Because C++ is the only language that deprecates features. Java doesn't have a deprecated annotation, no. I've never used auto_ptr. shared_ptr was available with boost for a long time, and now the standard has shared_ptr and unique_ptr. You can pretty much do a find/replace auto_ptr with unique_ptr.
C++ is over engineered: for standard library authors. When you're not writing general purpose libraries, you don't use most of the over-engineered stuff and you would be fine. However when you want to write generic libraries that are highly performant, you'd be glad it makes it possible to express in a high level what low level semantics should be. I would rather over engineer than be forced to write boilerplate code because the library author has no facilities to express requirements through their API. In short, C++ gives you Qt. C gives you Gtk. Gtk is a greater clusterfuck of over-engineering made all the more worse by the fact that it cannot hide its complexity from its API clients.
Javascript syntax makes it easy to declare anonymous functions because it's a pass-by-reference language. You can write them easy, but they'll be very slow if you want to do anything complicated and/or in a loop. If you want performance, you need to pass by value (or have move semantics) but for most simple lambda cases you would want to use, the syntax is pretty easy and actually looks like declaring a function in the middle of a function.
If you can't get over a little syntax weirdness, you shouldn't be programming. If you don't like learning something new, you shouldn't be programming. If you don't want to consider performance (speed AND power consumption), you shouldn't be programming.
Have you ever written C code which uses a switch statement based on what type a struct/union is and calling the relevant code for it? Have you ever used qsort?
Architects. Pfft.*
Can modern architects stop inflicting ugly buildings on us, even if they didn't kill people? No one cares about your "theories". They look shit and often function shit.
* Whoops, blew down my apartment building.
So you still want to argue that Apple's stated desire to focus on addressing the balance is directly responsible for what happened to you? Okay. Go RIGHT AHEAD.
Go ahead and say it clearly now: A black female child deserves help more than an adult white male.
No, you miss the inherent need for prioritization in any allocation of limited resource. Putting someone ahead of others based on need is not discrimination. Otherwise, you may as well argue that nice values in POSIX operating systems are discrimination.
Further more, a CHILD deserves more help than an adult male of any colour. If you got beaten out by a child, THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO HAVE HAPPENED. Your attempt to use a loaded example clearly shows you are the one who has a discrimination agenda from the outset but are trying to disguise it as "rationality". If you think you should win out over a CHILD, then you have something seriously wrong with you.
When I am told specifically that if I were a female, a minority, or even a felon, they would be able to help me, yes. I interpret that as being targeted against me. How else should it be interpreted?
You STILL didn't address the very likely possibility that they have too many applications to process and so they focus on the most needy groups. The fact that NOW you reveal whatever organization you applied for helps FELONS over normal people shows that would be the case. . You STILL haven't actually considered if female/minority/felon haven't also been turned away. You seem to think every white male who applied have been rejected and every female/minority/felon applicant were accepted.
Oh really? You can just wave away my experiences like that?
I didn't wave away your experiences. I'm saying your experience is not representative and possibly also interpreted too narrowly. Your whole response continues to show vary blatant cognitive biases thinking it's all out to get you.
AND you still have absolutely no proof that Apple's focus affects you in any way. Apple decides to address things it sees as an issue, you don't even know HOW they'll address it, and you already condemn it. There's more than one way Apple can address that issue, but you continue refuse to contemplate what those could be.
When I was broke and homeless, I qualified for no help. If I were a female or a minority
And so you interpret that as policies being targeted against you? What about the very real possibility that there are a lot of applicants, and that maybe even some female or minority applicants were also disqualified?
That does not mean that discrimination in employment does not exist, it just means that I have not personally witnessed it.
Black people often don't get considered even for just an interview if they used their "black sounding" name on a CV and there's a "white sounding" name in the list. This happens. You don't witness because you're a white male.
Again, I have never applied at Apple but it sounds like I might be discriminated against there
So you have a hunch.
What I am seeing is the appearance of discrimination: against white men.
Maybe that's what you see, but doesn't mean that's what it is. From the account you gave above, it doesn't sound like you've seriously considered why things happened to you the way it did, and you jumped right to the conclusion it was discrimination against white men in general.
Please justify this scenario.
I can easily justify it: because it isn't happening. Apple saying they want to look into the problem of addressing the balance issue in no way has any effect that travels back in time and target white males such as yourself. Then you base what you think would be their approach based on a hunch. Your account only shows you have a very egocentric view of what happened to you and then jumping to a conclusion.
People like you still haven't actually proven you are being discriminated AGAINST by what Tim Cook is pushing for. You have still yet to point to any policy espoused by Tim Cook that says anything about reducing the number of white male workers either already working, or being hired. There are many ways to address the balance without discrimination. Looking out for more minority people for consideration does not negatively affect you. You'll still get hired and get educated.
