Yeah managing one of the largest global real time platforms with ridiculous uptime requirements... why can't that be run by one rockstar devops guy with a beowolf cluster of servers at his disposal.
coding to the lowest common denominator than code "quality" (whatever that actually means). When there's complex and/or sophisticated code involved, even with in-line commentary, unless the reviewers are near, at or (preferably) above the skill/experience level of the coder...
Reminded of the various quotes along the lines of: "I write a long letter because I don't have time to write a short letter" "Anyone can write complex code, it takes a good coder to write simple code to complex problems"
Your job is to do what your company employed you to do. So your attitude could be correct, depending on your job. Are you paid to develop code that will never be maintained? (eg R&D where you work only on prototypes?) Or does your company pay you to develop code that can be maintained and improved for the entirety of the product life cycle?
If you are in the latter category and can't clearly explain your code to your co-workers, then you are not doing your job because your code is not maintainable in your absence. It needs to be understandable by at least the "next most experienced" person under you.
A good in line comment gives enough information for the more inexperienced programmers to join the dots (eg names of algorithms they can google to learn the approach, links to examples of the same approach, etc). You don't need to teach them, but you need to leave enough clues so people know what you are doing and can teach themselves if they don't.
If nothing else, the software needs updating, and those updates will almost certainly be fetched over the Internet.
For mission critical systems of vital infrastructure:
1. All changes (including every minor update) should be done manually, after a significant test period. 2. Changes should only be made as necessary (where it can be proven there is an existing vulnerability/flaw).
For powerstation control systems, if it ain't broke, dont fix it. They don't need to be running the latest OS. They don't need to be streaming social media updates. Get them off the damn internet.
But of course this is completely against the profit at all costs capitalism society we live in. And due to the lack of effective penalties that can be levied against corporations, we have no way of changing this.
If he is severely depressed, owning a gun makes suicide too easy. If you want to have a significant impact on "gun deaths", one of the largest % groups is suicide.
Will they still find another way? Possibly, but if you make it harder they are more likely to reconsider (especially if there is a long setup period for final method chosen or final method is not "clean").
The company will also be required to provide an easy way to cancel... lifetime memberships for $299.95.
Why would anyone cancel a lifetime membership in this, or anything for that matter? If they have perpetual access with no further obligation it would be stupid to cancel it (unless they think cancelling is some kind of moral stand).
If there was the political balls (or willingness to bite the hand that feeds them $$$)
Make corporations pay the GREATER of:
1. The tax due based on their "profits" (after shifting profits all over the world to avoid paying) 2. A flat tax of 0.001% of GROSS REVENUE generated in the country. Note: this is the sales amount, so can't even use cost of goods to manipulate the figure.
And the biggest opposition would be taxing revenue isn't fair, people might operate on thin margins and volume. I would counter there is no business that would go bankrupt by passing this % cost increase on to consumers, but at least then the tax is generated and stays in the country where the outflow occurred.
Yes one thousandth of one percent is a small amount but it is better than the $0 (or even tax credit) that some companies have now.
Anyone who is on the spectrum, anywhere on the spectrum, has true autism.
Many on the spectrum can be outstanding employees if they are given a little support. Aiming to bring the employee autistic population in to line with the general population's % is not that big an aim.
If a company stated they wanted to increase their physically disabled employee count, and they aimed to do this by putting ramps etc in, so that the disabled can function in that work environment, this would be a non story. In fact it is such a non story that it is law in most places.
So if this company aims to increase their count by saying "come work for us, we will invest $ in making a workplace accommodating to your particular needs" and that encourages suitably qualified candidates to apply, that is awesome. Even if you extend it out to having to give some people additional training, due to current lack of opportunities, then it is still awesome.
If the company accomplishes it by just hiring unqualified autistics, and then not supporting them... that is horrendous.
She just asked Silicon Valley to be a better, more practical ISIS to usurp the ISIS business model. She wants Silicon valley to deliver a better tool that more potential ISIS members will want to use to more effectively do what ISIS members do.
