Nobody wants more aerial distance. That just increases latency. What matters is the useful transit distance from the ground station. The balloons are 12 miles high vs. about 22,000 miles high for geosynchronous satellites. Balloons decrease latency by several orders of magnitude.
Well a bit more aerial distance wouldn't hurt. One ms at lightspeed = 186 miles so the plans Starlink has for 750 mile orbits is like 16 ms round trip instead of 500 to GEO and would be single-hop distances you'd need many balloons for that usually add about 4 ms/hop so in total I'm guessing as fast or faster. And being satellites they won't be affected by disasters on the ground. Of course at the moment it's just another over-optimistic Musk timeline but if we do get a LEO broadband network in place I think project Loon is dead.
I agree master-slave is problematic, but what are you going to use in place?
I think replacing master is stupid because you have things like "master data", "master recording" etc. where master is simply the authoritative source and that's the role of the master server too. It's slave that's anthropomorphic, derogatory and also kinda a term of art, I mean you could set up master-slave replication but you'd never say you enslaved a server. Master-servant would be a nudge better but still anthropomorphic. If we're changing the term I'd suggest master-puppet, it's pretty much exactly that - something pulling the strings on an inanimate object. It sounds kinda odd particularly since puppet master is already is a term but the newspeak would at least be logical.
Make any kind of exception you'd like as long as it goes on the grade transcript and isn't directly subject matter related. I mean if someone had damaged their vocal cords and literally couldn't speak, should you flunk their math grade? No. But I also wouldn't complain if the transcript said "Exemption: No oral presentations" and "Exemption: Oral exam conducted in writing". Giving people the impression you've done what people who normally take your class do when you actually haven't will lead to lots of bad outcomes.
If you earn in a month 6 times more than what professionals in other industries earn in a year, how about just quit after a few months? Learn some financial managment (ie, don't spend more than you have) and be set for life.
So.... you think he can work for two months, disappear for ten months and pick up where he left off? He took a weekend off and lost more subscribers than most people will ever have in total. For celebrities followers are their career, they accumulate them slowly and lose them quickly. And the money is always in the future, a million subscribers is not money in the bank it's the potential to make more money tomorrow. I can talk to my boss and take an unpaid day off with little problem, no work and no pay but I'll be back earning the same the day after. He takes a weekend off and on a $500k income then if 4% of his fan base permanently leaves that is $20k/year lost. And maybe you can say boo hoo you'll only have $480k/year, but I can understand how that seems like a helluva expensive break.
Maybe a useful comparison is an athlete, your body is your accumulated capital - you train and train to make it fit, if you say fuck it today I'll be a couch potato, eat junk food and go on a bender you're not just taking a day off - you're seriously damaging your chances to win any gold medals. It doesn't matter if you have a bad day and isn't very motivated right now, you have to remind yourself how hard you've worked to get here, the goal you're reaching for and kick yourself behind. Even if you're a very successful athlete and you make lots of money and whatever... god, I'd go nuts from the grind. And that's celebrities too, unless you want to commit career suicide you got to stay in the spotlight. You have to please the fans. Even on the days you'd like to just get away from everyone and everything.
End of century ought to see so much robotization that we will live like the ancient Romans, with slaves to do all the real work, and for us those slaves will be robots
Only if you read too many science magazines, which are typically more like science fantasy. I used to read those as a kid and now I can first hand track that towards reality in 1988, 1998, 2008 and 2018. Have we made a lot of progress? Yes. Are we on track for utopia in 2100? Hell no. Take for example medicine, is the general health better? Yes. But we are also finding a near bottomless hole of rare diseases, complex and extreme treatments, unique medication and so on. And we still get old and die, making it to 100 is still rare and exoskeletons don't make you young again. I don't remember when I first read the idea that you could upload a brain to a computer, but it seems more far fetched in 2018 than it did back then. That and cryogenics and nanobots and all the other things that'd soon make us immortal fizzled out.
And in a few years the free ride Moore's law gave us is over, which has been the basis for so many other advances. We can maybe get one last death gasp from EUV, but by 2025 it's pretty much game over for silicon-based physics. It's far from certain that computers in 2050 will have improved substantially past that. Of course they can get cheaper and better in other ways, like say air travel... but the Concorde died and we're still doing about 0.9 Mach and it seems likely that's where pretty much all commercial jets will stay. Of course so many people have announced the end of Moore's law and been proven wrong that it's become a belief that we'll always find a new twist to keep it going. There's no such thing as infinite growth though, sooner or later you will run into some constraint you can't work around.
