Humans + compilers will make more efficient code than just compilers. I am comparing humans and compilers. There are areas where humans can write better ASM code than modern compilers but the vast majority is written better by compilers.
As a software engineer, I pretty much expect to be doing macro level optimizations, and I expect the compiler to be doing the micro level stuff that I can;t be bothered with. I still agree with the claim that C++ compilers (and really it's the language) allow the developer to better convey intent which in theory (and I am pretty sure in practice), allow the compiler to make better optimizations than it would otherwise.
The fact that compilers are better at optimizing some types of things than others, doesn't make them not extremely good at optimizing. On average they are better at optimizing than a human could ever be.
He started rich. He would have more money now if he had simply invested it in an index fund. Even by taking advantage of federal bankruptcy laws, his ROI is slightly worse than someone blindly putting money into their 401K.
He's just a regular fucking idiot who has managed not to blow the fortune he inherited.
It turns out having a shit ton of money gives you such a huge advantage that even a fuckface like Trump can't screw up.
Hillary is like a a broken weather vane that works like 40% of the time. She supports Ahmed and his clock by tweeting "Assumptions and fear don't keep us safe—they hold us back.", but she was the one playing up assumptions and fear of Muslims back in the 2008 democratic primary when she circulated pictures of Obama in "Muslim" (i.e. actually African) clothing in a pathetic attempt to win by playing into people's fears and racism.
I don't think there is anything to hide about Benghazigate, but if there were, I'm sure she would have done whatever to cover her own ass.
Trump would make Daraprim free for all Americans, and jack the price up to $7 million a pill for the Mexicans, Chinese and Muslims. That's how you negotiate. Obama won't do that because he's stupid, weak, and a Muslim, and doesn't know how to negotiate.
Or a bigger drug company like GSK (which originally manufactured the drug in the US and still does elsewhere), could get it approved in the US, and undercut Turing until they go out of business. They have so much money they could probably have Martin Shkreli murdered and get away with it.
Small pharma is not that big of a problem. When GSK and other big names pull some shit like this, I don't know what can be done.
This particular evil was perpetrated by a small startup and a corrupt politicians who are bribed to pass laws written by big pharma, and exploited by pharma of all sizes.
But you need a supply of the original drug in order to copy it.
Apparently you can buy supply of the drug for $750 a pill. Also there are no doubt lots of people who know how to make the drug, as it's been made for several decades by different groups of people, including the original manufacturer GSK which sells it in the UK for less than $2 per pill.
It seems the real problem is a legal one, where although they do not hold the patent to the drug, they somehow have exclusive legal rights to market the drug in the USA, and it is illegal to buy even FDA approved drugs from pharmacies outside the USA.
So something that seems like it is the result of the greed of the free market is actually something that would be quickly fixed by the free market, if not for our corrupt regulatory capitalist government and the electorate who keep voting for them.
A lot of people have expressed some doubt as to what this word means. So let me explain it to you. Getting "Ubered" means that the old stupid company you work for has been made obsolete by a young forward looking company that is the epitome of the future of the global technology industry. Even though you will probably lose your job, you are secretly happy that this will finally give you the opportunity to realize your dreams of working for the company that "Ubered" you, even if it is just as a poorly paid driving contractor with no benefits, it;s totally the best decision you've ever made.
Getting "Ubered" basically means falling in love all over again. You don't care that your mistress is a criminal. You are willing to travel the ends of the earth to be with her, or at least vote for politicians who will change the law to make her innocent again.
But most of all getting "Ubered" means not resisting this beautifully elegant idiom permeating the English language completely.
You've been "Ubered" and you love it so much all you can think about is getting "Ubered" again and again.
I think he explained that the extra revenue could be used for R&D (so raising drug prices is not evil per se), but I think they are just going to spend it on houses and cars and stuff for themselves.
Because there are no pharmaceutical companies with more money than Turing?
Furthermore, even if the new company does go bankrupt, Turing doesn't get to just buy out whoever they want. Another drug company can offer more money than Turing. Turing can't undercut everyone (especially much larger companies) forever.
This is just regular price gouging. You can try to sell flashlights during as power outage for $100 for only so long. Furthermore, wasting your time and profit potential undercutting competitors is probably a bad idea considering that now everyone realizes how demand heavy this market actually is.
The whole idea behind drug pricing is really weird. How do you determine a price for something that can literally mean the difference between life and death? What happens when you have things like drug plans, insurance, and regulations to ensure quality. I really don't know how you'd expect a market to properly function.
This is a hard question for new drugs. But this drug is old, and I think the answer is really easy. The patent should have expired by now. There should be nothing stopping another company (or maybe a nonprofit) from also producing the same drug and selling it at a more reasonable price. In the meantime, people can apparently buy the drug outside the united states for much less.
There are laws against importing drugs from other countries (even ones approved by the FDA), and that is not in the best interest of the American people and should change.