The past IS the past. But things are STILL happening in the present. Stop pretending discrimination against minorities don't exist today.
An insult is not an ad hominem. I insult you because you made two stupid replies to my comments back to back and they rubbed me up the wrong way, so those insults have nothing to do with the worth of your argument. It's an observation, not an opinion.
Those that "get it" are not the top people unless they also invest the time for the learning part.
What does that even mean? Those who "get it" are by definition the "top people". How can anyone meaningfully be said to "get it" if they were not the top people? Maybe you're confusing "top people" with "top marks", which I never said. If you want to talk formal logical fallacies, yours is a strawman.
AND what's more ridiculous is you are STILL maintaining that the people who get it are the same in every class. Really? Are all the people who "get it" in maths class the exact same set of people who "get it" in a music class? Name me one world class musician of any instrument/composition style who is also "gets it" with advanced maths. And vice versa. That simple example alone disproves your badly argued assertion.
I'm beginning to see your experience is as an educator is as a bad one if you even refuse to see basic empirical facts.
Wow, that is very stupid even from you. You do know that the top physicists aren't necessarily the top mathematicians and the top mathematicians certainly aren't the top physicists, right? You were the one who brought up the "student" example. Clearly, you've never been to any sort of educational institution if you could say with no hint irony that the it's always the same group that gets it REGARDLESS OF SUBJECT. Or perhaps you define "subject" so narrow as to discount actual subjects taught in actual schools/universities.
But that same group of students will have a different set of better performing people in another subject. The point being is human intellect at the high end is very specialized. Artificial intelligence shouldn't be discounted purely because it is even more specialized than a human expert of a field.
So are we measuring intelligence by potential intelligence or actual intelligence now? Because if so, computers have a lot more potential to learn how to do ALL those things and much more efficiently than humans. And maybe learning how to write a symphony changes your brain in such a way as to not be able to play chess at a high level, as an example? I'm not saying it does, but the brain "software" is a bunch of physical neural connections, whereas software for a machine are bits and/or pulses which do not have the learning limitations of physical neural connections.
No, not by "my decision". You are completely terrible at examples. A better example is "artificial sweetener is not sugar", and it isn't. An artificial leg is an artificial leg and not a leg. Try again.
Reverse discrimination the same as any other discrimination.
And where exactly is this imaginary reverse discrimination about Tim Cook's statement? Did he say "we're no longer going to hire white males" as the main or only way he's going to try to balance things out? Your pre-emptive attempt to play the victim is precisely the response I was talking about.
Most of the ad hoc requirements that people define intelligence by isn't met by most of humanity. Most people haven't written a symphony. Most people can't go beyond basic algebra. Most people cannot play chess. The people who can do all of those things probably can be counted on two hands, if not just the one.
The "database and statistics engine" aren't separate things in Watson. It uses statistical reasoning on unstructured data to evaluate hypotheses. The statistical reasoning is also a part of that data.
I'd argue it is artificial intelligence. It's not intelligent. That's why we call it artificial. And its ability to change its own reasoning abilities with more data I'd argue is more intelligent than more than half the people on the planet.
signed by scientists who are making an "argument" from authority and by consensus.
A SCIENTIFIC consensus, which is not your average consensus. As a scientist, you should know the difference. A scientific consensus is not an argument from authority no morethan peer review is.
The letter starts, "As scientists..." and then makes an unsupported argument that their work was misused.
Their argument is supported, at least in their view, by the research. Why do they need to spell out everything?
By what criteria is that a correct response
By what criteria is that an incorrect response? They are responding to a BOOK, which by definition does not need to go through rigorous peer review. They don't have to waste their time writing a paper just to appease the likes of you because there are already papers out there.
What exactly does being offended do to advance science and human knowledge?
What does YOUR being offended by this advance science and human knowledge? I don't know what planet you're living on, but to point out that people are misusing your own research to make claims that the research itself doesn't support DOES advance science. Science is just as much about getting it right as it is about pointing out where others have it wrong.
The correct response, if you care enough, is to follow up by pointing out where their interpretation falls short. The incorrect response is to write some whiny letter crying about how seemingly racist conclusions were drawn from your publications and it deeply offends you.
Who the fuck are you to say which response is correct?
People have a right to be offended if their work is misused, even if that work is scientific. When people put their hard work into something, it is completely reasonable to be offended to have others come along and completely misrepresent your work without evidence.
The only hyper PC bullshit going on is the extremely PC response about PC going hyper. THAT is the new political correctness. It is now the politically correct thing to say PC has gone mad every time a "PC" issue comes up. It is to pre-emptively and emotively label the otherside as "SO PC" in order to cast FUD on them before their full arguments are heard.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a shame that". Not "shame on". It's a shame that they wasted a few questions asking something stupid instead of something interesting.
Good thing it's not called a const lightweight iterator.