Seriously, yay Noscript? Their one reason to exist is to block Javascript. Their "safest" mode is often used as a substitute for turning it off completely since Noscript has an easy GUI to allow some scripts to run, which means they basically compromised a simple on/off switch. It's the kind of total meltdown that makes me wonder if this is a NSA plant or if they're totally incompetent or were drunk during code reviews, if they have any. Sorry but this is a massive black mark that says that all the tin foil hatters who disabled it in about:config to make sure it was really, really off were absolutely right. Noscript CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.
I was "democratizing information" -- and thought I was doing social good.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." -- Winston Churchill
Democratizing information has exactly the same problem, give them the whole Internet to choose from and some will pick Alex Jones as their source of news. Compared to the old days when I could only access the local print and broadcast media I do have a vast access to alternative sources, for better and worse. Better because it's almost impossible to silence everybody, worse because the signal-to-noise ratio is terrible.
The entire product line is one chip design. They burn out fuses in the chips to disable features to make the lower end ones.
They do that now, but you're kinda beginning with the ending of the story. It used to be that the disabled functionality could often be easily restored because it was either programmable (firmware image) or reversible (reconnect severed connectors). A few hackers did it and sometimes got a free upgrade but it didn't bother anybody. However some shady dealers starting doing this on a large scale, selling cheap products as more expensive ones to unsuspecting customers causing lost profit and angry customers with unstable or broken systems. So they started to use fuses, once the functionality is disabled it's permanently and irreversibly gone. I guess the GP wanted the "good old days" of free upgrades back, but I don't think they will...
Nobody is trying to unvent things - that's impossible.
Many, many people wish to preserve the status quo even though technology has made it impossible. Take for example encryption, nobody had an unbreakable safe before - with enough effort any safe could be drilled open. That possibility is gone, so now the police want backdoors to restore the status quo. I'm not being stupid, you're being blind.
But damn you seem worried that Facebook is being accused of killing people. That's reductio ad absurdum - but engineers and makers of technology should be expected to have a social responsibility to try and limit the ways in which different societies may abuse their work.
No, most of the time this is insanity brought by people who want to "unvent" things. A knife doesn't know if you're stabbing someone. A camera doesn't know if you're producing kiddie porn. Instead of being simple tools technology is supposed to be your watcher, except the telescreens are smaller and you carry them in your pocket to ensure you're only doing "acceptable" things with them. If you accept that, you forego any right to complain about privacy, DRM, lack of digital ownership etc. you're basically renting your very existence subject to terms and conditions. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to China.
If you pay you have a little over four years of support left, today to January 2023. It's the time window you have left if you want to create and execute a migration plan. So the headline is not technically false...
Software developers are, by definition, more valuable than the money a company pays to employ them. This is also true of any employee. Unfortunately, the author of the article seems to not be aware of this basic economic trade-off. Someone that pays money for something values that thing more than then money they paid for it. This is probably the most fundamental principle of basic economic exchange.
It's true in a theoretical world. In the real world, it's not really your manager's money but the company's money. Many people are employed despite their sub-par performance because termination processes are nasty. Termination processes reduce headcount you may not get back. Termination processes may cause employees that actually perform above their pay grade to seek other work. Replacing a hire causes new recruitment costs for a replacement that may not be better than what you had. And even if they are, you've sunk a lot of training cost into the employee you have. If you don't know a mediocre employee that strictly speaking should have been fired but just isn't that horrible, you're not looking very hard or you're it. Honestly if you're terminated for a non-downsizing reason - and I'm including outsourcing in that - you've probably been a rather dreadful employee.
I'll admit up front I don't know exactly how DNS records works, but I think if you're copying the protocol into the domain name simply to get a one-to-one mapping it's not logically correct. If go to ftp://example.com I want example.com's ftp server. If I go to http://example.com/ I want example.com's web server. I should not have to go to ftp://ftp.google.com and http://www.example.com/ that would have to be because of technical design limitations. I believe you also get google.com's email servers, like you don't have to look up email.google.com for that so why can't you tell ftp and www apart? Of course if it's the same protocol but say intranet.example.com then it's okay.
Hey, nobody's arguing that Google didn't improve service where they actually deployed. In fact the "over the top" improvement in speed and service might be indicative of them creating a "model service" rather than the blueprint for a widescale rollout. And obviously they did some damage control where they did deploy or announced plans to deploy. But did they really light a fire under the entire market, or did they just "contain" Google and carry on making tons of money elsewhere? I mean the broadband market has not been standing still in any country, it's not like Google Fiber can claim credit for every improvement that's happened since. There will never be an exact answer to this, but this article smells a solid exaggeration.
