You're right! All forecasters at the NWS are absolutely essential to accurate, timely forecasting. Why even a random bus crash may be enough to send the US hurdling headlong into 3rd world status.
Well you certainly appealed to a few of the mods. Tell us again about all these "lowlifes." I mean, I'm assuming you have some firsthand knowledge of that.
You're right that there's nothing anti-capitalist about Google's move. Your quick character judgments, though, make it pretty evident that you're not applauding capitalism on display; you're applauding some guy you don't agree with receiving punishment... Just like an upstanding moral person would, I'm sure.
Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other side is right.
Gotta love that unbiased, non-judgmental journalistic addition. I mean, of course Mr. Damore was in the wrong, right? How dare he internally reveal concerns for company direction... especially with wrong ideas.
By the way, all of you defending what he wrote, you're wrong too. Remember, everything is racist, everything is sexist.
I don't refute the equations you lifted from the blog; I generally don't accept blogs as a reputable source, though, and assumed that the thrust of that particular blog was going to be some MOND thing, since that appeared to be your direction.
My point stands, though: those equations show how NG approximates GR for specific circumstances. They do not show that NG scales beyond those circumstances, which a law should be able to do, nor do they correct wrong assumptions made by NG, such as gravity acting instantaneously.
Also, I agree that GR isn't the full answer -- it clearly isn't. GR is a better approximation than NG, but still an approximation, though we don't have a better one now. Experiments, like that in the article, have the potential to shed light on how to improve our approximations by showing where our current laws breakdown.
You seem to suggest that a breakdown of an existing law is just a misapplication, which it is not always the case. That was not the case with NG, by the way, since, as mentioned before, NG assumes propositions that are incorrect. You have yet to address that point and other point's I raised.
MOND theories have been proposed all over the place, but the trouble with them is that they don't fit all the observed data. Fit your MOND theory to the CMB, publish your paper in an actual journal, and then we'll talk.
Also, none of the math you posted actually addressed the issues I raised, you just posted a bunch of equations that show that the basics of Newtonian physics represent GR at non-relativistic scales (also known as an approximation). What, did you think I'd be so blown away by your ability to copy-paste equations that I'd concede the point? Fail.
Actually, yes, Newton's theory of gravity was broken by that of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Think it wasn't? Explain to me, using Newton's theories, why time literally runs faster at the top of a mountain than at its base. Explain to me, using Newton's theories, why starlight bends around the Sun.
Sorry, but Newtonian physics is absolutely broken when applied in a context that it wasn't fitted to. Moreover, it makes predictions that aren't a special case of GR; they're just plain wrong (ex. gravity is instantaneous in Newtonian physics, not bound by the speed of light). At best, Newtonian physics represent a good approximation to everyday life, which is hardly a law. And, yes, Newtonian physics were representative of known natural laws until those laws were found to be incomplete.
Unless that machine's characteristics are reproducible, and there's no attempt at obfuscating the experiment to keep others from attempting to reproduce the results... You know, like publishing a peer-reviewed article and such.
Most of the time, the known laws of physics are adhered to because, most of the time, people are exploring avenues where they can achieve a desirable, expected result. Sometimes, though, those laws are broken. That's called a discovery, and it means that, actually, those known laws are an approximation, not laws at all.
I think it stems from a view that shitting all over everything signifies, to others, one's obviously superior intellect. Of course, there is real bullshit out there, but there are also some things that demand we move beyond our current understanding of things: i.e. discoveries. While most things reported as discoveries don't really pan out, the people who shit all over everything seem to have lost all imagination and perspective in favor of intellect-signalling.
Conveniences are often easy to malign as frivolous in the face of obvious life-savers, but stop to think, for a moment, what those conveniences enable. Going with your "they don't have to carry as much around," objection, which is, to me, a fairly disingenuous reading of the article, think of what would be required without the convenience of an iPhone (or other smartphone).
Instead of a phone, which in addition to medical texts also includes dosage calculators, interaction charts, etc., you'd need -- literally -- volumes of books to cover the same information; information not limited to foundational texts that doctors should have a good handle on anyway, but also the latest journals. Moreover, you'd need to account for the time spent searching through those references, which isn't exactly negligible. But let's ignore time savings (spent gathering books and searching them) for now since, as we both know, doctor's got around before without those texts to lean on. So how did they do it? Memory, which is a nice way of saying an educated (hopefully) guess. If you think that misrecollection didn't play a part in numerous medical issues, I'd invite you to actually read the article the GP referenced.