She just asked Silicon Valley to destroy America and its allies.
This is what happens when politicians and marketing people collide. But hey the sound bite registered well with Joe Sixpack.
USA = hare Rushed through to have some good early success (won race to moon). Stagnated.
USSR/Russia Some earlier small success (doesn't fit story) Always perceived as being behind (due to loss of race to moon) Now are the primary country for taking people into space = won the big picture race
Yes it is not exact, yes NASA has other successes, yes to a whole bunch of other holes in the argument, but the comparison doesn't need explanation.
"Aspie" is an abbreviation that originated as an internally friendly way of people with Asperger's Syndrome of self identifying as part of a group. It was supposed to be a way of these people to feel a sense of belonging in what can seem like a foreign world to them.
Although in this case it is being hijacked to be used as a pejorative because this group happens to be more detail focused (the same way people hijacked the words queer and gay from the LGBT community to use as insults).
New words are invented all the time. Language is an amorphous thing, created to convey meaning. Just because you don't understand/ haven't heard a term, does not invalidate it.
I mean "shizzle" is a recognised word thanks to one particular R&B celebrity. So get off your high horse.
And ShanghaiBill - stop being a dick and using words like that. Being an Aspie should not be seen as a negative thing, they have a hard enough time gaining acceptance without you using phrases like that.
I see this argument all the time... "cars spend 95% of the time parked and this won't happen if we all could just book self driving cars."
Well unfortunately commerce has to change massively before this happens. The reason there is a "peak hour" is because the majority of society needs to be on the road at the same time in the morning and in the evening. There are comparatively many fewer people on the road during 9-5.
With self driving cars, we still have to maintain enough cars to meet peak demand. Therefore there are going to be many cars that spend most of their time idle. It will be less than current levels but not by much (a good estimate will be it will reduce by the average number of cars parked during peak hours).
It would have an impact. Whether it is measurable will depend on how good your tools and methods are.
Can't think of a car analogy but... Taking a glass of water out of the ocean will have an impact on the amount of water in the ocean. Is the effect measurable? In theory yes, in practice no.
Yes, it has adds when we come to certain websites (like this one) that are responsible enough that we greenlight the adblock and do not tick the "you are eligible to ignore advertising", because we want to encourage responsible internet behaviour when we see it - ie no 3rd party hosting, content relavant, unobtrusive ads.
So, according to you, if the majority decides that slavery should be legal, we should just "have to accept that"?
Fortunately we live in a Constitutional democracy, that won't happen. The Constitution overrides the will of the majority, and the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
No you are only fortunate that the majority don't believe in slavery. In the same way that once upon a time the majority decided to elect representatives who wanted to abolish slavery, and did so through changing the constitution, the majority in the future could always elect some nutjobs who could then propose an amendment to nullify the 13th and make slavery legal.
So in summary... Yes you do have to just accept what the majority decides will be the law. That is how democracy (and all flavours of) work.
People will always cut corners whenever given the option.
The reason it became "safety at any cost" is because if the more reasonable "safe when convenient to do so" becomes safe only when it doesn't impact profit by a single cent.
Yes it is a PITA, (I deal with it every day), but while the alternatives could improve 1% of cases, it would be abused to reduce quality on the other 99%.
So net positive, even when it creates some glaringly stupid situations.
company uses extremely dominant market power and subversive behaviour to gain favourable business terms. Seems like the very definition of anti-competitive (note: anti-competitive does not have to be illegal)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah managing one of the largest global real time platforms with ridiculous uptime requirements... why can't that be run by one rockstar devops guy with a beowolf cluster of servers at his disposal.
coding to the lowest common denominator than code "quality" (whatever that actually means). When there's complex and/or sophisticated code involved, even with in-line commentary, unless the reviewers are near, at or (preferably) above the skill/experience level of the coder...
Reminded of the various quotes along the lines of: "I write a long letter because I don't have time to write a short letter"
"Anyone can write complex code, it takes a good coder to write simple code to complex problems"
Your job is to do what your company employed you to do. So your attitude could be correct, depending on your job.
