That's what C++ needs: More features! They had better introduce sidgils like in Perl so they can have room for more keywords.
Templates produce very bloated code. Most embedded programmers working in C++ use a very small subset of the language for a reason. But C++ has lots of other problems. It was nice when it saved you from having to hand-build vtables doing OOP in C. Now after the meta-programming fads have gotten into it the language seems all over the map.
1. Templates (and most other OOP features) are not necessarily meant for tackling problems in embedded programming, which is why people do embedded programming in C (or a stripped down version of C++). In fact, they just don't use C, but they use some formal strict subset of it (MISRA-C or something like that.)
2. Templates produce very bloated code... if you don't know how to use them or how you use them recklessly.
3. They (and other features) are meant to create richer application level functionality (with a well understood trade-off over lean and mean code.). Engineering is all about trade-offs (and knowing what the trade-offs are.)
If I had to guess why so many people want to live there I'd have to say it's because they've been told that "everyone wants to live there" - that it's the cool place to be.
I think it has to do with a larger employment pool. It is one of the reasons why I've always kept SF on the back of my mind. The cost and all the other negatives, OTH, have stopped me from moving my family there.
My family and I live a good life in South Florida. Not the cheapest of places, but not uber expensive like San Francisco. A good house with a decent patio, not bad traffic, etc. The problem is that there are not that many product-oriented employers in the area. It's mostly IT (disproportionately so compared to other regions). And that's a problem because 1) IT command lower salaries, and 2) it relies more on contract work than full time employment.
Product-oriented companies (or those that provide a computing service as a product), they tend to command better salaries and rely less on contractors. By the numbers, it would be easier to find a full-time job in SV than in South Florida. Oh fuck, most of my work in the last 20 years have been contracting, and not by choice.
Contracting is all good and dandy when you are single. Not so with a family and kids. So for the time being, I have this conundrum of whether to stick here, or move to SV (and learn to deal with all the other suck that comes with living in the area.)
Can you guess why Brexit happened? Here's a hint: Immigrants.
No, hate/fear of immigrants did. And not just immigrants from, say, the Middle East, but European migrants from Poland and the like.
The bulk of immigrants from Eastern Europe do not even compete with the regular native as they tend to be better educated and work at a higher level. There is no replacing them, but oooooo immigrants changing the national character and some shit like that.
Blaming Brexit on the immigrant is like blaming Emmett Till for his own lynching.
Code.org CTO Jeremy Stone gave the kids an impromptu lesson on the powers of two with his explanation of why The Cloud ate their homework. "The way we store student coding activity is in a table that until today had a 32-bit index... The database table could only store 4 billion rows of coding activity information [and] we didn't realize we were running up to the limit, and the table got full. We have now made a new student activity table that is storing progress by students. With the new table, we are switching to a 64-bit index which will hold up to 18 quintillion rows of information.
The of seeing a programming education site using 32-bit indexes without any form of index space monitoring is both hilarious and surreal.
Who the hell runs a cloud-based, massively accessible operation with 32-bit indexes? And who the hell runs a production system without database monitoring?
That's actually the real point. Transmitting electricity is horribly inefficient, compared to transporting portable fuel. The energy required to send a car 500 kilometers is approximately 50 litres of gasolene. Transporting 50 litres of gasolene to a fuel station by truck costs no more than the truck expense, and the truck's fuel expense, and the road wear and tear. And the larger the truck, the less it costs per litre.
But for the electricity, not only is there transmission loss, but there's also repeaters, lines, equipment along the way, the maintenance of that equipment, accessing that equipment, oh it's horrible. Maintaining infrastructure is a horrible horrible game when you're outside of a major city's orbit.
Think of a mountain range, with 10'000 miles of road. No cities at all. You can build wires, and repeaters, and blast mountains, and fix ice storms, or you can just drive the fuel to the stations.
Electricity is only useful within city limits -- like just about all infrastructure systems.
City limits (3.5% of the land area) hosts over 60% of the American population (the majority of which have commute times less than 2 hours.) The majority who drive cannot afford to travel the way you do that frequently anyways, so energy policy should be catering to them, not you.
But as soon as you get out of one of those urban center, you probably need to drive 2~4 hours to get to another urban center.
