Even if the games had no DRM other than Steam you would still end up buying from from Steam instead of going to crack sites and hoping you don't get infected with something. The costs are low enough on steam that the risks of trying to get the games illegally is just not worth it for many people.
How many of the games that you have bought on steam have you ever checked if they have DRM? About the only thing I started checking is that they don't have Denuvo because I have had problems with some games that use Denuvo causing stuttering problems.
If DRM went away I probably would not even notice at this point.
I had Bitdefender start flagging the software I was compiling with the intel compiler using aggressive optimizations. It took a bit to figure out what had gone on. I had compiled the software without errors but the binary and shared lib where missing. I thought originally it was my dev environment screwing up. When I figured out it was bitdefender and that others had reported the same problems I dumped it. If you mark the software I just wrote and compiled as malicious I don't need your faulty AV software. The software was just an HPC chemical simulator.
You can say almost anything you want and I don't have to agree with it. You are reading your own views into what I have written.
However, saying that all of Islam has a problem because of what a tiny minority of believes does is incorrect and unhelpful. There are christian religious extremists, buddhist religious extremists etc. We also have political extremists of many different viewpoints that use violence. Liberals are not bad because of the antifa groups and conservatives are not bad because of things like the KKK. Most of the killings of abortion doctors has been done by christian religious extremists and also remember that the KKK started as a religious organization with the intent to kill many racial groups such as black and jews.
Also note that President W. Bush very strictly drew a line between extremists that used islam and everyone else. The FBI has said that most of the intelligence we get about extremists islamic groups comes from other people that follow islam and don't like seeing it used as a weapon to kill people. Right now I see islam as working on the same kind of problems that christianity had during the crusades. The violence will go away in time with help from members and non-members but if you target the entire group for the actions of a small minority you will turn the entire group against you and make the problem worse.
It may make you feel better to target all of Islam but you are not helping the situation and instead all you are doing is spreading hate and making the situation worse.
I am in Germany right now and your statement is complete and utter bullshit. You can say almost anything you want in Germany. You can't do Nazi things for historical reasons but people do talk about it without any problems at all. People can and do criticize islam along with pretty much everything else. Of course if you criticize an entire religion you should not expect many people to agree with you or continue to provide a platform for your speech.
The problem is mostly a problem of surface area. When you use a blender you break up the fruit much more finely and so you also process it faster and get a larger sugar hit. Smoothies are better than not eating fruit at all but worse than just eating the fruit in terms of the sugar hit. Of course this only applies if the smoothie is made without adding sugar to it. If you blend it up yourself and don't add sweeteners a smoothie can be okay but not great.
I think you will find out that the scientists usually made no such claims in the first place. It is almost always the media making the claims and people that dress up as scientists (with no actual science degree) trying to sell fad diets that are the problem.
Most of the research that you read makes very few claims. What you will see is a paper where x% carbohydrates correlates to a death rate in y% under z circumstances and everything is a tradeoff. Many things you can eat don't really decrease your overall lifespan but instead change what you are likely to die from. This is not to say that diet does nothing. What you eat matters quite a lot but science is not at the stage for food that it can make really good recommendations. In general we know that highly processed foods correlated with worse health outcomes. We don't really know why this is. In general you want to eat fruits and vegetables (some cooked, some raw to extract different vitamins and minerals), meat and fats. You don't need processed carbohydrates but if you eat them try to keep it to a minimum.
Actually this is not quite true. The fructose from high fructose corn syrup does get processed in the liver but that is due to the concentration levels. The fructose from fruit is not normally processed that way. when you eat fruit it takes time for your body to break it down and get to the sugars in it. This causes the amount in your bloodstream to be lower at any given time and a different chemical pathway is used. When you have purified sugars your blood sugar level spikes to dangerous levels and while cells can rapidly pull glucose out of your blood they can't handle all the fructose and so your liver gets handed the job.
Also just to be pure 100% fruit juice is JUST AS BAD as soda in terms of the sugars. It makes the sugars extremely available to your body and causes your blood sugar levels to spike. It is far better to eat the fruit than to drink the fruit and this includes smoothies. In general you want to avoid drinking your calories.
Just based on experience products with very few reviews are sometimes fakes. The more reviews something has the less likely it is to be a fake product. At least with many reviews over time you see also see if the manufacturer has been fixing the problems and also what kinds of problems people have and can decide if those problems will matter to you.