Meh, my commute is fine by public transport. Can't really complain about any part of it but it has a really hard time competing against the convenience when I've already paid all most the costs for my car, the deprecation, insurance, parking, a lot of the maintenance etc. and really it's mostly just gas money that is the marginal cost to drive. But the alternatives - taxis, renting or car sharing - are all a bit expensive or tedious. I hope that Waymo will eventually manage to provide a hybrid service - you simply summon the car, you can drive it outside the geo-fenced area and when you return you can just get out at home and the car will return to base.
By picking a spot with no access, you are not fighting temptation, and i dare say withdrawal, the entire time.
You don't also have to justify the explicit decision to turn your cell phone off, it was just an implicit decision. If somebody was trying to reach you then "I was at my cabin, there's no coverage" that's kinda end of discussion. Doesn't matter if the server room was on fire, doesn't matter if your old man had a heart attack, doesn't matter if your kid was in a traffic accident. You weren't there but you had no way of being there, short of never ever going to your cabin. Hopefully that never happens but if it does then "I turned if off to get an Internet detox" is going to sound selfish, others may blame you and you might blame yourself for not being there.
That's the camel's nose in the tent, it's what makes it different from 25 years ago when I simply didn't have a cell phone. It was never an option, whenever I walked out the door away from the landline I was out of reach of my parents. And it all worked out quite okay for me and all my friends I would say, but you could of course imagine a situation where it didn't. Today parents would freak if they had to raise their kids 1980s style, almost every kid here has a cell phone because despite all the discussion on whether they should, what if the kid really needs to call home or 911? The extremes takes precedence over whether it's desirable on a normal day.
That's the hook, you have to stay connected although 99.9% of the time nothing really important happens. But you just have to take two seconds to check that it's not important, right? Even calls are not always important, like my parents don't write text messages so no matter if it's big or small they call. Maybe phones should have more than one call mode, like you have ordinary call and emergency call. And you could set emergency calls to have their own ring tone, ignore most normal silent settings and such. Then you could be reachable, but only if the caller really indicated it's urgent. And then slam telemarketers or anyone else trying to abuse it, like fake 911 calls level of punishment. Then "emergency only" could be a setting between what you have today and turning it off completely.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting [the duly elected President of the United States] more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
Is this one of those "we have to take away your freedom to protect it" kind of deals? Unless somebody would like to accuse Trump of election fraud he is the product of those democratic institutions. And I'm sure you can accuse him of a lot of things, but trying to dismantle democracy and install himself as supreme leader is not one of them. Raise your hand if you think Trump is not going to peacefully pass the presidency to the next duly elected president or try to dismantle Congress or the Supreme Court.
It basically comes down to "my boss is making stupid and wrong decisions". We've all been there. We've all wondered "god, who made this guy boss". And we've probably all not 100% followed up on every decision and instruction we've gotten from above. And when I do I can usually justify it by saying I'm the one down in the trenches, I know what we really need. But I am de facto replacing "popular rule" with "expert rule", I know what's really best for you. Maybe he's doing it for the country, but he's not doing it for democracy because you can't do that by undermining it.
It's like California's restaurant inspection grading system. Everyone's an "A" so it's tough to compare.
I think you misunderstand the purpose, the McDonald's and the Michelin star restaurant next door both have an A because the food is made under hygienic conditions. It's not a food critique, it just means it's safe to eat and because they're forced to very publicly display the result those who don't get an A quickly either improve or go out of business. What you see is the system working as intended. Same way Uber is not interested in a popularity contest or finding a winner, they just want to find the problem drivers/customers that fail to reach a minimum standard and ban them.
Not necessarily, as PS4 pro was released, and that's effectively the next gen console. (...) Or they might even call [the one after PS4 pro] PS5.
I think the main reason it was called the PS4 Pro was to assure all current PS4 owners that they weren't being left behind. As far as I know there's no PS4 Pro exclusive games and there probably never will be. Whenever they release the PS5 it'll be a new platform with games that may or may not be available for PS4. It'll be interesting to see when they do if you'll have PS5 games with PS4 Pro support or if they go all or nothing, you're either on PS4.x or you're not. I would think maybe the latter so people don't whine about buying the PS4 Slim instead of the Pro.