Hybrids are a solution. Plus, most people do not drive (regularly) outside of their urban centers, and purely electric motors would run supreme for public transportation within a urban center.
I'm all for electric vehicles, but the US has much lower population density. An electric vehicle only works as a primary vehicle if you rarely leave a major metro area. Unless they become cheap enough that it can be a second or even third household vehicle, it's simply not feasible for a lot of Americans.
80% of the US population lives in urban areas, with 3.5% of the land area hosting 62.7% of Americans. Yes, the country is one big vast subcontinent, but we seem to forget we have big-ass metropolises. Some of them rival in size to Japan's Kanto region.
Look at LA or NY metropolitan areas, or the North Eastern corridor. Or Dallas/Ft. Worth. Or look at South Florida (where I'm currently living), 6 million people in an urban area that spans three counties, 100km long by no more than 20km wide.
Electric cars could totally work in these areas where, as I said, host 60% of Americans.
Let's see - I have gigabit internet, satellite TV, 4G cell service, acres of land and a house that would cost you millions, and no traffic or crime in this rural American lifestyle as you call it.
I actually know my neighbors, the mayor of the town, the sheriff, and I participate in my community. My kids go to decent schools with normal people and not the psychotics that live in major cities. Despite the article above we have good health care and actually know our doctors who even make house calls. We grow a lot of our own food and have easy access to hunting. When the shit hits the fan you will be starving.
So no thanks. Keep your city lifestyle.
Well, I'm going to reply to your stupid generalization with a couple of facts: that Rural America, in particular in the Bible Belt, is drowning in a heroin epidemic and suffering from teen pregnancy at rates not seeing in urban areas. That towns in Rural America, despite the little bubbles here and there that make the life you describe possible, they are not economically viable and that nothing will prevent its depopulation.
Congratulations that you have a great life for you to enjoy, but get your head out of your ass if you think normal people predominantly live in rural areas with cities being nothing but havens for the psychotic.
This is the type of mentality by which people end up looking at rural folks as a bunch of encapsulated rubes. There is a richness of life both on rural and urban Americas, and it would serve you well to learn about them both.
Exactly. Government is bad. Any idea that involves government is bad. In cases where the government consistently does something better and cheaper than private industry (like health care in every other first world country), government is still bad because government is bad.
What's important is that you conclude that government is bad first, and then figure out how you'll reach that conclusion. Otherwise, you may actually come to a different conclusion in some cases, which would be wrong, because government is bad.
Funny, it was a Democrat admin in power when the Tuskeegee experiment happened.
And that was before the great Southern Democrat migration towards the GOP, courtesy of Nixon's Southern Strategy. No matter how much revisionist bullshit gets slapped to it, the political poles completely reversed with the civil rights act.
Not to mention that if they do anything with it other than bury it in a nice, dry, secure place then the carbon will be released anyway. Literally all they have done is delay the release of co2 for maybe a year tops - aka a complete waste of time.
That is a stupid way of thinking. Baking soda is created all the time and consumed by many industries, usually by means that release additional CO2. In this way, CO2 already in production is reused to generate baking soda.
Ergo, the amount of CO2 used in the production of baking soda (at least for that particular batch) has been significantly reduced.
Sure, it is not perfect, but it is certainly viable and useful. To call it a waste of time, that's an exercise in being spiteful.
So⦠You admit they are not doing it because they want to be green, but for some other purpose.
Because your false dichotomy makes motherfucking sense, and it is impossible in your b&w world that a company could be trying to go green even if while having to use what it has at its disposal.
I saw some Trump voters being interviewed on TV yesterday, and they were quite certain that Trump was not just going to repeal Obamacare, he was going to replace it with something cheaper and better. I'll be curious to see how he manages that.
Dude, there are people who think they'll be safe from the Obamacare repeal because they are covered by the ACA.
The stupid factor in the article is so high, that I feel like I wasted gravity just reading it.
The same goes with reading stressful or negative news, according to a study Gielan conducted with Arianna Huffington and her husband, happiness researcher and author Shawn Achor.
Society pays for a "happiness researcher"?
I was thinking the same. Bad news will be bad news regardless when one reads an e-mail or not. I rather get a grasp of whatever shit needs grasping early on instead of postponing it.
This lady is suggesting some sort of procrastination as a means to happiness.
or the balls to refuse to do work until you arrive at work.