I know many that use Chrome because it sync with their phone. They can be using a site on their desktop and save the password and go the site on their phone and the password is just there. Same with what sites you have visited recently. When you couple that with gmail the results are even more extreme. I recently went on a trip to the USA and my phone tracked all the flights, hotels etc including delays simply with the integration of android, gmail and chrome.
I don't see how firefox is going to beat that combination. Firefox needs to be better than chrome by enough to justify moving off chrome which is very hard to do.
If only you don't carry cash it doesn't change very much and if only you carry cash it also doesn't change very much. However, as a society, most of us don't carry cash anymore and this means that there is almost nothing of value to pickpocket, rob etc. So just like a vaccine if almost everyone does not carry cash then the attacks go down because of the odds of a pickpocket or mugging being successful drops too low compared to the risks.
I find it hard to even do a full 35-40 hours. When working on chemical simulation code you end up having to think about the chemical reactions, the math, the numerical stability and code performance. Trying to write or debug that stuff gets so mentally exhausting that often half a day is about as much as many people really manage and they do other easy things in the rest of the day.
The worst things are when you have to debug convergence problems. The system is running and producing the correct answer but too slowly. You can plot that the order of convergence is wrong. That means someone very subtle is wrong but not wrong enough to get the answer wrong just wrong enough to slow it down. Those can take weeks of very intense digging. When you fix them a simulation can go from hours to seconds but finding them is HARD.
Even if all externalities are taken into account I don't know if that is enough for whole system optimization. Would that increase our average education level to support a higher tech economy? It would probably fix the roads and other infrastructure at least. I just don't see it as the whole solution. Right now though we do very little of it.
I have only taken a few economics classes in college. What I see in real life though is politicians that have a certain view on the world and then they find/twist some kind of evidence to support their view point and then they do what they wanted to do and say that it makes sense no matter what the cost. It is very hard to get an actual sane discussion about almost any topic because it becomes politicized and turned into some kind of team sport. People choose sides instead of rationally looking at the issue and making a real discussion.
In engineering whole system optimization is extremely hard to do right and easy to screw up.
What is the example of a real life whole system optimized system? I can't think of any. Everything I have seen applied in economics has been doing with a a very strongly biased position. People would decide what the best system is and then impose that system without actual studying, measurement and feedback. Right now we have Democrats and Republicans both believing in their one true solution and the other side has nothing to offer in any way at all. In reality the optimal solution is not only not between them but each of them has useful ideas to contribute.
I don't think the answer is central planning. Most of the problems I see stem from externalities where a business can push off some of the costs of their doing business onto society. Classic examples would be pollution. If companies had to pay for the FULL cost of the pollution they created the costs of their products would rise. It would also mean that companies that do a better job would create a cheaper product. There are many other examples like walmart helping workers apply for welfare. That allows them to push off part of the cost of doing business to someone else that is paid for with tax dollars.
I don't know what a complete solution is and I doubt we could make all industries pay the full cost of all activities but at the very least we should know the full costs and for those we don't have the industries pay for it should be a very conscious choice. If we know how much they are costing us to clean up we also know how much to invest in cleaner technology and where the payoff is and is not worth it. If you factor in the full externalities for an electric car, hybrid car, gas car, diesel car etc which one really is cheaper? How much we are truly paying for these vehicles? Are our cars cheaper at the cost of higher healthcare? Does our food cost us more in health care than better food costs? Is it cheaper to clean up the pollution from coal power plants than to clean up chemicals from making solar panels?
This is actually a known and well understood problem in engineering disciplines. The optimum for an entire process is NOT the same as the optimum for each part of a process. Usually the two are not even related. That is why we have things like Whole Process Optimization. This was a basic part of my classes for chemical engineering and drilled home in quite a number of assignments and projects.
What I don't get is why is this a surprise to people in other fields or in economics. If you want a system to work efficiently you have to optimize for the entire system not just tiny parts of it. With society that is a very complex problem and requires a lot of analysis so you do have to simplify to some extent but the more variables you take into account and MEASURE the more likely the system is to work.
Right now I see companies doing what is best for them and then trying to justify that it means it is also best for the system. This is a losing proposition and without some kind of external correction the system will end up tearing itself apart.
