Exactly. Whenever people say to me: "being a programmer, you must be really smart"! I reply with "no, I've spent lots of time learning to be dumb -- but dumb in the same specific way as a computer. Only by being dumb in the same way as a computer can I know how to tell it what to do."
The father of one of my lifelong friends was an executive with a major auto manufacturer. He was fond of pointing out that, relative to many commodities, automobile prices increase at a very reasonable rate. The unstated problem, of course, is that if the cost of a loaf of bread doubles, it can be hardship, but most families can cut back somewhere to make up the few dollars. If the cost of a car doubles, it's suddenly completely out of reach of a lot of families. He was a smart guy, and I know he could understand this. However, having lived most of his life at considerably above the median income, he had no intuitive grasp of the problem. He could only see one side of the economic equation: the marketing side.
Tested is great; in many ways it's actually better than Mythbusters, since Tested is geek and maker oriented instead of those things just being adjunct to a larger show.
Occam's razor (or maybe just cynicism) makes me doubt whether you're right in this case, but I think you've predicted a class of scenarios that is almost bound to occur in the not-to-distant future as machine learning takes hold. The ways ML finds to "cheat" will always be ahead of the safeguards on cheating.
...when I was 10, on paper, before I learned standard algebra, and my first program for a "real" computer was a binary decimal conversion program. So yeah, I'm a digital native.
Always, always, always do the math on counters and give yourself orders of magnitude of space. Figured this out the hard way once (fortunately not in a situation where safety was a concern).
I find myself relying less and less on jQuery and more and more on AngularJS and native HTML5/CSS3 (+Bootstrap), (and Lodash for the FP bits). The AngularJS stuff encapsulates the DOM manipulation more cleanly and HTML5/CSS3 has gotten powerful enough to do declaratively what you used to have to do programmatically. However, it is still handy to know some jQuery, particularly to shim the code a bit around the edges of Angular and for various programming tasks. jQuery can make code cleaner, too, though it is a two-edged sword: used badly it can make code even worse. So I'm glad I know jQuery, which is not quite the same thing as thinking it's a good idea to learn jQuery, but still, if you have the spare time...
A company I worked at had a similar policy: we were allowed one Easter egg per app, and we had to disclose it to management. The management took the rather enlightened view that it could be used to liven up product demos, etc.
I believe in the right of people to form contracts, even for employers to require contractual conditions for employment. But it has to be balanced against the relative economic power of the two parties.
It's like saying a match between a pee-wee league football team and an NFL team is fair because both parties are governed by the same rules. “Fair” is only a correct assessment if you ignore the most important facts about the situation.
If a bazillion dollar company wants to require minimum wage, near-zero net-worth, workers to wear certain clothes, work specific hours, not moonlight (if employed full time), not be allowed to abscond with company secrets, etc., I have absolutely no problem with that. But if that same company wants to dictate that those employees will be bound, to their economic detriment, even after they are no longer being paid, from taking the type of jobs that they are trained for and that are commonly available to them, that seems inequitable.
After all, even if the cost of that employee going to a competitor is many times the hourly value of that employee, that still implies less harm to the mega corporation than hindering the future employment of that person.
And I should state that I am not an Amazon-hater; I am a loyal customer since the days when they started out just selling a few books on-line. I remember what it was like (not living in a big city) to try to buy uncommon or technical books before Amazon -- in a word, it sucked. But big companies just need to remember that a large part of what made them into a bazillion dollar companies was all those people depending on those commonly available jobs for money -- sometimes a significant fraction of their small income -- to buy the books, music, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
...will be next. "You can only transfer knowledge about Pi or the Pythagorean theorem in a cave, while an ox is being sacrificed."
Exactly. Whenever people say to me: "being a programmer, you must be really smart"! I reply with "no, I've spent lots of time learning to be dumb -- but dumb in the same specific way as a computer. Only by being dumb in the same way as a computer can I know how to tell it what to do."
...'nuff said.