My work cellphone is off until I arrive at the office and it is turned off the second I leave the parking lot.
they keep wanting my personal phone number and I refuse to give it to them, they can have the Voip number for home that always goes straight to voicemail.
Worked great for the past 5 years and is working great after my last promotion this past september with the new executives I report to.
People work differently according to their needs. It has nothing to do with balls.
For me, I typically wake up between 3:30AM and 4AM. First functional thing I to VPN to work, check my e-mail and my calendar, and set up a to-do list. Anything of urgency that I did not reply on the day before, I reply there. 30 minutes to an hour and I've already knocked the shit out of some things that need doing.
** BTW, I don't buy what this lady is saying, that bad news early in the morning can ruin my day. Or, actually, I do buy it, I do get it. But that comes with the job. Embrace the suck as the Marines say, get a grasp of whatever shit needs grasping from the get go and roll with it.
After that morning routine, I prepare my lunch, jog, whatever. By 6, I'm helping my wife prepare stuff for my kids, take a shower, and I'm off to work to be in the office before 8AM. By the time I set foot in the office, I have a clear picture and structure of what the day is going to be like.
I'm off by 5-5:20PM, get home, have dinner with kids, check my e-mail one last time, and I put them to bed before 9PM. I go to sleep with them, so I get 6 hours of sleep, sometimes 7 sometimes 5, depending on how early I want to wake up.
If I do not do that routine in the morning, if I wait until I get to the office to clear some shit, then that will mean I will leave the office later, and I will have less time with my kids to do what is needful (because there is no fucking way you can treat a software engineering job as a purely predictable 9-5 gig.)
Owning a home is one of the few ways for working americans without much education to accrue wealth over time.
When you don't have much money, a forced savings plan like a mortgage provides the possibility of a nest egg to draw on when one gets older, self-provided. This is increasingly important in a world where the GOP plans to cut Medicare and Social Security, both of which were created to help seniors avoid poverty; without it, working-class americans may not have enough assets to survive.
Note that in civilized countries (the northern european social democracies come to mind), this is not a concern. Taxation is higher but services are comprehensive and applied to all, and it helps avoid people falling through the cracks. The US has yet to learn that it's ultimately cheaper to tax and place everyone on a relatively acceptable base support level than it is to mop up after failed infrastructure, inadequate education, limp regulatory atmosphere towards business performing labor arbitrage, and consequent poverty.
Not anymore, not in these times of low social mobility. In many cases, a poor person is better off putting whatever he/she can in a CD and IRA accounts, even if only a few dollars here and there. The risk associated with buying a property, the up-front costs and maintenance costs that byte out of a person's cash flows are not something to be dismissed.
See, a poor person might get a chance to buy a property in a zip code where real estate values are sufficiently low. But unfortunately those areas are typically the ones with least job mobility. So that person is now anchored, by a house, in a place where it is harder to climb out of poverty (and where it is harder to sell a home should that person needs to leave the area.)
The other side of this conundrum is that said poor person has a better chance to climb out where there are more jobs (and where unfortunately real estate prices are out of reach.)
The one good thing about owning property is that you can use it as a collateral for a loan. But that only makes sense when that person already has some savings for a what-if scenario. So even if a person can take an equity loan, his poverty makes nearly impossible to capitalize on it.
It is hard for me to say to someone "don't buy a home". But I would say to that person "keep yours eye open".
The gaurdian has tons of credibility, especially after the Snowden revelations. They certainly have more credibility than an anon poster who thinks they are pro Islamic? Where you you people get this drivel from?
From led-tainted water and a lifetime of supersized freedom fries cooked on bald eagle oil.
The problem is that the debunking part doesn't work.
What you're doing doesn't work either. You've been really attacking and ridiculing these fringe right groups (and even groups not really far right, like GamerGate) for years AmiMojo, but look where has that gotten you? Brexit, Trump victory.