None of the muslims I have met want anything to do with oppressing women. They see that part of their religion as obsolete. Christians do the same thing to a lot of the stuff in the bible. Many parts are just ignored and considered obsolete. We have had large muslim populations in the USA for a long time and they have not pushed for women to be oppressed.
Most christians I know go to church a few times per year and do almost none of the things that is part of their religion and the muslims I know are the same way.
I would have to read the bible again but I am pretty sure that it also oppresses women but we don't consider christianity to be a religion that oppresses women because it has mostly grown out of that.
The problem with the country is that we are heavily polarized physically. Most of those I have talked to are against the ban. The VAST majority of the muslims that want to visit or immigrate to the USA are not the extremist ones. The vetting process already takes over a year in most cases. What else would you want to add that could be scientifically shown to reduce the number we let through that are extreme?
People live near others that think like them. A lot of this is related to what businesses are in the area. Biotech for instance is concentrated in San Francisco and Boston. Those areas also attract a lot of other high tech businesses and the people that live there are pretty liberal since that is the kind of person attracted to cutting edge technology.
Liberals are conservatives don't see the same world. They don't see the same news, the same tv shows, the same movies, books etc. A rural person in the USA has more in common with a rural person from the UK than they do with an urban person and the same is true that someone from New York has more in common with London than a rural area in the USA.
The biggest issue I see is that only the cities should be involved in this decision. Muslim immigrants settle in the cities and not in the rural areas. Also if there is any kind of attack it will be in the cities are not in the rural areas. Since the consequences don't fall on the rural areas then let the cities decide. The rural areas are already heavily subsidized by the cities, why let them make decisions that only impact the cities also?
I like the idea of competition to build a better cell phone, computer, etc but for many things it seems competition doesn't really do anything to increase quality or lower prices since what needs to be done is extremely clear. Things like roads, water, and healthcare seem obvious to me on that one. I would probably put an internet connection on there also since the towns that have done their own internet have ended up with MUCH faster service at a fraction of the price without passing costs on to people that don't use the service.
A country wide single pension system also seems like an obvious case for this. There is not really any room to innovate on this without potential for some huge screwups. Since we don't want innovation just have a single societal wide system that is publically and transparently run.
If this brings the rules in line with private businesses than that is fine. Neither government nor private companies should be able to make empty promises for compensation. What I don't want to see is a government program essentially forced to fail by having it operate under rules that can't work.
I know people where their companies have raided the pension funds and then told the workers that they were effectively screwed. The workers could of course sue for the lost pension but will die before they could ever hope to collect. That is why I would like to see a single society wide pension and not have private companies involved at all.
If this is a good rule then it should be expanded society wide since otherwise it would mean that workers could lose pensions with private companies also.
There are enough private companies that offer benefits but don't fund them and declare bankruptcy if something bad happens. That should also be illegal.
However, what this says is maybe benefits should not be part of your job at all so that companies don't have to deal with this stuff and we can deal with it at a societal level where that is cheaper and more effective.
Where is a link to one of their videos calling for the death of someone? I don't watch their channel but every few months a single video from them will show up as recommended. While they are pretty strange I have not seen them call for someone to be killed.
Overall I hate this whole right vs left thing because I think ideas get classified as one or another and then discarded on that basis instead of sitting down and having a rational discussion. Sometimes the right is correct, something the left is correct, usually a combination is a vastly superior approach.
1) I do think we should be aware of who enters and leaves the country and do more to control the borders but I want all the methods based on actual science and using technology that can be shown to actually be effective. I don't want methods that are just designed to make people feel safe without actually making them safe.
2) H1B should go to the highest bidder. That would simplify the regulations, oversight and ensure that the most qualified people actually get the jobs.
3) We should carefully look at universal health care. Right now we have many federal and state healthcare programs and most can't negotiate for drug prices while healthcare is a large burden for starting a new company. A single payer health care system should be cheaper and have far fewer regulations involved while offering superior coverage. This would also make it easier for people to change jobs or take risks and startup a company. There is no real reason a drug that costs $1 in canada should cost $100+ in the USA and most of that seems to be lack of negotiation on drug prices.
I normally use an IDE when writing Python code. I like having things like a working debugger when I can just set breakpoints and inspect variables along with having things like command completion. I used to use PyCharm but a while back I switched to using Visual Studio and I have really liked that. I tend to use the Intel python distribution with Visual Studio for development under windows and once the software works I deploy it to Linux servers for the heavy lifting.