Maybe in the US... here in Norway I don't think so, there's too many farmers operating small units for historic and family reasons even though economically they'd do better with fewer and bigger. Agricultural subsidies also tend to favor the status quo because forcing people to abandon the family farm is unpopular politics so they mostly just wait it out and hope the next generation refuses to take over or quit when the old generation dies. Modern farms are not really "farms" anymore, they're more like biological factories. You stuff a feeding machine with bales of hay and a milking robot produces milk out, you don't dally around with one cow unless it's sick or giving birth the rest of the time you keep the machinery running. You can bet that what Waymo is doing to cars somebody's also busy doing to tractors. Pretty soon you won't even be going into the field unless the tractor breaks down...
IE 9 was the first non sucky IE browser and MS was forced to follow webstandards all thinks to Chrome's marketshare (...) All they know is Firefox was slow, and their worksites looked funny which is why it never took more than 15% marketshare.
What a load of bullshit history revisionism being modded up by moderators sucking Google's cock. Firefox peaked at well over 30%, people were leaving IE in droves taking it from 95%+ to the low 60s before Chrome even existed. Mozilla and Firefox did all the hard work of getting sites to work in something other than IE6 and the decline continued even though Microsoft much improved standards compliance in IE7 and IE8. Yes, Chrome was good but it came long after writing MS specific HTML/CSS was dead.
which is why Google left Gecko
That never happened, Google chose Webkit from the very beginning. Perhaps because they found it better in the first place, but it's not like they built something around Gecko and then abandoned it. Don't get me wrong, Chrome was a good product that took users from Firefox and sent IE from a decline into a free fall. But it was way too late to the party to get any credit for breaking IE's monopoly and forcing Microsoft into standards compliance. Except for all the money Google funneled into Mozilla in return for search results of course, but Chrome basically walked in open doors Firefox had already knocked down.
Those who think we can reduce total emissions are delusional.
1. The world population is growing 2. More people get access to electricity/cars 3. As they get richer, they use it more
That we're making cleaner power and cleaner cars is only reducing that impact a bit. There's a billion Indians wishing they were rich enough to run AC. It's more like do you want 2x or 3x today's emissions, not how big the reduction will be.
'The Economist' might not see evading capital controls as useful, but they are wrong. Not an investment vehicle, but for 'in and out' in a day, good enough.
And that adds some drag in the system, if a lot of people are looking to buy/sell BTC at any given time not to speculate but because they're doing a transaction "via" Bitcoin then speculators will have a market to sell to/buy from. Those passing through doesn't care if the current price is $100 or $1000 or $10000, they're buying and selling in the same market. Volatility is also not a big deal if you do it regularly, you win some you lose some but the net loss due to price fluctuation is probably not that far off from zero.
YMMV I still find it better then the old system and waterfall. My biggest problem you would get stuck in a 2-3 year death march when you know the project is going terrible due to the sunken cost fallacy. Now at least with agile the most you waste is 2 months.
Well I suppose that's how it could work if all projects were optional and we could simply halt them or if we weren't doing projects at all but more like continuous improvements. Unfortunately around here projects are given an overall scope, budget and delivery date. Unlike waterfall projects where we'd actually have an overall plan and milestones we instead do whatever the product owners feel like is important the next two weeks, even though it doesn't matter except for their project plan. So we're making some kind of progress and constantly breaking up the big task right in front of us to feed the development team but those "other" backlog items mostly lie around untouched.
So two months in nobody knows shit if we're on track for a delivery 2-3 years down the road. In a project I was in earlier somebody came in and said holy crap we need to get some coarse estimates on these backlog items and see if this is at all feasible. The estimate was that we had ~1000 developer hours left and ~8000 hours to do what's in the backlog. You can call that bad agile if you want, but my experience is the exact opposite of yours - agile lets you hide that you're nowhere near where you should have been until the very end. And we've spent tons of time dealing with issues we shouldn't bother try solving in 1.0 but did because the product owner got too near-sighted and lost track of the overall progress we needed to make.
As soon as you need reliability, security and performance, coding becomes anything but trivial. It also becomes something most people cannot master.
Most people also can't master math, it doesn't mean math classes are a bad idea. Most people are absolutely terrible at breaking down a problem into individual steps and explaining them to someone with no subject experience. See every business requirements specification ever written. It's going to be a terribly hard class because the computer can't coddle you, it doesn't know how. I think if you're looking at it as a software creation training class you're missing the biggest benefit, it's a logic/problem solving class. And while you can't make miracles training helps.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody wants more aerial distance. That just increases latency. What matters is the useful transit distance from the ground station. The balloons are 12 miles high vs. about 22,000 miles high for geosynchronous satellites. Balloons decrease latency by several orders of magnitude.