The thing with those fringe right wing groups are just that - they're fringe groups. They aren't why you lost. They alone don't make up the 46% of the popular vote. That 46% included moderates and actual liberals. They are normal people, and when normal people get lumped in with "deplorables" and summarily dismissed they gonna get pissed, no different than how people got turned off by Romney's "47%" comment. Actually, it's worse, since it's coming from the party that supposedly cares for nuance and knows that everybody is unique and how we shouldn't use labels like "SJW" on people. It's worse when it's coming from the party who claims to what to have an honest discussion about the real issues we have, but then proceed to dismiss any concerns or issues people have by lumping them with the "deplorables"
Don't believe me. From the NPR article that you think makes so much sense:
"Q: As a liberal, do you have any regrets?
A: I don't. Again, this is something that I've been crying about for a while. But outside of that, there are many factors as to why Trump won that don't involve fake news, right? As much as I like Hillary, she was a poor candidate. She brought in a lot of baggage."
The bulk of the left electorate knows that which you are highlighting. I honestly only know one person in real life who voted for Hillary enthusiastically. Everybody else (myself included) who voted for Hillary was on a mood best described as follows : "I guess I'm going to take a bite out of that shit sandwich because the alternative is to shove a bucket of live scorpions up my ass, and that sounds like the least appetizing option."
OTH, it seems pretty obvious people were enthusiastic about Trump, way before Hillary announced her candidacy. There is plenty of buyer's remorse now, though, and it is funny to see people bending themselves over backwards trying to justify their choices.
You don't know a thing about Russia, and so you also don't understand why Russians associate nationalism to fascism (WWII, to give you a hint, when 26 million Soviet people - russians, jews, ucrainians, lithuanians, kazachs, uzbecks, and others - died to defeat nazism; this is a tentative figure).
Newsflash: we actually know those numbers you speak off. We just don't see the logical connective between that and calling everything as fascist or nazi (because there really isn't one.)
Perhaps, given the USA isn't (yet) a war torn, second/third world country, those in San Francisco can hope for something better than people fleeing Aleppo. Or does that have the whiff of pinko communism about it?
Fallacy of extremes. The point is not to wait till shit hits the fan to move. The point was to demonstrate that sometimes you need to start from near zero, and that although difficult is not impossible.
I've known of people who left family behind with relatives to trek to work in ND, sharing dinky hole in the wall with other co-workers and saving as much as possible for months or years before bringing the family in (or pulling a "Mexican" and sending money back home.)
If your situation is that dire (as for those folks in the article), the worst you can do is to stay put. Shit won't change for the better just because you stay in the same place complaining about it.
What kind of retarded shit can't afford a $200K mortgage on $50K/year?
Who would try to own a $200K home on a $50K salary? Dude, learn some personal finances. Any bank analyst would tell you that you should cap your purchase to 2.5 your salary (unless you have ample savings to make a big down payment.)
I have I earn 50K a year and I can't buy a home. not when they start at $200k for a 900 sq ft condo plus hoa fees.
And that is a 30 year old home.
I suggest you look around. get out of rural america and watch how fast prices go up. if there were jobs there I could live out there but jobs are not located in rural america.
See, this is the thing. In America, we think that we must own property to live. This is not necessarily the norm, even in developed countries.
In particular, we hold onto the idea of owning a property because we think renting is a money pit. But as a homeowner, owning a home is an expense. Whatever it might accrue in appreciation, it gets sunk in repair and maintenance. Not to mention that it is really hard to turn a home into liquid assets for you have to have money for closing costs for a sale.
There have been real cases of people that cannot sell their homes (be them by bad times or bad financial planning) because they do not have the capital to kick off and complete the selling transaction.
Owning a property is a luxury (one that I'm engaging at the cost of my cash flow, and one that I doubt its wisdom regularly), not a requirement to live a good life.
If you can rent a place of your liking for you and/or your family, sure you won't own the place, and you might lose more money in 20-30 years. But it gives you flexibility without sacrificing your savings and cash flow up front.
Owning a home should be seen as one of the many options, not as "THE ONE AND OMFG ONLY" option.
In states that have sales tax. Which is not all of them.
The majority do. You are going to be hard pressed to find an example where an enormous % of the working poor truly do not pay any.
Not to mention that local, state and federal governments get their revenue not just from personal income taxes, but also from payroll taxes, corporate taxes, excise licenses, tariffs, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what C++ needs: More features! They had better introduce sidgils like in Perl so they can have room for more keywords.