The C++ based simulator I work on also works on Windows and Linux without any problems and Intel Parallel Studio can profile a Python application and the stuff that it calls. This makes life much better when working on HPC software that is controlled by Python to find out where problems are.
I don't want to write a genetic algorithm with automatic switchover to various gradient descent methods based on local properties in any kind of shell script. The python version of that code takes up 1% of the runtime for me and serves as a command and control system for my c++ simulator. The same is true for plotting the results afterwards and evaluating the quality of the results.
Almost all the command and control I am talking about using python for is not something I would EVER consider doing in shell script.
I can easily see it supplanting Java in many situations. My experience is that usually python solutions end up faster and easier to work with than Java ones. Mostly because of the libraries. It is easy to make a cross platform python program that uses native gui libraries, image libraries, numerical libraries etc.
When I have looked at things like simple numerics in Java it gets killed by C++ and by Python since Python programs will normally rely on scipy which will in turn rely in BLAS and LAPACK. From everything I have seen so far calling BLAS from Java through the C runtime has higher overhead than doing the same from Python and the pure Java numeric runtimes are BAD.
It is just easier to end up with cross platform working code by coupling Python to low level libraries.
There are lots of good libraries for python that hand off the heavy lifting to c,c++ and fortran. Python works well for gluing these things together.
Python on its own though is quite slow and if you find yourself needing to chain together calls between low level libraries where each call is quite fast the cost of gluing them together can be extreme. However the parts of the code that are seriously CPU bound tend to be fairly small while all the rest of the stuff build no top takes up most of the time to write.
I would say for most software you could do a python wrapper around a C++ core and end up with more maintainable and faster code. In my case I use a python optimization framework around a c++ based simulator. Writing all the optimization code in C++ would be a pain in the neck and provide no real speedup since the current code is not speed bound in the python part anyways. I see the same things in cluster control software when the code that distributes my jobs to the nodes and then gathers the data back and then makes the decisions on the next set of jobs to run accounts for 1% of the total runtime.
I think this will result in better software overall with Python as the core language wrapping high speed libraries. In many cases those libraries already exist, where they don't exist you have to write them.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the games had no DRM other than Steam you would still end up buying from from Steam instead of going to crack sites and hoping you don't get infected with something. The costs are low enough on steam that the risks of trying to get the games illegally is just not worth it for many people.
How many of the games that you have bought on steam have you ever checked if they have DRM? About the only thing I started checking is that they don't have Denuvo because I have had problems with some games that use Denuvo causing stuttering problems.
If DRM went away I probably would not even notice at this point.
I had Bitdefender start flagging the software I was compiling with the intel compiler using aggressive optimizations. It took a bit to figure out what had gone on. I had compiled the software without errors but the binary and shared lib where missing. I thought originally it was my dev environment screwing up. When I figured out it was bitdefender and that others had reported the same problems I dumped it. If you mark the software I just wrote and compiled as malicious I don't need your faulty AV software. The software was just an HPC chemical simulator.
You can say almost anything you want and I don't have to agree with it. You are reading your own views into what I have written.
However, saying that all of Islam has a problem because of what a tiny minority of believes does is incorrect and unhelpful. There are christian religious extremists, buddhist religious extremists etc. We also have political extremists of many different viewpoints that use violence. Liberals are not bad because of the antifa groups and conservatives are not bad because of things like the KKK. Most of the killings of abortion doctors has been done by christian religious extremists and also remember that the KKK started as a religious organization with the intent to kill many racial groups such as black and jews.
Also note that President W. Bush very strictly drew a line between extremists that used islam and everyone else. The FBI has said that most of the intelligence we get about extremists islamic groups comes from other people that follow islam and don't like seeing it used as a weapon to kill people. Right now I see islam as working on the same kind of problems that christianity had during the crusades. The violence will go away in time with help from members and non-members but if you target the entire group for the actions of a small minority you will turn the entire group against you and make the problem worse.
It may make you feel better to target all of Islam but you are not helping the situation and instead all you are doing is spreading hate and making the situation worse.
I am in Germany right now and your statement is complete and utter bullshit. You can say almost anything you want in Germany. You can't do Nazi things for historical reasons but people do talk about it without any problems at all. People can and do criticize islam along with pretty much everything else. Of course if you criticize an entire religion you should not expect many people to agree with you or continue to provide a platform for your speech.