Well a bit more aerial distance wouldn't hurt. One ms at lightspeed = 186 miles so the plans Starlink has for 750 mile orbits is like 16 ms round trip instead of 500 to GEO and would be single-hop distances you'd need many balloons for that usually add about 4 ms/hop so in total I'm guessing as fast or faster. And being satellites they won't be affected by disasters on the ground. Of course at the moment it's just another over-optimistic Musk timeline but if we do get a LEO broadband network in place I think project Loon is dead.
I agree master-slave is problematic, but what are you going to use in place?
I think replacing master is stupid because you have things like "master data", "master recording" etc. where master is simply the authoritative source and that's the role of the master server too. It's slave that's anthropomorphic, derogatory and also kinda a term of art, I mean you could set up master-slave replication but you'd never say you enslaved a server. Master-servant would be a nudge better but still anthropomorphic. If we're changing the term I'd suggest master-puppet, it's pretty much exactly that - something pulling the strings on an inanimate object. It sounds kinda odd particularly since puppet master is already is a term but the newspeak would at least be logical.
Make any kind of exception you'd like as long as it goes on the grade transcript and isn't directly subject matter related. I mean if someone had damaged their vocal cords and literally couldn't speak, should you flunk their math grade? No. But I also wouldn't complain if the transcript said "Exemption: No oral presentations" and "Exemption: Oral exam conducted in writing". Giving people the impression you've done what people who normally take your class do when you actually haven't will lead to lots of bad outcomes.
If you earn in a month 6 times more than what professionals in other industries earn in a year, how about just quit after a few months? Learn some financial managment (ie, don't spend more than you have) and be set for life.
So.... you think he can work for two months, disappear for ten months and pick up where he left off? He took a weekend off and lost more subscribers than most people will ever have in total. For celebrities followers are their career, they accumulate them slowly and lose them quickly. And the money is always in the future, a million subscribers is not money in the bank it's the potential to make more money tomorrow. I can talk to my boss and take an unpaid day off with little problem, no work and no pay but I'll be back earning the same the day after. He takes a weekend off and on a $500k income then if 4% of his fan base permanently leaves that is $20k/year lost. And maybe you can say boo hoo you'll only have $480k/year, but I can understand how that seems like a helluva expensive break.
Maybe a useful comparison is an athlete, your body is your accumulated capital - you train and train to make it fit, if you say fuck it today I'll be a couch potato, eat junk food and go on a bender you're not just taking a day off - you're seriously damaging your chances to win any gold medals. It doesn't matter if you have a bad day and isn't very motivated right now, you have to remind yourself how hard you've worked to get here, the goal you're reaching for and kick yourself behind. Even if you're a very successful athlete and you make lots of money and whatever... god, I'd go nuts from the grind. And that's celebrities too, unless you want to commit career suicide you got to stay in the spotlight. You have to please the fans. Even on the days you'd like to just get away from everyone and everything.
End of century ought to see so much robotization that we will live like the ancient Romans, with slaves to do all the real work, and for us those slaves will be robots
Only if you read too many science magazines, which are typically more like science fantasy. I used to read those as a kid and now I can first hand track that towards reality in 1988, 1998, 2008 and 2018. Have we made a lot of progress? Yes. Are we on track for utopia in 2100? Hell no. Take for example medicine, is the general health better? Yes. But we are also finding a near bottomless hole of rare diseases, complex and extreme treatments, unique medication and so on. And we still get old and die, making it to 100 is still rare and exoskeletons don't make you young again. I don't remember when I first read the idea that you could upload a brain to a computer, but it seems more far fetched in 2018 than it did back then. That and cryogenics and nanobots and all the other things that'd soon make us immortal fizzled out.
And in a few years the free ride Moore's law gave us is over, which has been the basis for so many other advances. We can maybe get one last death gasp from EUV, but by 2025 it's pretty much game over for silicon-based physics. It's far from certain that computers in 2050 will have improved substantially past that. Of course they can get cheaper and better in other ways, like say air travel... but the Concorde died and we're still doing about 0.9 Mach and it seems likely that's where pretty much all commercial jets will stay. Of course so many people have announced the end of Moore's law and been proven wrong that it's become a belief that we'll always find a new twist to keep it going. There's no such thing as infinite growth though, sooner or later you will run into some constraint you can't work around.