Templates produce very bloated code. Most embedded programmers working in C++ use a very small subset of the language for a reason. But C++ has lots of other problems. It was nice when it saved you from having to hand-build vtables doing OOP in C. Now after the meta-programming fads have gotten into it the language seems all over the map.
1. Templates (and most other OOP features) are not necessarily meant for tackling problems in embedded programming, which is why people do embedded programming in C (or a stripped down version of C++). In fact, they just don't use C, but they use some formal strict subset of it (MISRA-C or something like that.)
2. Templates produce very bloated code... if you don't know how to use them or how you use them recklessly.
3. They (and other features) are meant to create richer application level functionality (with a well understood trade-off over lean and mean code.). Engineering is all about trade-offs (and knowing what the trade-offs are.)
If I had to guess why so many people want to live there I'd have to say it's because they've been told that "everyone wants to live there" - that it's the cool place to be.
I think it has to do with a larger employment pool. It is one of the reasons why I've always kept SF on the back of my mind. The cost and all the other negatives, OTH, have stopped me from moving my family there.
My family and I live a good life in South Florida. Not the cheapest of places, but not uber expensive like San Francisco. A good house with a decent patio, not bad traffic, etc. The problem is that there are not that many product-oriented employers in the area. It's mostly IT (disproportionately so compared to other regions). And that's a problem because 1) IT command lower salaries, and 2) it relies more on contract work than full time employment.
Product-oriented companies (or those that provide a computing service as a product), they tend to command better salaries and rely less on contractors. By the numbers, it would be easier to find a full-time job in SV than in South Florida. Oh fuck, most of my work in the last 20 years have been contracting, and not by choice.
Contracting is all good and dandy when you are single. Not so with a family and kids. So for the time being, I have this conundrum of whether to stick here, or move to SV (and learn to deal with all the other suck that comes with living in the area.)
Can you guess why Brexit happened? Here's a hint: Immigrants.
No, hate/fear of immigrants did. And not just immigrants from, say, the Middle East, but European migrants from Poland and the like.
The bulk of immigrants from Eastern Europe do not even compete with the regular native as they tend to be better educated and work at a higher level. There is no replacing them, but oooooo immigrants changing the national character and some shit like that.
Blaming Brexit on the immigrant is like blaming Emmett Till for his own lynching.
Code.org CTO Jeremy Stone gave the kids an impromptu lesson on the powers of two with his explanation of why The Cloud ate their homework. "The way we store student coding activity is in a table that until today had a 32-bit index... The database table could only store 4 billion rows of coding activity information [and] we didn't realize we were running up to the limit, and the table got full. We have now made a new student activity table that is storing progress by students. With the new table, we are switching to a 64-bit index which will hold up to 18 quintillion rows of information.
The of seeing a programming education site using 32-bit indexes without any form of index space monitoring is both hilarious and surreal.
Who the hell runs a cloud-based, massively accessible operation with 32-bit indexes? And who the hell runs a production system without database monitoring?
That's actually the real point. Transmitting electricity is horribly inefficient, compared to transporting portable fuel. The energy required to send a car 500 kilometers is approximately 50 litres of gasolene. Transporting 50 litres of gasolene to a fuel station by truck costs no more than the truck expense, and the truck's fuel expense, and the road wear and tear. And the larger the truck, the less it costs per litre.
But for the electricity, not only is there transmission loss, but there's also repeaters, lines, equipment along the way, the maintenance of that equipment, accessing that equipment, oh it's horrible. Maintaining infrastructure is a horrible horrible game when you're outside of a major city's orbit.
Think of a mountain range, with 10'000 miles of road. No cities at all. You can build wires, and repeaters, and blast mountains, and fix ice storms, or you can just drive the fuel to the stations.
Electricity is only useful within city limits -- like just about all infrastructure systems.
City limits (3.5% of the land area) hosts over 60% of the American population (the majority of which have commute times less than 2 hours.) The majority who drive cannot afford to travel the way you do that frequently anyways, so energy policy should be catering to them, not you.
But as soon as you get out of one of those urban center, you probably need to drive 2~4 hours to get to another urban center.
Hybrids are a solution. Plus, most people do not drive (regularly) outside of their urban centers, and purely electric motors would run supreme for public transportation within a urban center.