Are you paid to develop code that will never be maintained? (eg R&D where you work only on prototypes?)
Or does your company pay you to develop code that can be maintained and improved for the entirety of the product life cycle?
If you are in the latter category and can't clearly explain your code to your co-workers, then you are not doing your job because your code is not maintainable in your absence. It needs to be understandable by at least the "next most experienced" person under you.
A good in line comment gives enough information for the more inexperienced programmers to join the dots (eg names of algorithms they can google to learn the approach, links to examples of the same approach, etc). You don't need to teach them, but you need to leave enough clues so people know what you are doing and can teach themselves if they don't.
If nothing else, the software needs updating, and those updates will almost certainly be fetched over the Internet.
For mission critical systems of vital infrastructure:
1. All changes (including every minor update) should be done manually, after a significant test period.
2. Changes should only be made as necessary (where it can be proven there is an existing vulnerability/flaw).
For powerstation control systems, if it ain't broke, dont fix it. They don't need to be running the latest OS. They don't need to be streaming social media updates. Get them off the damn internet.
But of course this is completely against the profit at all costs capitalism society we live in. And due to the lack of effective penalties that can be levied against corporations, we have no way of changing this.
citation?
Because most things I read say the exact opposite:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
If you want to decrease "gun deaths" - Yes.
If he is severely depressed, owning a gun makes suicide too easy. If you want to have a significant impact on "gun deaths", one of the largest % groups is suicide.
Will they still find another way? Possibly, but if you make it harder they are more likely to reconsider (especially if there is a long setup period for final method chosen or final method is not "clean").
The company will also be required to provide an easy way to cancel... lifetime memberships for $299.95.
Why would anyone cancel a lifetime membership in this, or anything for that matter?
If they have perpetual access with no further obligation it would be stupid to cancel it (unless they think cancelling is some kind of moral stand).
..., it's simply "with a computer" which like with patents, doesn't make it novel.
The USPTO routinely seems to disagree with you based on the patents it awards.
Anyhow, that's my slant on things.
RACIST!!!
If there was the political balls (or willingness to bite the hand that feeds them $$$)
Make corporations pay the GREATER of:
1. The tax due based on their "profits" (after shifting profits all over the world to avoid paying)
2. A flat tax of 0.001% of GROSS REVENUE generated in the country. Note: this is the sales amount, so can't even use cost of goods to manipulate the figure.
And the biggest opposition would be taxing revenue isn't fair, people might operate on thin margins and volume. I would counter there is no business that would go bankrupt by passing this % cost increase on to consumers, but at least then the tax is generated and stays in the country where the outflow occurred.
Yes one thousandth of one percent is a small amount but it is better than the $0 (or even tax credit) that some companies have now.
Nice "no true scotsman" argument.
Anyone who is on the spectrum, anywhere on the spectrum, has true autism.
Many on the spectrum can be outstanding employees if they are given a little support. Aiming to bring the employee autistic population in to line with the general population's % is not that big an aim.
If a company stated they wanted to increase their physically disabled employee count, and they aimed to do this by putting ramps etc in, so that the disabled can function in that work environment, this would be a non story. In fact it is such a non story that it is law in most places.
So if this company aims to increase their count by saying "come work for us, we will invest $ in making a workplace accommodating to your particular needs" and that encourages suitably qualified candidates to apply, that is awesome. Even if you extend it out to having to give some people additional training, due to current lack of opportunities, then it is still awesome.
If the company accomplishes it by just hiring unqualified autistics, and then not supporting them... that is horrendous.
which in turn endanger the epileptics (very slightly).
Sometimes no changes will be made to help.
because the republicans continue to allow rich folks to skirt the tax laws.
I think you have a typo there. It should read because the "politicians" continue to allow "their donors" to skirt the tax laws.
Strange keyboard layout that would permit that typo...
She just asked Silicon Valley to be a better, more practical ISIS to usurp the ISIS business model. She wants Silicon valley to deliver a better tool that more potential ISIS members will want to use to more effectively do what ISIS members do.