It looks like somehow my reply was eaten.
The problem is mostly a problem of surface area. When you use a blender you break up the fruit much more finely and so you also process it faster and get a larger sugar hit. Smoothies are better than not eating fruit at all but worse than just eating the fruit in terms of the sugar hit. Of course this only applies if the smoothie is made without adding sugar to it. If you blend it up yourself and don't add sweeteners a smoothie can be okay but not great.
I think you will find out that the scientists usually made no such claims in the first place. It is almost always the media making the claims and people that dress up as scientists (with no actual science degree) trying to sell fad diets that are the problem.
Most of the research that you read makes very few claims. What you will see is a paper where x% carbohydrates correlates to a death rate in y% under z circumstances and everything is a tradeoff. Many things you can eat don't really decrease your overall lifespan but instead change what you are likely to die from. This is not to say that diet does nothing. What you eat matters quite a lot but science is not at the stage for food that it can make really good recommendations. In general we know that highly processed foods correlated with worse health outcomes. We don't really know why this is. In general you want to eat fruits and vegetables (some cooked, some raw to extract different vitamins and minerals), meat and fats. You don't need processed carbohydrates but if you eat them try to keep it to a minimum.
Actually this is not quite true. The fructose from high fructose corn syrup does get processed in the liver but that is due to the concentration levels. The fructose from fruit is not normally processed that way. when you eat fruit it takes time for your body to break it down and get to the sugars in it. This causes the amount in your bloodstream to be lower at any given time and a different chemical pathway is used. When you have purified sugars your blood sugar level spikes to dangerous levels and while cells can rapidly pull glucose out of your blood they can't handle all the fructose and so your liver gets handed the job.
Also just to be pure 100% fruit juice is JUST AS BAD as soda in terms of the sugars. It makes the sugars extremely available to your body and causes your blood sugar levels to spike. It is far better to eat the fruit than to drink the fruit and this includes smoothies. In general you want to avoid drinking your calories.
Just based on experience products with very few reviews are sometimes fakes. The more reviews something has the less likely it is to be a fake product. At least with many reviews over time you see also see if the manufacturer has been fixing the problems and also what kinds of problems people have and can decide if those problems will matter to you.
I know many that use Chrome because it sync with their phone. They can be using a site on their desktop and save the password and go the site on their phone and the password is just there. Same with what sites you have visited recently. When you couple that with gmail the results are even more extreme. I recently went on a trip to the USA and my phone tracked all the flights, hotels etc including delays simply with the integration of android, gmail and chrome.
I don't see how firefox is going to beat that combination. Firefox needs to be better than chrome by enough to justify moving off chrome which is very hard to do.
If only you don't carry cash it doesn't change very much and if only you carry cash it also doesn't change very much. However, as a society, most of us don't carry cash anymore and this means that there is almost nothing of value to pickpocket, rob etc. So just like a vaccine if almost everyone does not carry cash then the attacks go down because of the odds of a pickpocket or mugging being successful drops too low compared to the risks.
I find it hard to even do a full 35-40 hours. When working on chemical simulation code you end up having to think about the chemical reactions, the math, the numerical stability and code performance. Trying to write or debug that stuff gets so mentally exhausting that often half a day is about as much as many people really manage and they do other easy things in the rest of the day.
The worst things are when you have to debug convergence problems. The system is running and producing the correct answer but too slowly. You can plot that the order of convergence is wrong. That means someone very subtle is wrong but not wrong enough to get the answer wrong just wrong enough to slow it down. Those can take weeks of very intense digging. When you fix them a simulation can go from hours to seconds but finding them is HARD.
Even if all externalities are taken into account I don't know if that is enough for whole system optimization. Would that increase our average education level to support a higher tech economy? It would probably fix the roads and other infrastructure at least. I just don't see it as the whole solution. Right now though we do very little of it.
I have only taken a few economics classes in college. What I see in real life though is politicians that have a certain view on the world and then they find/twist some kind of evidence to support their view point and then they do what they wanted to do and say that it makes sense no matter what the cost. It is very hard to get an actual sane discussion about almost any topic because it becomes politicized and turned into some kind of team sport. People choose sides instead of rationally looking at the issue and making a real discussion.
In engineering whole system optimization is extremely hard to do right and easy to screw up.