This is case of a market failure to be certain, but there is no reason there can't be a market correction. All the money that might be spent on $750 pills would be better spent on a non profit organization whose goal is to make this drug available at a reasonable price. This company and it's asshole CEO deserve to die, and I think it is most efficient and only fitting that this death be by the free market.
By "this" I assume you mean the subject of the story here
Or you could assume it was the bomb referenced in the post you were responding to.
No, the "standard of proof" is could someone make a bomb that doesn't look like "explosive", because the only claim that was being discussed was the one that you can tell a bomb just by looking at it because it has "explosives".
It's not the only claim being discussed. I am making a claim that your claim is irrelevant.
You're so tied up in the one specific Texas instance that your missing the bigger picture and the more generic claims that are being made.
I'm not tied up in it. Your first post in this thread was in response to the Texas instance. I don't find your characterization of the real issue to be "Can you tell if something is a bomb just by looking at it". The answer to this seems trivial when we make the standard of proof certainty. You can't ever tell what anything is with 100% certainty by looking at it. To me the bigger picture isn't this irrelevant technicality, but rather, what our plan of action should be. Your assertion gives us no useful information from which to form a plan of action. If we take a more reasonable standard of proof (one that is able to disqualify certain objects as being unlikely to be explosives), then we can focus our attention on things that are actually likely to be explosives.
This is like the people who say "Anyone could be a terrorist" to the question of "who is likely to be a terrorist", and now we spend as much time searching celebrities, grandmas, and babies as middle aged men.
Yeah anything can be a bomb, like how anyone can be a terrorist. But pretending that everyone is equally likely to be a terrorist is about the worst thing you can do if you want to actually find terrorists.
I'm sure you could make that empty box into an explosive. I'm just saying that it would be a lot harder than most things at that school (i.e. backpacks, lockers, trash cans, printer, etc). So if we were going to prioritize things by likelihood of being a bomb, this otherwise empty box with bare electronics would be down at the bottom with "stack of papers", and "skateboard".
Slashdot Mirror
No it means I have seen the assembly that humans have written. Keeping in mind that code doesn't count as "efficient" if it's wrong.
I think my definition went well beyond a "disruptive technology".
Humans + compilers will make more efficient code than just compilers. I am comparing humans and compilers. There are areas where humans can write better ASM code than modern compilers but the vast majority is written better by compilers.
As a software engineer, I pretty much expect to be doing macro level optimizations, and I expect the compiler to be doing the micro level stuff that I can;t be bothered with. I still agree with the claim that C++ compilers (and really it's the language) allow the developer to better convey intent which in theory (and I am pretty sure in practice), allow the compiler to make better optimizations than it would otherwise.
I'll make this as simple as possible. If you have 5 racist teachers and 5 non-racist teachers, it doesn't mean the teachers aren't racist.
The fact that compilers are better at optimizing some types of things than others, doesn't make them not extremely good at optimizing. On average they are better at optimizing than a human could ever be.
I know plenty of people who only learned C, but have no fucking clue how anything works.
He started rich. He would have more money now if he had simply invested it in an index fund. Even by taking advantage of federal bankruptcy laws, his ROI is slightly worse than someone blindly putting money into their 401K.
He's just a regular fucking idiot who has managed not to blow the fortune he inherited.
It turns out having a shit ton of money gives you such a huge advantage that even a fuckface like Trump can't screw up.
Hillary is like a a broken weather vane that works like 40% of the time. She supports Ahmed and his clock by tweeting "Assumptions and fear don't keep us safe—they hold us back.", but she was the one playing up assumptions and fear of Muslims back in the 2008 democratic primary when she circulated pictures of Obama in "Muslim" (i.e. actually African) clothing in a pathetic attempt to win by playing into people's fears and racism.
I don't think there is anything to hide about Benghazigate, but if there were, I'm sure she would have done whatever to cover her own ass.
Trump would make Daraprim free for all Americans, and jack the price up to $7 million a pill for the Mexicans, Chinese and Muslims. That's how you negotiate. Obama won't do that because he's stupid, weak, and a Muslim, and doesn't know how to negotiate.
Trump 2016
Or a bigger drug company like GSK (which originally manufactured the drug in the US and still does elsewhere), could get it approved in the US, and undercut Turing until they go out of business. They have so much money they could probably have Martin Shkreli murdered and get away with it.
Small pharma is not that big of a problem. When GSK and other big names pull some shit like this, I don't know what can be done.
And there is no drug for "fuckface" either.
This particular evil was perpetrated by a small startup and a corrupt politicians who are bribed to pass laws written by big pharma, and exploited by pharma of all sizes.
The drug is available very cheaply outside the USA. So this is not a technical problem, it's a legal one.
But you need a supply of the original drug in order to copy it.
Apparently you can buy supply of the drug for $750 a pill. Also there are no doubt lots of people who know how to make the drug, as it's been made for several decades by different groups of people, including the original manufacturer GSK which sells it in the UK for less than $2 per pill.