All this is to say that, yes, there is real-world, life-saving, in fact, benefits to be had from some conveniences.
OS updates are pushed out for phones older than 1 year old, or at least that's the case for many Android phones. My 3-year old phone has the latest OS, so that's really no reason to upgrade hardware, in my eyes.
My argument is that you're overstating the reason for his ban: what you claimed didn't happen, and, yes, that matters.
I opened with noting that Milo is an asshole. This article, however, is about free speech as it pertains to Twitter, and that applies to assholes like Milo as well. If you claim a free and open platform, you have to apply that standard to everybody. If you claim that specific individuals should be banned for the things they say on that platform, then, if you're Twitter, that's your prerogative, but you don't support free speech. If you can sell that authoritative stance to other users, then good for you, I guess.
What you're talking about is incitement, which may be bad, but is not organization. Organization would involve actively calling on people to engage Leslie. That did not happen here, no matter how much you wish it to have happened.
Twitter banned Milo because they didn't approve of his rhetoric, plain and simple. The whole Ghost Busters thing was just the (very weak) justification they could use to sell the banishment to people like you.
I've yet to see any evidence that Milo organized anybody; that's just the common refrain of people who advocate his banning. What I saw was this: People were being assholes about Ghost Busters Milo added his own assholeness More people started being assholes
In short, what happened with Milo was bandwagon jumping, which happens when pretty much anybody of any celebrity status does anything. That's very different than actually organizing people, but that's kind of inconvenient to admit, isn't it?
Or maybe we don't hear from them because we're trying to detect a mostly unused (or flat-out wrong) signal medium?
Just looking at our own species, we've largely stopped radiating powerful radio signals omnidirectionally, instead opting for either confined communications (ex. fiber optics or terrestrial radio signals that basically breakdown once they hit the ionosphere), or highly directional communications (so the signal strength outside of the narrow target drops off immensely). Really, our heyday for "hey! we're here!" broadcasts has come and gone. Who's to say that other intelligences didn't follow a similar course, and the time for receiving their relatively noisy outbursts came and went when we weren't listening?
I'd also note that this is assuming a similar technological trajectory as our own species. Maybe some other communication technology is much better with sufficiently advanced technology. Sticking to speed-of-light (ish) limited stuff, maybe other advanced intelligences have found a way to utilize neutrino transmissions, for example, which might have some significant benefits over radio communications, depending on what they spend their time doing. We can scarcely detect those right now, let alone run any sort of non-trivial signal analysis on them.
Self-destruction is a possibility, sure, but it seems to be the possibility latched onto most often by those with little imagination who revel in the idea of all the sheeple getting their comeuppance. You know the types... all those doomsday/rapture/climate/etc. catastrophists who, I swear, would be happier with the destruction of the species than being wrong.
Going with the climate example, for a second, I don't want to give the impression that I'm a denialist, or that I think climate change isn't a problem that would be better addressed now than later, but, realistically, it's not the ELE that some believe (wish) it to be. It could, indirectly, lead to massive loss of life, and poorer standards of living, but it's certainly not insurmountable in the realistic worse cases, nor will it lead to civilization collapse.
That's the way most of these predictions go: something is wrong or could go wrong, some loss of life is inevitable, magic happens, and civilization is destroyed if not the species entirely. Personally, I think the only potential self-inflicted species-ender with half a chance of wiping out humanity is a constructed general super-intelligence. In that scenario, though, it's kind of a metamorphosis more than anything, as there's no reason to suspect that such an intelligence would just self-terminate after destroying its creator, so life wouldn't end outright... it would just end for us.
I specifically said that, if someone you consider unjust gets into office, you should deal with it and move on. Do you know why I said that? It's because that's what you do in a democratic system. Also, such a person may turn out to be a good person for the job, or may turn out to be exactly as bad as they appear. Since no person has perfect knowledge, it's best to abide by a democratic system that spreads that knowledge across many, even when it appears that the masses are going in a stupid direction (which, by the way, they sometimes do -- that's the reason for terms of office and checks and balances).