Seriously, yay Noscript? Their one reason to exist is to block Javascript. Their "safest" mode is often used as a substitute for turning it off completely since Noscript has an easy GUI to allow some scripts to run, which means they basically compromised a simple on/off switch. It's the kind of total meltdown that makes me wonder if this is a NSA plant or if they're totally incompetent or were drunk during code reviews, if they have any. Sorry but this is a massive black mark that says that all the tin foil hatters who disabled it in about:config to make sure it was really, really off were absolutely right. Noscript CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.
I was "democratizing information" -- and thought I was doing social good.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." -- Winston Churchill
Democratizing information has exactly the same problem, give them the whole Internet to choose from and some will pick Alex Jones as their source of news. Compared to the old days when I could only access the local print and broadcast media I do have a vast access to alternative sources, for better and worse. Better because it's almost impossible to silence everybody, worse because the signal-to-noise ratio is terrible.
The entire product line is one chip design. They burn out fuses in the chips to disable features to make the lower end ones.
They do that now, but you're kinda beginning with the ending of the story. It used to be that the disabled functionality could often be easily restored because it was either programmable (firmware image) or reversible (reconnect severed connectors). A few hackers did it and sometimes got a free upgrade but it didn't bother anybody. However some shady dealers starting doing this on a large scale, selling cheap products as more expensive ones to unsuspecting customers causing lost profit and angry customers with unstable or broken systems. So they started to use fuses, once the functionality is disabled it's permanently and irreversibly gone. I guess the GP wanted the "good old days" of free upgrades back, but I don't think they will...
Nobody is trying to unvent things - that's impossible.
Many, many people wish to preserve the status quo even though technology has made it impossible. Take for example encryption, nobody had an unbreakable safe before - with enough effort any safe could be drilled open. That possibility is gone, so now the police want backdoors to restore the status quo. I'm not being stupid, you're being blind.
But damn you seem worried that Facebook is being accused of killing people. That's reductio ad absurdum - but engineers and makers of technology should be expected to have a social responsibility to try and limit the ways in which different societies may abuse their work.
No, most of the time this is insanity brought by people who want to "unvent" things. A knife doesn't know if you're stabbing someone. A camera doesn't know if you're producing kiddie porn. Instead of being simple tools technology is supposed to be your watcher, except the telescreens are smaller and you carry them in your pocket to ensure you're only doing "acceptable" things with them. If you accept that, you forego any right to complain about privacy, DRM, lack of digital ownership etc. you're basically renting your very existence subject to terms and conditions. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to China.
How is January 2020 to January 2023 four years?
If you pay you have a little over four years of support left, today to January 2023. It's the time window you have left if you want to create and execute a migration plan. So the headline is not technically false...
Software developers are, by definition, more valuable than the money a company pays to employ them. This is also true of any employee. Unfortunately, the author of the article seems to not be aware of this basic economic trade-off. Someone that pays money for something values that thing more than then money they paid for it. This is probably the most fundamental principle of basic economic exchange.
It's true in a theoretical world. In the real world, it's not really your manager's money but the company's money. Many people are employed despite their sub-par performance because termination processes are nasty. Termination processes reduce headcount you may not get back. Termination processes may cause employees that actually perform above their pay grade to seek other work. Replacing a hire causes new recruitment costs for a replacement that may not be better than what you had. And even if they are, you've sunk a lot of training cost into the employee you have. If you don't know a mediocre employee that strictly speaking should have been fired but just isn't that horrible, you're not looking very hard or you're it. Honestly if you're terminated for a non-downsizing reason - and I'm including outsourcing in that - you've probably been a rather dreadful employee.
I'll admit up front I don't know exactly how DNS records works, but I think if you're copying the protocol into the domain name simply to get a one-to-one mapping it's not logically correct. If go to ftp://example.com I want example.com's ftp server. If I go to http://example.com/ I want example.com's web server. I should not have to go to ftp://ftp.google.com and http://www.example.com/ that would have to be because of technical design limitations. I believe you also get google.com's email servers, like you don't have to look up email.google.com for that so why can't you tell ftp and www apart? Of course if it's the same protocol but say intranet.example.com then it's okay.
Hey, nobody's arguing that Google didn't improve service where they actually deployed. In fact the "over the top" improvement in speed and service might be indicative of them creating a "model service" rather than the blueprint for a widescale rollout. And obviously they did some damage control where they did deploy or announced plans to deploy. But did they really light a fire under the entire market, or did they just "contain" Google and carry on making tons of money elsewhere? I mean the broadband market has not been standing still in any country, it's not like Google Fiber can claim credit for every improvement that's happened since. There will never be an exact answer to this, but this article smells a solid exaggeration.