It seems the real problem is a legal one, where although they do not hold the patent to the drug, they somehow have exclusive legal rights to market the drug in the USA, and it is illegal to buy even FDA approved drugs from pharmacies outside the USA.
So something that seems like it is the result of the greed of the free market is actually something that would be quickly fixed by the free market, if not for our corrupt regulatory capitalist government and the electorate who keep voting for them.
A lot of people have expressed some doubt as to what this word means. So let me explain it to you. Getting "Ubered" means that the old stupid company you work for has been made obsolete by a young forward looking company that is the epitome of the future of the global technology industry. Even though you will probably lose your job, you are secretly happy that this will finally give you the opportunity to realize your dreams of working for the company that "Ubered" you, even if it is just as a poorly paid driving contractor with no benefits, it;s totally the best decision you've ever made.
Getting "Ubered" basically means falling in love all over again. You don't care that your mistress is a criminal. You are willing to travel the ends of the earth to be with her, or at least vote for politicians who will change the law to make her innocent again.
But most of all getting "Ubered" means not resisting this beautifully elegant idiom permeating the English language completely.
You've been "Ubered" and you love it so much all you can think about is getting "Ubered" again and again.
"there is no reason to assume that Apple, with no experience, will suddenly do a better job than General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota or Hyundai.
I can probably think of a reason to assume Apple will suddenly do a better job than 2 or 3 out of those 5.
Are you saying that they don't have to pay for approval, because they already paid for approval?
I think he explained that the extra revenue could be used for R&D (so raising drug prices is not evil per se), but I think they are just going to spend it on houses and cars and stuff for themselves.
Because there are no pharmaceutical companies with more money than Turing?
Furthermore, even if the new company does go bankrupt, Turing doesn't get to just buy out whoever they want. Another drug company can offer more money than Turing. Turing can't undercut everyone (especially much larger companies) forever.
This is just regular price gouging. You can try to sell flashlights during as power outage for $100 for only so long. Furthermore, wasting your time and profit potential undercutting competitors is probably a bad idea considering that now everyone realizes how demand heavy this market actually is.
The whole idea behind drug pricing is really weird. How do you determine a price for something that can literally mean the difference between life and death? What happens when you have things like drug plans, insurance, and regulations to ensure quality. I really don't know how you'd expect a market to properly function.
This is a hard question for new drugs. But this drug is old, and I think the answer is really easy. The patent should have expired by now. There should be nothing stopping another company (or maybe a nonprofit) from also producing the same drug and selling it at a more reasonable price. In the meantime, people can apparently buy the drug outside the united states for much less.
There are laws against importing drugs from other countries (even ones approved by the FDA), and that is not in the best interest of the American people and should change.
This is case of a market failure to be certain, but there is no reason there can't be a market correction. All the money that might be spent on $750 pills would be better spent on a non profit organization whose goal is to make this drug available at a reasonable price. This company and it's asshole CEO deserve to die, and I think it is most efficient and only fitting that this death be by the free market.
Or praying. Has anyone tried praying? Or Magic?
The slashdot title is "Let's Not Go to Mars"
By "this" I assume you mean the subject of the story here
Or you could assume it was the bomb referenced in the post you were responding to.
No, the "standard of proof" is could someone make a bomb that doesn't look like "explosive", because the only claim that was being discussed was the one that you can tell a bomb just by looking at it because it has "explosives".
It's not the only claim being discussed. I am making a claim that your claim is irrelevant.
You're so tied up in the one specific Texas instance that your missing the bigger picture and the more generic claims that are being made.
I'm not tied up in it. Your first post in this thread was in response to the Texas instance. I don't find your characterization of the real issue to be "Can you tell if something is a bomb just by looking at it". The answer to this seems trivial when we make the standard of proof certainty. You can't ever tell what anything is with 100% certainty by looking at it. To me the bigger picture isn't this irrelevant technicality, but rather, what our plan of action should be. Your assertion gives us no useful information from which to form a plan of action. If we take a more reasonable standard of proof (one that is able to disqualify certain objects as being unlikely to be explosives), then we can focus our attention on things that are actually likely to be explosives.
This is like the people who say "Anyone could be a terrorist" to the question of "who is likely to be a terrorist", and now we spend as much time searching celebrities, grandmas, and babies as middle aged men.
Yeah anything can be a bomb, like how anyone can be a terrorist. But pretending that everyone is equally likely to be a terrorist is about the worst thing you can do if you want to actually find terrorists.
I'm sure you could make that empty box into an explosive. I'm just saying that it would be a lot harder than most things at that school (i.e. backpacks, lockers, trash cans, printer, etc). So if we were going to prioritize things by likelihood of being a bomb, this otherwise empty box with bare electronics would be down at the bottom with "stack of papers", and "skateboard".