B yar na Strov stroop
Because C++ is the only language that deprecates features. Java doesn't have a deprecated annotation, no. I've never used auto_ptr. shared_ptr was available with boost for a long time, and now the standard has shared_ptr and unique_ptr. You can pretty much do a find/replace auto_ptr with unique_ptr.
C++ is over engineered: for standard library authors. When you're not writing general purpose libraries, you don't use most of the over-engineered stuff and you would be fine. However when you want to write generic libraries that are highly performant, you'd be glad it makes it possible to express in a high level what low level semantics should be. I would rather over engineer than be forced to write boilerplate code because the library author has no facilities to express requirements through their API. In short, C++ gives you Qt. C gives you Gtk. Gtk is a greater clusterfuck of over-engineering made all the more worse by the fact that it cannot hide its complexity from its API clients.
Javascript syntax makes it easy to declare anonymous functions because it's a pass-by-reference language. You can write them easy, but they'll be very slow if you want to do anything complicated and/or in a loop. If you want performance, you need to pass by value (or have move semantics) but for most simple lambda cases you would want to use, the syntax is pretty easy and actually looks like declaring a function in the middle of a function.
If you can't get over a little syntax weirdness, you shouldn't be programming. If you don't like learning something new, you shouldn't be programming. If you don't want to consider performance (speed AND power consumption), you shouldn't be programming.
Shame a few of the questions are trying to guilt trip him into saying C++ was a mistake.
Have you ever written C code which uses a switch statement based on what type a struct/union is and calling the relevant code for it? Have you ever used qsort?
Architects. Pfft.* Can modern architects stop inflicting ugly buildings on us, even if they didn't kill people? No one cares about your "theories". They look shit and often function shit. * Whoops, blew down my apartment building.
Go ahead and say it clearly now: A black female child deserves help more than an adult white male.
No, you miss the inherent need for prioritization in any allocation of limited resource. Putting someone ahead of others based on need is not discrimination. Otherwise, you may as well argue that nice values in POSIX operating systems are discrimination.
Further more, a CHILD deserves more help than an adult male of any colour. If you got beaten out by a child, THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO HAVE HAPPENED. Your attempt to use a loaded example clearly shows you are the one who has a discrimination agenda from the outset but are trying to disguise it as "rationality". If you think you should win out over a CHILD, then you have something seriously wrong with you.
When I am told specifically that if I were a female, a minority, or even a felon, they would be able to help me, yes. I interpret that as being targeted against me. How else should it be interpreted?
You STILL didn't address the very likely possibility that they have too many applications to process and so they focus on the most needy groups. The fact that NOW you reveal whatever organization you applied for helps FELONS over normal people shows that would be the case. . You STILL haven't actually considered if female/minority/felon haven't also been turned away. You seem to think every white male who applied have been rejected and every female/minority/felon applicant were accepted.
Oh really? You can just wave away my experiences like that?
I didn't wave away your experiences. I'm saying your experience is not representative and possibly also interpreted too narrowly. Your whole response continues to show vary blatant cognitive biases thinking it's all out to get you.
AND you still have absolutely no proof that Apple's focus affects you in any way. Apple decides to address things it sees as an issue, you don't even know HOW they'll address it, and you already condemn it. There's more than one way Apple can address that issue, but you continue refuse to contemplate what those could be.
When I was broke and homeless, I qualified for no help. If I were a female or a minority
And so you interpret that as policies being targeted against you? What about the very real possibility that there are a lot of applicants, and that maybe even some female or minority applicants were also disqualified?
That does not mean that discrimination in employment does not exist, it just means that I have not personally witnessed it.
Black people often don't get considered even for just an interview if they used their "black sounding" name on a CV and there's a "white sounding" name in the list. This happens. You don't witness because you're a white male.
Again, I have never applied at Apple but it sounds like I might be discriminated against there
So you have a hunch.
What I am seeing is the appearance of discrimination: against white men.
Maybe that's what you see, but doesn't mean that's what it is. From the account you gave above, it doesn't sound like you've seriously considered why things happened to you the way it did, and you jumped right to the conclusion it was discrimination against white men in general.
Please justify this scenario.
I can easily justify it: because it isn't happening. Apple saying they want to look into the problem of addressing the balance issue in no way has any effect that travels back in time and target white males such as yourself. Then you base what you think would be their approach based on a hunch. Your account only shows you have a very egocentric view of what happened to you and then jumping to a conclusion.
People like you still haven't actually proven you are being discriminated AGAINST by what Tim Cook is pushing for. You have still yet to point to any policy espoused by Tim Cook that says anything about reducing the number of white male workers either already working, or being hired. There are many ways to address the balance without discrimination. Looking out for more minority people for consideration does not negatively affect you. You'll still get hired and get educated.