She just asked Silicon Valley to destroy America and its allies.
This is what happens when politicians and marketing people collide. But hey the sound bite registered well with Joe Sixpack.
We also wouldn't have had nearly as many wars.
A motivator motivates to do both good and bad. And pride has probably motivated more bad than good in the history of human kind.
no explanation because it seems obvious...
USA = hare
Rushed through to have some good early success (won race to moon).
Stagnated.
USSR/Russia
Some earlier small success (doesn't fit story)
Always perceived as being behind (due to loss of race to moon)
Now are the primary country for taking people into space = won the big picture race
Yes it is not exact, yes NASA has other successes, yes to a whole bunch of other holes in the argument, but the comparison doesn't need explanation.
"Aspie" is an abbreviation that originated as an internally friendly way of people with Asperger's Syndrome of self identifying as part of a group. It was supposed to be a way of these people to feel a sense of belonging in what can seem like a foreign world to them.
Although in this case it is being hijacked to be used as a pejorative because this group happens to be more detail focused (the same way people hijacked the words queer and gay from the LGBT community to use as insults).
New words are invented all the time. Language is an amorphous thing, created to convey meaning. Just because you don't understand/ haven't heard a term, does not invalidate it.
I mean "shizzle" is a recognised word thanks to one particular R&B celebrity. So get off your high horse.
And ShanghaiBill - stop being a dick and using words like that. Being an Aspie should not be seen as a negative thing, they have a hard enough time gaining acceptance without you using phrases like that.
I see this argument all the time... "cars spend 95% of the time parked and this won't happen if we all could just book self driving cars."
Well unfortunately commerce has to change massively before this happens. The reason there is a "peak hour" is because the majority of society needs to be on the road at the same time in the morning and in the evening. There are comparatively many fewer people on the road during 9-5.
With self driving cars, we still have to maintain enough cars to meet peak demand. Therefore there are going to be many cars that spend most of their time idle. It will be less than current levels but not by much (a good estimate will be it will reduce by the average number of cars parked during peak hours).
It would have an impact. Whether it is measurable will depend on how good your tools and methods are.
Can't think of a car analogy but...
Taking a glass of water out of the ocean will have an impact on the amount of water in the ocean.
Is the effect measurable? In theory yes, in practice no.
Yes, it has adds when we come to certain websites (like this one) that are responsible enough that we greenlight the adblock and do not tick the "you are eligible to ignore advertising", because we want to encourage responsible internet behaviour when we see it - ie no 3rd party hosting, content relavant, unobtrusive ads.
So, according to you, if the majority decides that slavery should be legal, we should just "have to accept that"?
Fortunately we live in a Constitutional democracy, that won't happen. The Constitution overrides the will of the majority, and the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
No you are only fortunate that the majority don't believe in slavery.
In the same way that once upon a time the majority decided to elect representatives who wanted to abolish slavery, and did so through changing the constitution, the majority in the future could always elect some nutjobs who could then propose an amendment to nullify the 13th and make slavery legal.
So in summary...
Yes you do have to just accept what the majority decides will be the law. That is how democracy (and all flavours of) work.
finally there is a legitimate use for the saying!
No it's not the same. You don't choose to inject extra photons into the system as part of using your eyes (you don't control the sun... I hope).
"You can't get smarter..." but you "can provide short-term boosts [to intelligence]"
So if there is an activity that provides a short term boost, periodically doing that activity for the rest of your life would make you smarter.
People will always cut corners whenever given the option.
The reason it became "safety at any cost" is because if the more reasonable "safe when convenient to do so" becomes safe only when it doesn't impact profit by a single cent.
Yes it is a PITA, (I deal with it every day), but while the alternatives could improve 1% of cases, it would be abused to reduce quality on the other 99%.
So net positive, even when it creates some glaringly stupid situations.
company uses extremely dominant market power and subversive behaviour to gain favourable business terms. Seems like the very definition of anti-competitive (note: anti-competitive does not have to be illegal)