Meh, my commute is fine by public transport. Can't really complain about any part of it but it has a really hard time competing against the convenience when I've already paid all most the costs for my car, the deprecation, insurance, parking, a lot of the maintenance etc. and really it's mostly just gas money that is the marginal cost to drive. But the alternatives - taxis, renting or car sharing - are all a bit expensive or tedious. I hope that Waymo will eventually manage to provide a hybrid service - you simply summon the car, you can drive it outside the geo-fenced area and when you return you can just get out at home and the car will return to base.
By picking a spot with no access, you are not fighting temptation, and i dare say withdrawal, the entire time.
You don't also have to justify the explicit decision to turn your cell phone off, it was just an implicit decision. If somebody was trying to reach you then "I was at my cabin, there's no coverage" that's kinda end of discussion. Doesn't matter if the server room was on fire, doesn't matter if your old man had a heart attack, doesn't matter if your kid was in a traffic accident. You weren't there but you had no way of being there, short of never ever going to your cabin. Hopefully that never happens but if it does then "I turned if off to get an Internet detox" is going to sound selfish, others may blame you and you might blame yourself for not being there.
That's the camel's nose in the tent, it's what makes it different from 25 years ago when I simply didn't have a cell phone. It was never an option, whenever I walked out the door away from the landline I was out of reach of my parents. And it all worked out quite okay for me and all my friends I would say, but you could of course imagine a situation where it didn't. Today parents would freak if they had to raise their kids 1980s style, almost every kid here has a cell phone because despite all the discussion on whether they should, what if the kid really needs to call home or 911? The extremes takes precedence over whether it's desirable on a normal day.
That's the hook, you have to stay connected although 99.9% of the time nothing really important happens. But you just have to take two seconds to check that it's not important, right? Even calls are not always important, like my parents don't write text messages so no matter if it's big or small they call. Maybe phones should have more than one call mode, like you have ordinary call and emergency call. And you could set emergency calls to have their own ring tone, ignore most normal silent settings and such. Then you could be reachable, but only if the caller really indicated it's urgent. And then slam telemarketers or anyone else trying to abuse it, like fake 911 calls level of punishment. Then "emergency only" could be a setting between what you have today and turning it off completely.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting [the duly elected President of the United States] more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
Is this one of those "we have to take away your freedom to protect it" kind of deals? Unless somebody would like to accuse Trump of election fraud he is the product of those democratic institutions. And I'm sure you can accuse him of a lot of things, but trying to dismantle democracy and install himself as supreme leader is not one of them. Raise your hand if you think Trump is not going to peacefully pass the presidency to the next duly elected president or try to dismantle Congress or the Supreme Court.
It basically comes down to "my boss is making stupid and wrong decisions". We've all been there. We've all wondered "god, who made this guy boss". And we've probably all not 100% followed up on every decision and instruction we've gotten from above. And when I do I can usually justify it by saying I'm the one down in the trenches, I know what we really need. But I am de facto replacing "popular rule" with "expert rule", I know what's really best for you. Maybe he's doing it for the country, but he's not doing it for democracy because you can't do that by undermining it.
It's like California's restaurant inspection grading system. Everyone's an "A" so it's tough to compare.
I think you misunderstand the purpose, the McDonald's and the Michelin star restaurant next door both have an A because the food is made under hygienic conditions. It's not a food critique, it just means it's safe to eat and because they're forced to very publicly display the result those who don't get an A quickly either improve or go out of business. What you see is the system working as intended. Same way Uber is not interested in a popularity contest or finding a winner, they just want to find the problem drivers/customers that fail to reach a minimum standard and ban them.
Not necessarily, as PS4 pro was released, and that's effectively the next gen console. (...) Or they might even call [the one after PS4 pro] PS5.
I think the main reason it was called the PS4 Pro was to assure all current PS4 owners that they weren't being left behind. As far as I know there's no PS4 Pro exclusive games and there probably never will be. Whenever they release the PS5 it'll be a new platform with games that may or may not be available for PS4. It'll be interesting to see when they do if you'll have PS5 games with PS4 Pro support or if they go all or nothing, you're either on PS4.x or you're not. I would think maybe the latter so people don't whine about buying the PS4 Slim instead of the Pro.