The past IS the past. But things are STILL happening in the present. Stop pretending discrimination against minorities don't exist today.
Those that "get it" are not the top people unless they also invest the time for the learning part.
What does that even mean? Those who "get it" are by definition the "top people". How can anyone meaningfully be said to "get it" if they were not the top people? Maybe you're confusing "top people" with "top marks", which I never said. If you want to talk formal logical fallacies, yours is a strawman.
AND what's more ridiculous is you are STILL maintaining that the people who get it are the same in every class. Really? Are all the people who "get it" in maths class the exact same set of people who "get it" in a music class? Name me one world class musician of any instrument/composition style who is also "gets it" with advanced maths. And vice versa. That simple example alone disproves your badly argued assertion.
I'm beginning to see your experience is as an educator is as a bad one if you even refuse to see basic empirical facts.
Wow, that is very stupid even from you. You do know that the top physicists aren't necessarily the top mathematicians and the top mathematicians certainly aren't the top physicists, right? You were the one who brought up the "student" example. Clearly, you've never been to any sort of educational institution if you could say with no hint irony that the it's always the same group that gets it REGARDLESS OF SUBJECT. Or perhaps you define "subject" so narrow as to discount actual subjects taught in actual schools/universities.
Thinking logically is now "mental masturbation" is it? My Slashdot has sunk to new depths.
But that same group of students will have a different set of better performing people in another subject. The point being is human intellect at the high end is very specialized. Artificial intelligence shouldn't be discounted purely because it is even more specialized than a human expert of a field.
So are we measuring intelligence by potential intelligence or actual intelligence now? Because if so, computers have a lot more potential to learn how to do ALL those things and much more efficiently than humans. And maybe learning how to write a symphony changes your brain in such a way as to not be able to play chess at a high level, as an example? I'm not saying it does, but the brain "software" is a bunch of physical neural connections, whereas software for a machine are bits and/or pulses which do not have the learning limitations of physical neural connections.
No, not by "my decision". You are completely terrible at examples. A better example is "artificial sweetener is not sugar", and it isn't. An artificial leg is an artificial leg and not a leg. Try again.
Reverse discrimination the same as any other discrimination.
And where exactly is this imaginary reverse discrimination about Tim Cook's statement? Did he say "we're no longer going to hire white males" as the main or only way he's going to try to balance things out? Your pre-emptive attempt to play the victim is precisely the response I was talking about.
How does this affect anyone here who is commenting negatively about this? Why are people taking it as a personal attack on their personal politics?
Most of the ad hoc requirements that people define intelligence by isn't met by most of humanity. Most people haven't written a symphony. Most people can't go beyond basic algebra. Most people cannot play chess. The people who can do all of those things probably can be counted on two hands, if not just the one.
The "database and statistics engine" aren't separate things in Watson. It uses statistical reasoning on unstructured data to evaluate hypotheses. The statistical reasoning is also a part of that data.
I'd argue it is artificial intelligence. It's not intelligent. That's why we call it artificial. And its ability to change its own reasoning abilities with more data I'd argue is more intelligent than more than half the people on the planet.
It was the writing style at the time. Strunk and White were not alive back then.
Without commenting on this particular situation
Then why bother responding at all? THIS particular situation is what matters right now.
signed by scientists who are making an "argument" from authority and by consensus.
A SCIENTIFIC consensus, which is not your average consensus. As a scientist, you should know the difference. A scientific consensus is not an argument from authority no morethan peer review is.
The letter starts, "As scientists..." and then makes an unsupported argument that their work was misused.
Their argument is supported, at least in their view, by the research. Why do they need to spell out everything?
By what criteria is that a correct response
By what criteria is that an incorrect response? They are responding to a BOOK, which by definition does not need to go through rigorous peer review. They don't have to waste their time writing a paper just to appease the likes of you because there are already papers out there.
What exactly does being offended do to advance science and human knowledge?
What does YOUR being offended by this advance science and human knowledge? I don't know what planet you're living on, but to point out that people are misusing your own research to make claims that the research itself doesn't support DOES advance science. Science is just as much about getting it right as it is about pointing out where others have it wrong.
The correct response, if you care enough, is to follow up by pointing out where their interpretation falls short. The incorrect response is to write some whiny letter crying about how seemingly racist conclusions were drawn from your publications and it deeply offends you.
Who the fuck are you to say which response is correct?
People have a right to be offended if their work is misused, even if that work is scientific. When people put their hard work into something, it is completely reasonable to be offended to have others come along and completely misrepresent your work without evidence.
The only hyper PC bullshit going on is the extremely PC response about PC going hyper. THAT is the new political correctness. It is now the politically correct thing to say PC has gone mad every time a "PC" issue comes up. It is to pre-emptively and emotively label the otherside as "SO PC" in order to cast FUD on them before their full arguments are heard.