I'm all for electric vehicles, but the US has much lower population density. An electric vehicle only works as a primary vehicle if you rarely leave a major metro area. Unless they become cheap enough that it can be a second or even third household vehicle, it's simply not feasible for a lot of Americans.
80% of the US population lives in urban areas, with 3.5% of the land area hosting 62.7% of Americans. Yes, the country is one big vast subcontinent, but we seem to forget we have big-ass metropolises. Some of them rival in size to Japan's Kanto region.
Look at LA or NY metropolitan areas, or the North Eastern corridor. Or Dallas/Ft. Worth. Or look at South Florida (where I'm currently living), 6 million people in an urban area that spans three counties, 100km long by no more than 20km wide.
Electric cars could totally work in these areas where, as I said, host 60% of Americans.
Look, can't we just agree on that your country is severely fucked up?
This is the only post that makes sense.
Let's see - I have gigabit internet, satellite TV, 4G cell service, acres of land and a house that would cost you millions, and no traffic or crime in this rural American lifestyle as you call it.
I actually know my neighbors, the mayor of the town, the sheriff, and I participate in my community. My kids go to decent schools with normal people and not the psychotics that live in major cities. Despite the article above we have good health care and actually know our doctors who even make house calls. We grow a lot of our own food and have easy access to hunting. When the shit hits the fan you will be starving.
So no thanks. Keep your city lifestyle.
Well, I'm going to reply to your stupid generalization with a couple of facts: that Rural America, in particular in the Bible Belt, is drowning in a heroin epidemic and suffering from teen pregnancy at rates not seeing in urban areas. That towns in Rural America, despite the little bubbles here and there that make the life you describe possible, they are not economically viable and that nothing will prevent its depopulation.
Congratulations that you have a great life for you to enjoy, but get your head out of your ass if you think normal people predominantly live in rural areas with cities being nothing but havens for the psychotic.
This is the type of mentality by which people end up looking at rural folks as a bunch of encapsulated rubes. There is a richness of life both on rural and urban Americas, and it would serve you well to learn about them both.
Exactly. Government is bad. Any idea that involves government is bad. In cases where the government consistently does something better and cheaper than private industry (like health care in every other first world country), government is still bad because government is bad.
What's important is that you conclude that government is bad first, and then figure out how you'll reach that conclusion. Otherwise, you may actually come to a different conclusion in some cases, which would be wrong, because government is bad.
You are a God among men.
Funny, it was a Democrat admin in power when the Tuskeegee experiment happened.
And that was before the great Southern Democrat migration towards the GOP, courtesy of Nixon's Southern Strategy. No matter how much revisionist bullshit gets slapped to it, the political poles completely reversed with the civil rights act.
Not to mention that if they do anything with it other than bury it in a nice, dry, secure place then the carbon will be released anyway. Literally all they have done is delay the release of co2 for maybe a year tops - aka a complete waste of time.
That is a stupid way of thinking. Baking soda is created all the time and consumed by many industries, usually by means that release additional CO2. In this way, CO2 already in production is reused to generate baking soda.
Ergo, the amount of CO2 used in the production of baking soda (at least for that particular batch) has been significantly reduced.
Sure, it is not perfect, but it is certainly viable and useful. To call it a waste of time, that's an exercise in being spiteful.
So⦠You admit they are not doing it because they want to be green, but for some other purpose.
Because your false dichotomy makes motherfucking sense, and it is impossible in your b&w world that a company could be trying to go green even if while having to use what it has at its disposal.
Whatever it is that you are smoking, stop.
I saw some Trump voters being interviewed on TV yesterday, and they were quite certain that Trump was not just going to repeal Obamacare, he was going to replace it with something cheaper and better. I'll be curious to see how he manages that.
Dude, there are people who think they'll be safe from the Obamacare repeal because they are covered by the ACA.
Watch and weep:
https://twitter.com/HelenKennedy/status/818522209283178498/photo/1
The stupid factor in the article is so high, that I feel like I wasted gravity just reading it.
The same goes with reading stressful or negative news, according to a study Gielan conducted with Arianna Huffington and her husband, happiness researcher and author Shawn Achor.
Society pays for a "happiness researcher"?
I was thinking the same. Bad news will be bad news regardless when one reads an e-mail or not. I rather get a grasp of whatever shit needs grasping early on instead of postponing it.