What is the example of a real life whole system optimized system? I can't think of any. Everything I have seen applied in economics has been doing with a a very strongly biased position. People would decide what the best system is and then impose that system without actual studying, measurement and feedback. Right now we have Democrats and Republicans both believing in their one true solution and the other side has nothing to offer in any way at all. In reality the optimal solution is not only not between them but each of them has useful ideas to contribute.
I don't think the answer is central planning. Most of the problems I see stem from externalities where a business can push off some of the costs of their doing business onto society. Classic examples would be pollution. If companies had to pay for the FULL cost of the pollution they created the costs of their products would rise. It would also mean that companies that do a better job would create a cheaper product. There are many other examples like walmart helping workers apply for welfare. That allows them to push off part of the cost of doing business to someone else that is paid for with tax dollars.
I don't know what a complete solution is and I doubt we could make all industries pay the full cost of all activities but at the very least we should know the full costs and for those we don't have the industries pay for it should be a very conscious choice. If we know how much they are costing us to clean up we also know how much to invest in cleaner technology and where the payoff is and is not worth it. If you factor in the full externalities for an electric car, hybrid car, gas car, diesel car etc which one really is cheaper? How much we are truly paying for these vehicles? Are our cars cheaper at the cost of higher healthcare? Does our food cost us more in health care than better food costs? Is it cheaper to clean up the pollution from coal power plants than to clean up chemicals from making solar panels?
This is actually a known and well understood problem in engineering disciplines. The optimum for an entire process is NOT the same as the optimum for each part of a process. Usually the two are not even related. That is why we have things like Whole Process Optimization. This was a basic part of my classes for chemical engineering and drilled home in quite a number of assignments and projects.
What I don't get is why is this a surprise to people in other fields or in economics. If you want a system to work efficiently you have to optimize for the entire system not just tiny parts of it. With society that is a very complex problem and requires a lot of analysis so you do have to simplify to some extent but the more variables you take into account and MEASURE the more likely the system is to work.
Right now I see companies doing what is best for them and then trying to justify that it means it is also best for the system. This is a losing proposition and without some kind of external correction the system will end up tearing itself apart.
None of the muslims I have met want anything to do with oppressing women. They see that part of their religion as obsolete. Christians do the same thing to a lot of the stuff in the bible. Many parts are just ignored and considered obsolete. We have had large muslim populations in the USA for a long time and they have not pushed for women to be oppressed.
Most christians I know go to church a few times per year and do almost none of the things that is part of their religion and the muslims I know are the same way.
I would have to read the bible again but I am pretty sure that it also oppresses women but we don't consider christianity to be a religion that oppresses women because it has mostly grown out of that.
The problem with the country is that we are heavily polarized physically. Most of those I have talked to are against the ban. The VAST majority of the muslims that want to visit or immigrate to the USA are not the extremist ones. The vetting process already takes over a year in most cases. What else would you want to add that could be scientifically shown to reduce the number we let through that are extreme?
People live near others that think like them. A lot of this is related to what businesses are in the area. Biotech for instance is concentrated in San Francisco and Boston. Those areas also attract a lot of other high tech businesses and the people that live there are pretty liberal since that is the kind of person attracted to cutting edge technology.
Liberals are conservatives don't see the same world. They don't see the same news, the same tv shows, the same movies, books etc. A rural person in the USA has more in common with a rural person from the UK than they do with an urban person and the same is true that someone from New York has more in common with London than a rural area in the USA.
The biggest issue I see is that only the cities should be involved in this decision. Muslim immigrants settle in the cities and not in the rural areas. Also if there is any kind of attack it will be in the cities are not in the rural areas. Since the consequences don't fall on the rural areas then let the cities decide. The rural areas are already heavily subsidized by the cities, why let them make decisions that only impact the cities also?
I like the idea of competition to build a better cell phone, computer, etc but for many things it seems competition doesn't really do anything to increase quality or lower prices since what needs to be done is extremely clear. Things like roads, water, and healthcare seem obvious to me on that one. I would probably put an internet connection on there also since the towns that have done their own internet have ended up with MUCH faster service at a fraction of the price without passing costs on to people that don't use the service.
A country wide single pension system also seems like an obvious case for this. There is not really any room to innovate on this without potential for some huge screwups. Since we don't want innovation just have a single societal wide system that is publically and transparently run.
