegal things without much risk. Add in a small, but significant possibility that the person they draw on will in fact have a weapon do defend themselves puts them at a severe disadvantage.
For example, criminals don't go up to police officers and rob them at gunpoint - even if they have the drop on the officer, and the officer's weapon is still holstered, the risk factor there just isn't worth it. But I'll tell you, if we disarmed every cop, and demanded that they only patrol with billy clubs, criminals would clearly understand that to be a cop meant you were unarmed, and take advantage of that fact.
Of course, when presented with a direct threat of a firearm by a criminal, you've got to understand timing - if the hammer is back and the finger is on the trigger, you've got very little chance of beating them to the draw. But if you get the opportunity to get the drop on them, when they're distracted and focusing on something else, I wouldn't blame anyone for taking the shot.
Now, you may be the kind of person who can't properly tell when to attempt a draw, and when to just hold back and bide your time - in this case, please, don't ever get a firearm. But if you're willing to learn, and willing to train, then there's no reason why anyone should prevent you from practicing self defense.
So...you think that people who own firearms randomly draw them in public?
Let's educate you for a moment - four rules:
1) treat every firearm as if loaded
2) never point at anything you're not willing to destroy
3) keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
Your fanciful scenario is a violation of #2.
That being said, if a criminal signals their intent to kill someone by drawing a weapon, it is a *good* thing if an armed, law abiding citizen can draw her weapon, take careful aim, be aware of what is in front of and behind her target, and gently squeeze the trigger, placing her shot in center body mass.
Thank you. I hope you never have had to draw, and I hope you never will, but thank you for being ready to.
As someone who doesn't live in a free state, my personal options have been limited, but I'm hoping things change with Peruta.
Thank you again.
You've confused cause and effect.
It's not that you get a gun, and are therefore more likely to get shot.
It's that you are already at higher risk, and you get a gun to mitigate that risk.
Even if you don't choose to arm yourself, others who do act as a vaccination for you, making the calculus of criminals less likely to confront victims because of the chance they might be armed. If even just 5% of law abiding citizens carried concealed, the average criminal is going to make a very different decision when the impulse to beat, rape, or rob comes over them.
Bottom line - if you can't be safe with a gun, don't get a gun. But if you're willing to learn, regularly train, and behave responsibly, please, learn, get one, and continue to train. The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns, whether or not they're wearing badges or not.
Mod parent up - smart guns won't change the real problem of stupid gangbangers and clever criminals.
The problem is culture - culture that glorifies misogyny, violence, lack of education, and a victimhood agenda. We need inner city gangbangers to be ashamed that they can't speak proper english, or hold down humble minimum wage jobs, or have kids only when they're married.
It's Cosby time.
Revolvers with shrouded hammers have heavy trigger pulls to avoid negligent discharge.
That being said, you should only carry it in a holster that prevents accessing the trigger - *that* is your safety.
So, maybe we shouldn't sell revolvers without holsters - I'm good with that.
How about microstamping the four rules on every slide? :)
1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded
2. Don't point at anything you're not willing to destroy
3. Don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire
4. Be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
That's smart :)
http://tracking-point.com/
Helps you with distance, windage, and operator error. Make it easy for even a novice to take accurate, long shots.
Not something I'd put on a pistol, but if the administration wants to work on tools for improved accuracy, I'm all for it.
Test it with the military and LEO first, and if it works out, civilians will want to emulate it.
Please train our future workforce with someone else's money.
Yours truly,
Rich Silicon Valley Companies
...was for being too young.
Crawling my way up the corporate food chain, while outperforming people not only 10-20 years my senior, but with 10-20 years more "experience", was a long slog.
Now that I'm the guy with the 10-20 years more experience, I'm noticing that my peers who have been around for the same amount of time, with the same "years of experience" have not really gotten better over the years. Some plateau at around 2 years, in, others at 5 years, but very, very few continue to grow at any appreciable rate.
The big problem here is that there just isn't enough spread in the typical salary ranges to adequately compensate people based on their productivity. Typical rates run from 80k/year to 160k/year, so you can theoretically pay someone for doing twice as much work with twice as much pay, but very often, you've got a small cadre of folks who provide 10x or even 20x the productivity of their colleagues. None of them are making 800k, or 1.6m/year.
...purchasers of apple products should pay more tax.
I mean, if you run a business, and your costs go up, don't you have to start charging more? Or are they suggesting apple employees should be paid less?
Well, it could also be from nitrogen run off, or other local factors separate from temperature or a slight change in pH.
http://www.reefresilience.org/...
That all being said, coral bleaching isn't an unprecedented phenomenon, and in fact, corals regularly recover from such events:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
The key statement you've got here is "you don't know", and if you can hold that thought in your head, you'll do yourself a favor :)
Pure speculation - we've got a sparse dataset polluted by modeled data that is purely imaginary:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/p...
"The NCEP/ NCAR reanalysis data is not a purely observed data set. It is a mix of real observations with model simulations using the method of temporal and spatial assimilation in an atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM). Insofar as different data platforms have been used in construction of the reanalysis, long-term trends calculated from it may be non-physical."
We have programmed a model that hard codes generally drier poleward ends of Hadley cells - we don't have sufficient observational data to state that this has already happened, or will happen in the future, under any conditions.
Agreed - and we must admit that we have the same inability to predict the consequences of increased human CO2 emissions as we have the consequences of dramatically reducing human CO2 emissions. Uncertainty is not our friend, but it is our constant companion, and all of our choices, even the ones we prefer, are subject to its whims.
Name a single coral reef on the planet that doesn't have pH changes greater than .1 every day.
And that can happen with or without any global average temperature change.
Think about it for a moment - I give you ten six-sided dice - the average of which, is 3. This could be half of them 4s, and half of them 2s. Or it could be half of them 5s, and half of them 1s. Without changing the average, I could have specific distributions which vary wider than others.
So, I could go from half 5s, half 1s, with an average of three, and then move the average up to 4 with every die being a 4, and have *less* variation with a higher average.
Put another way, nothing about the average gives you any information about the distribution.
Think about that for one more moment.
Nothing about the average gives you any information about the distribution.
The mathematical exercise of generating an average *destroys* information. It literally wipes out usable information in turning thousands of numbers into a single representative number.
What matters for temperature isn't the global average, it is the specific distribution - and none of the climate models are any good at that yet.
As for "rain prefers to fall where it is cooler", I think you misunderstand precipitation - what you're looking for is warm, soggy air hitting cold air. What matters isn't "where it is cooler" but where the boundaries of hot and cold collide. Again, it is the specific *distribution* of heat which is important here, not the average temperature of one site to another.
The bottom line is this - the weather of the planet earth is well beyond our capacity to reliably predict much more than a few days at any given point in time, and it is *weather* that matters, not some artificial average derived over space and time.
Wow, that's a lot of apocalyptic thinking to wade through :)
Since warming increases water vapor, and increased water vapor means more precipitation, you've got to be making an argument that this more precipitation magically happens only over the ocean causing more droughts over land. I don't think there's any reasonable proposed mechanism for that kind of peculiar distribution.
As for coral, human run off impacts matter, CO2 levels don't. pH levels around corals vary *hugely* on a daily and even hourly basis, so imagining some nearly immeasurable average pH change as having any sort of real effect is again, mistaking "average" as being useful at all.
Blaming a major extinction event tens of thousands of the years in the future on coal plants today is like blaming hurricane strikes on florida on the gays - it's laughable.
Now, given that you're at least willing to consider costs, would you change your mind if it was shown that it is more expensive to try and fix a "maybe" now, rather than invest in adaptation for *any* change that comes, regardless of its origin?