This lady is suggesting some sort of procrastination as a means to happiness.
or the balls to refuse to do work until you arrive at work. My work cellphone is off until I arrive at the office and it is turned off the second I leave the parking lot. they keep wanting my personal phone number and I refuse to give it to them, they can have the Voip number for home that always goes straight to voicemail. Worked great for the past 5 years and is working great after my last promotion this past september with the new executives I report to.
People work differently according to their needs. It has nothing to do with balls.
For me, I typically wake up between 3:30AM and 4AM. First functional thing I to VPN to work, check my e-mail and my calendar, and set up a to-do list. Anything of urgency that I did not reply on the day before, I reply there. 30 minutes to an hour and I've already knocked the shit out of some things that need doing.
** BTW, I don't buy what this lady is saying, that bad news early in the morning can ruin my day. Or, actually, I do buy it, I do get it. But that comes with the job. Embrace the suck as the Marines say, get a grasp of whatever shit needs grasping from the get go and roll with it.
After that morning routine, I prepare my lunch, jog, whatever. By 6, I'm helping my wife prepare stuff for my kids, take a shower, and I'm off to work to be in the office before 8AM. By the time I set foot in the office, I have a clear picture and structure of what the day is going to be like.
I'm off by 5-5:20PM, get home, have dinner with kids, check my e-mail one last time, and I put them to bed before 9PM. I go to sleep with them, so I get 6 hours of sleep, sometimes 7 sometimes 5, depending on how early I want to wake up.
If I do not do that routine in the morning, if I wait until I get to the office to clear some shit, then that will mean I will leave the office later, and I will have less time with my kids to do what is needful (because there is no fucking way you can treat a software engineering job as a purely predictable 9-5 gig.)
Owning a home is one of the few ways for working americans without much education to accrue wealth over time.
When you don't have much money, a forced savings plan like a mortgage provides the possibility of a nest egg to draw on when one gets older, self-provided. This is increasingly important in a world where the GOP plans to cut Medicare and Social Security, both of which were created to help seniors avoid poverty; without it, working-class americans may not have enough assets to survive.
Note that in civilized countries (the northern european social democracies come to mind), this is not a concern. Taxation is higher but services are comprehensive and applied to all, and it helps avoid people falling through the cracks. The US has yet to learn that it's ultimately cheaper to tax and place everyone on a relatively acceptable base support level than it is to mop up after failed infrastructure, inadequate education, limp regulatory atmosphere towards business performing labor arbitrage, and consequent poverty.
Not anymore, not in these times of low social mobility. In many cases, a poor person is better off putting whatever he/she can in a CD and IRA accounts, even if only a few dollars here and there. The risk associated with buying a property, the up-front costs and maintenance costs that byte out of a person's cash flows are not something to be dismissed.
See, a poor person might get a chance to buy a property in a zip code where real estate values are sufficiently low. But unfortunately those areas are typically the ones with least job mobility. So that person is now anchored, by a house, in a place where it is harder to climb out of poverty (and where it is harder to sell a home should that person needs to leave the area.)
The other side of this conundrum is that said poor person has a better chance to climb out where there are more jobs (and where unfortunately real estate prices are out of reach.)
The one good thing about owning property is that you can use it as a collateral for a loan. But that only makes sense when that person already has some savings for a what-if scenario. So even if a person can take an equity loan, his poverty makes nearly impossible to capitalize on it.
It is hard for me to say to someone "don't buy a home". But I would say to that person "keep yours eye open".
The gaurdian has tons of credibility, especially after the Snowden revelations. They certainly have more credibility than an anon poster who thinks they are pro Islamic? Where you you people get this drivel from?
From led-tainted water and a lifetime of supersized freedom fries cooked on bald eagle oil.
The problem is that the debunking part doesn't work.
What you're doing doesn't work either. You've been really attacking and ridiculing these fringe right groups (and even groups not really far right, like GamerGate) for years AmiMojo, but look where has that gotten you? Brexit, Trump victory.