If this brings the rules in line with private businesses than that is fine. Neither government nor private companies should be able to make empty promises for compensation. What I don't want to see is a government program essentially forced to fail by having it operate under rules that can't work.
I know people where their companies have raided the pension funds and then told the workers that they were effectively screwed. The workers could of course sue for the lost pension but will die before they could ever hope to collect. That is why I would like to see a single society wide pension and not have private companies involved at all.
If this is a good rule then it should be expanded society wide since otherwise it would mean that workers could lose pensions with private companies also.
There are enough private companies that offer benefits but don't fund them and declare bankruptcy if something bad happens. That should also be illegal.
However, what this says is maybe benefits should not be part of your job at all so that companies don't have to deal with this stuff and we can deal with it at a societal level where that is cheaper and more effective.
Where is a link to one of their videos calling for the death of someone? I don't watch their channel but every few months a single video from them will show up as recommended. While they are pretty strange I have not seen them call for someone to be killed.
Overall I hate this whole right vs left thing because I think ideas get classified as one or another and then discarded on that basis instead of sitting down and having a rational discussion. Sometimes the right is correct, something the left is correct, usually a combination is a vastly superior approach.
1) I do think we should be aware of who enters and leaves the country and do more to control the borders but I want all the methods based on actual science and using technology that can be shown to actually be effective. I don't want methods that are just designed to make people feel safe without actually making them safe.
2) H1B should go to the highest bidder. That would simplify the regulations, oversight and ensure that the most qualified people actually get the jobs.
3) We should carefully look at universal health care. Right now we have many federal and state healthcare programs and most can't negotiate for drug prices while healthcare is a large burden for starting a new company. A single payer health care system should be cheaper and have far fewer regulations involved while offering superior coverage. This would also make it easier for people to change jobs or take risks and startup a company. There is no real reason a drug that costs $1 in canada should cost $100+ in the USA and most of that seems to be lack of negotiation on drug prices.
I normally use an IDE when writing Python code. I like having things like a working debugger when I can just set breakpoints and inspect variables along with having things like command completion. I used to use PyCharm but a while back I switched to using Visual Studio and I have really liked that. I tend to use the Intel python distribution with Visual Studio for development under windows and once the software works I deploy it to Linux servers for the heavy lifting.
The C++ based simulator I work on also works on Windows and Linux without any problems and Intel Parallel Studio can profile a Python application and the stuff that it calls. This makes life much better when working on HPC software that is controlled by Python to find out where problems are.
I don't want to write a genetic algorithm with automatic switchover to various gradient descent methods based on local properties in any kind of shell script. The python version of that code takes up 1% of the runtime for me and serves as a command and control system for my c++ simulator. The same is true for plotting the results afterwards and evaluating the quality of the results.
Almost all the command and control I am talking about using python for is not something I would EVER consider doing in shell script.
I can easily see it supplanting Java in many situations. My experience is that usually python solutions end up faster and easier to work with than Java ones. Mostly because of the libraries. It is easy to make a cross platform python program that uses native gui libraries, image libraries, numerical libraries etc.
When I have looked at things like simple numerics in Java it gets killed by C++ and by Python since Python programs will normally rely on scipy which will in turn rely in BLAS and LAPACK. From everything I have seen so far calling BLAS from Java through the C runtime has higher overhead than doing the same from Python and the pure Java numeric runtimes are BAD.
It is just easier to end up with cross platform working code by coupling Python to low level libraries.
There are lots of good libraries for python that hand off the heavy lifting to c,c++ and fortran. Python works well for gluing these things together.
Python on its own though is quite slow and if you find yourself needing to chain together calls between low level libraries where each call is quite fast the cost of gluing them together can be extreme. However the parts of the code that are seriously CPU bound tend to be fairly small while all the rest of the stuff build no top takes up most of the time to write.
I would say for most software you could do a python wrapper around a C++ core and end up with more maintainable and faster code. In my case I use a python optimization framework around a c++ based simulator. Writing all the optimization code in C++ would be a pain in the neck and provide no real speedup since the current code is not speed bound in the python part anyways. I see the same things in cluster control software when the code that distributes my jobs to the nodes and then gathers the data back and then makes the decisions on the next set of jobs to run accounts for 1% of the total runtime.
I think this will result in better software overall with Python as the core language wrapping high speed libraries. In many cases those libraries already exist, where they don't exist you have to write them.