Maybe in the US... here in Norway I don't think so, there's too many farmers operating small units for historic and family reasons even though economically they'd do better with fewer and bigger. Agricultural subsidies also tend to favor the status quo because forcing people to abandon the family farm is unpopular politics so they mostly just wait it out and hope the next generation refuses to take over or quit when the old generation dies. Modern farms are not really "farms" anymore, they're more like biological factories. You stuff a feeding machine with bales of hay and a milking robot produces milk out, you don't dally around with one cow unless it's sick or giving birth the rest of the time you keep the machinery running. You can bet that what Waymo is doing to cars somebody's also busy doing to tractors. Pretty soon you won't even be going into the field unless the tractor breaks down...
IE 9 was the first non sucky IE browser and MS was forced to follow webstandards all thinks to Chrome's marketshare (...) All they know is Firefox was slow, and their worksites looked funny which is why it never took more than 15% marketshare.
What a load of bullshit history revisionism being modded up by moderators sucking Google's cock. Firefox peaked at well over 30%, people were leaving IE in droves taking it from 95%+ to the low 60s before Chrome even existed. Mozilla and Firefox did all the hard work of getting sites to work in something other than IE6 and the decline continued even though Microsoft much improved standards compliance in IE7 and IE8. Yes, Chrome was good but it came long after writing MS specific HTML/CSS was dead.
which is why Google left Gecko
That never happened, Google chose Webkit from the very beginning. Perhaps because they found it better in the first place, but it's not like they built something around Gecko and then abandoned it. Don't get me wrong, Chrome was a good product that took users from Firefox and sent IE from a decline into a free fall. But it was way too late to the party to get any credit for breaking IE's monopoly and forcing Microsoft into standards compliance. Except for all the money Google funneled into Mozilla in return for search results of course, but Chrome basically walked in open doors Firefox had already knocked down.
Those who think we can reduce total emissions are delusional.
1. The world population is growing
2. More people get access to electricity/cars
3. As they get richer, they use it more
That we're making cleaner power and cleaner cars is only reducing that impact a bit. There's a billion Indians wishing they were rich enough to run AC. It's more like do you want 2x or 3x today's emissions, not how big the reduction will be.
'The Economist' might not see evading capital controls as useful, but they are wrong. Not an investment vehicle, but for 'in and out' in a day, good enough.
And that adds some drag in the system, if a lot of people are looking to buy/sell BTC at any given time not to speculate but because they're doing a transaction "via" Bitcoin then speculators will have a market to sell to/buy from. Those passing through doesn't care if the current price is $100 or $1000 or $10000, they're buying and selling in the same market. Volatility is also not a big deal if you do it regularly, you win some you lose some but the net loss due to price fluctuation is probably not that far off from zero.
YMMV I still find it better then the old system and waterfall. My biggest problem you would get stuck in a 2-3 year death march when you know the project is going terrible due to the sunken cost fallacy. Now at least with agile the most you waste is 2 months.
Well I suppose that's how it could work if all projects were optional and we could simply halt them or if we weren't doing projects at all but more like continuous improvements. Unfortunately around here projects are given an overall scope, budget and delivery date. Unlike waterfall projects where we'd actually have an overall plan and milestones we instead do whatever the product owners feel like is important the next two weeks, even though it doesn't matter except for their project plan. So we're making some kind of progress and constantly breaking up the big task right in front of us to feed the development team but those "other" backlog items mostly lie around untouched.
So two months in nobody knows shit if we're on track for a delivery 2-3 years down the road. In a project I was in earlier somebody came in and said holy crap we need to get some coarse estimates on these backlog items and see if this is at all feasible. The estimate was that we had ~1000 developer hours left and ~8000 hours to do what's in the backlog. You can call that bad agile if you want, but my experience is the exact opposite of yours - agile lets you hide that you're nowhere near where you should have been until the very end. And we've spent tons of time dealing with issues we shouldn't bother try solving in 1.0 but did because the product owner got too near-sighted and lost track of the overall progress we needed to make.
As soon as you need reliability, security and performance, coding becomes anything but trivial. It also becomes something most people cannot master.
Most people also can't master math, it doesn't mean math classes are a bad idea. Most people are absolutely terrible at breaking down a problem into individual steps and explaining them to someone with no subject experience. See every business requirements specification ever written. It's going to be a terribly hard class because the computer can't coddle you, it doesn't know how. I think if you're looking at it as a software creation training class you're missing the biggest benefit, it's a logic/problem solving class. And while you can't make miracles training helps.