The thing with those fringe right wing groups are just that - they're fringe groups. They aren't why you lost. They alone don't make up the 46% of the popular vote. That 46% included moderates and actual liberals. They are normal people, and when normal people get lumped in with "deplorables" and summarily dismissed they gonna get pissed, no different than how people got turned off by Romney's "47%" comment. Actually, it's worse, since it's coming from the party that supposedly cares for nuance and knows that everybody is unique and how we shouldn't use labels like "SJW" on people. It's worse when it's coming from the party who claims to what to have an honest discussion about the real issues we have, but then proceed to dismiss any concerns or issues people have by lumping them with the "deplorables"
Don't believe me. From the NPR article that you think makes so much sense:
"Q: As a liberal, do you have any regrets?
A: I don't. Again, this is something that I've been crying about for a while. But outside of that, there are many factors as to why Trump won that don't involve fake news, right? As much as I like Hillary, she was a poor candidate. She brought in a lot of baggage."
The bulk of the left electorate knows that which you are highlighting. I honestly only know one person in real life who voted for Hillary enthusiastically. Everybody else (myself included) who voted for Hillary was on a mood best described as follows : "I guess I'm going to take a bite out of that shit sandwich because the alternative is to shove a bucket of live scorpions up my ass, and that sounds like the least appetizing option."
OTH, it seems pretty obvious people were enthusiastic about Trump, way before Hillary announced her candidacy. There is plenty of buyer's remorse now, though, and it is funny to see people bending themselves over backwards trying to justify their choices.
You don't know a thing about Russia, and so you also don't understand why Russians associate nationalism to fascism (WWII, to give you a hint, when 26 million Soviet people - russians, jews, ucrainians, lithuanians, kazachs, uzbecks, and others - died to defeat nazism; this is a tentative figure).
Newsflash: we actually know those numbers you speak off. We just don't see the logical connective between that and calling everything as fascist or nazi (because there really isn't one.)
Perhaps, given the USA isn't (yet) a war torn, second/third world country, those in San Francisco can hope for something better than people fleeing Aleppo. Or does that have the whiff of pinko communism about it?
Fallacy of extremes. The point is not to wait till shit hits the fan to move. The point was to demonstrate that sometimes you need to start from near zero, and that although difficult is not impossible.
I've known of people who left family behind with relatives to trek to work in ND, sharing dinky hole in the wall with other co-workers and saving as much as possible for months or years before bringing the family in (or pulling a "Mexican" and sending money back home.)
If your situation is that dire (as for those folks in the article), the worst you can do is to stay put. Shit won't change for the better just because you stay in the same place complaining about it.
What kind of retarded shit can't afford a $200K mortgage on $50K/year?
Who would try to own a $200K home on a $50K salary? Dude, learn some personal finances. Any bank analyst would tell you that you should cap your purchase to 2.5 your salary (unless you have ample savings to make a big down payment.)
I have I earn 50K a year and I can't buy a home. not when they start at $200k for a 900 sq ft condo plus hoa fees.
And that is a 30 year old home.
I suggest you look around. get out of rural america and watch how fast prices go up. if there were jobs there I could live out there but jobs are not located in rural america.
See, this is the thing. In America, we think that we must own property to live. This is not necessarily the norm, even in developed countries.
In particular, we hold onto the idea of owning a property because we think renting is a money pit. But as a homeowner, owning a home is an expense. Whatever it might accrue in appreciation, it gets sunk in repair and maintenance. Not to mention that it is really hard to turn a home into liquid assets for you have to have money for closing costs for a sale.
There have been real cases of people that cannot sell their homes (be them by bad times or bad financial planning) because they do not have the capital to kick off and complete the selling transaction.
Owning a property is a luxury (one that I'm engaging at the cost of my cash flow, and one that I doubt its wisdom regularly), not a requirement to live a good life.
If you can rent a place of your liking for you and/or your family, sure you won't own the place, and you might lose more money in 20-30 years. But it gives you flexibility without sacrificing your savings and cash flow up front.
Owning a home should be seen as one of the many options, not as "THE ONE AND OMFG ONLY" option.
In states that have sales tax. Which is not all of them.
The majority do. You are going to be hard pressed to find an example where an enormous % of the working poor truly do not pay any.
Not to mention that local, state and federal governments get their revenue not just from personal income taxes, but also from payroll taxes, corporate taxes, excise licenses, tariffs, etc.
In states that have sales tax. Which is not all of them.
The majority do. You are going to be hard pressed to find an example where an enormous % of the working poor truly do not pay any.