The father of one of my lifelong friends was an executive with a major auto manufacturer. He was fond of pointing out that, relative to many commodities, automobile prices increase at a very reasonable rate. The unstated problem, of course, is that if the cost of a loaf of bread doubles, it can be hardship, but most families can cut back somewhere to make up the few dollars. If the cost of a car doubles, it's suddenly completely out of reach of a lot of families. He was a smart guy, and I know he could understand this. However, having lived most of his life at considerably above the median income, he had no intuitive grasp of the problem. He could only see one side of the economic equation: the marketing side.
...are going to be replaced by patently obvious "using AI" patents.
...is what they used to call this.
...pop up on my windshield and offer to help me turn left?
Tested is great; in many ways it's actually better than Mythbusters, since Tested is geek and maker oriented instead of those things just being adjunct to a larger show.
Occam's razor (or maybe just cynicism) makes me doubt whether you're right in this case, but I think you've predicted a class of scenarios that is almost bound to occur in the not-to-distant future as machine learning takes hold. The ways ML finds to "cheat" will always be ahead of the safeguards on cheating.
Yep, the only thing tougher laws will do is increase the punishment for the intern who loses the blame lottery.
...it actually woke up a long, long time ago.
After all, learning long division is about as much fun as boot camp.
...when I was 10, on paper, before I learned standard algebra, and my first program for a "real" computer was a binary decimal conversion program. So yeah, I'm a digital native.
The criticism reminds me of the Gary Larsen cartoon where the guy is scolding his dog for doing a poor job mowing the yard.
Trust me, someone somewhere will leave it running for 293 years; it's what users do.
Always, always, always do the math on counters and give yourself orders of magnitude of space. Figured this out the hard way once (fortunately not in a situation where safety was a concern).
...I slept for 11 months and this is April Fool's Day.
I find myself relying less and less on jQuery and more and more on AngularJS and native HTML5/CSS3 (+Bootstrap), (and Lodash for the FP bits). The AngularJS stuff encapsulates the DOM manipulation more cleanly and HTML5/CSS3 has gotten powerful enough to do declaratively what you used to have to do programmatically. However, it is still handy to know some jQuery, particularly to shim the code a bit around the edges of Angular and for various programming tasks. jQuery can make code cleaner, too, though it is a two-edged sword: used badly it can make code even worse. So I'm glad I know jQuery, which is not quite the same thing as thinking it's a good idea to learn jQuery, but still, if you have the spare time...
I can just picture all the kids picking up their 3-D printed parts and smelling them as they are handed out.
A company I worked at had a similar policy: we were allowed one Easter egg per app, and we had to disclose it to management. The management took the rather enlightened view that it could be used to liven up product demos, etc.
I think this is good, even if they did it under pressure. Doing the right thing so quickly, even in response to a nudge, is a hopeful sign.
I believe in the right of people to form contracts, even for employers to require contractual conditions for employment. But it has to be balanced against the relative economic power of the two parties.
It's like saying a match between a pee-wee league football team and an NFL team is fair because both parties are governed by the same rules. “Fair” is only a correct assessment if you ignore the most important facts about the situation.
If a bazillion dollar company wants to require minimum wage, near-zero net-worth, workers to wear certain clothes, work specific hours, not moonlight (if employed full time), not be allowed to abscond with company secrets, etc., I have absolutely no problem with that. But if that same company wants to dictate that those employees will be bound, to their economic detriment, even after they are no longer being paid, from taking the type of jobs that they are trained for and that are commonly available to them, that seems inequitable.
After all, even if the cost of that employee going to a competitor is many times the hourly value of that employee, that still implies less harm to the mega corporation than hindering the future employment of that person.
And I should state that I am not an Amazon-hater; I am a loyal customer since the days when they started out just selling a few books on-line. I remember what it was like (not living in a big city) to try to buy uncommon or technical books before Amazon -- in a word, it sucked. But big companies just need to remember that a large part of what made them into a bazillion dollar companies was all those people depending on those commonly available jobs for money -- sometimes a significant fraction of their small income -- to buy the books, music, etc.
what the "free" in free enterprise is supposed to mean?
He inspired and validated the hopes of generations of nerdy kids; including this nerdy kid. The world will seem a little non-sequitur to me for a bit.
...the original article were written by a bot.