By the way, do you have anything to your claims about Obama? I saw the same sorts of things stated when Bush was in office and, while I didn't and still don't support the guy, those sorts of claims are, frankly, unconvincing since challenges to Bush's and Obama's actions are available for all to see, as are the well-informed rebuttals. Or was I just supposed to accept the accusation as proof?
Hmm, the very accusation is proof. Where have I heard that before?
You don't think that maybe that ACLU board member was speaking in hyperbole? Though his sentiment was pretty clearly in poor taste, he should absolutely have the right to express it without facing criminal prosecution. Suggesting that he should face "legal issues from his incitement to shoot people" is, to me, little different than when SJWs try to shut down a conversation by claiming overblown harassment. Don't borrow from their playbook; speech and thought are really not things to police.
Regarding his/her (and maybe your?) point about the actions to take if it's evident that the "side of justice is going to lose," well, sometimes the unjust win; it's as simple as that. The thing is, though, they're not granted unlimited power (at least in the US) because of all of the checks and balances built in to prevent that (some seriously good planning there), nor are they given enough time to overcome those checks and balances. If, for example, Trump won the presidency, he wouldn't be able to just enact his anti-Muslim position because he'd need Congressional approval first (and that seems highly unlikely). Moreover, if he proved to be the fuck-up that he appears to be while President, he'd probably be replaced in 4 years.
Just because there's a prospect of somebody bad getting through the democratic system doesn't mean that you scrap the whole thing. That's basically throwing everything into winning a battle while losing the war. Sometimes you've just got to deal with an asshole before moving on.
Hopefully they truly uncovered the issue in the launch vehicle, and don't suffer any more mid-launch explosions. Aside from that, the part that interests me is the continued testing of the reusable first stage. Reviewing the video of their failed sea attempt, it's apparent that they were tantalizingly close to success there, and I can't help but wonder if they decided on a land attempt to mitigate environmental factors (ex. crosswinds) that may have been more prevalent at sea. It would be pretty amazing if they could prove the concept with this next attempt.
Since when has Fermilab fallen into disuse? It doesn't have an accelerator as powerful as the LHC at CERN, but it's still very active in experimentation, and still draws from expert talent to design and conduct those experiments. It's not like any recent physics grad can just walk up to Fermilab and get a job, and I guarantee that the experimentalists noted in the summary were already well-established in their field.
As has been noted elsewhere, the plans for the wage increase predate the lawsuit by a wide margin (the original wage discussion goes back to 2010), and short-term profitability has actually increased substantially since the wage increase. Also, it seems quite unlikely that a CEO could just raise wages in the time-frame necessary to act as the smokescreen suggested in the article.
I'm not saying that Dan Price's motives are squeaky clean, but sometimes things that look pretty cut and dry really aren't... unless, of course, you decide that your preferred narrative is more important than the details.
Who knows if Dan is a wife-beater or not? While he could well be the contemptible person that his wife claims, she could also be trying to ruin the guy now 9 years later (maybe she's dissatisfied with some aspect of their split). That's the problem with he-said she-said crap flinging: anyone can say anything at basically any time. Unless there's some corroborating evidence, I'll treat her story as exactly that: a story.
I know it's a matter of taste, but I understand why Python, aside from simply being popular, is used so often. Having spent time using several languages, I can say that brevity bordering on the obscure (often mistaken for elegance) is not something to encourage. Don't get me wrong, it's great if you can reduce the steps used to implement an algorithm (especially if you get big-O benefits as well), but simply reducing line counts isn't anything to brag about. I mean, who cares if you implemented something in a single line of Perl that took 5 lines of Python for me? Eighteen months later, when the code gets dug up for whatever reason, I know which will be far easier to follow and correct if needed.
That, to me, is the real strength of Python: it enforces readability without requiring too many extra characters (Tcl being representative of the other extreme). If using an interpreted language isn't an issue, it almost always seems like the way to go for my tastes.
Well, it could mean that: Those who can't be trusted to change a light bulb personally would undoubtedly perform well if given the opportunity to leverage efficiencies already in place like they probably did in college (get someone else to do it). The type of analysis used to reach that conclusion is exactly the type necessary to increase quarterly earnings per share, since such a person can excel in identifying run-rate synergies and the like. Given this person's potential, your light bulb work is surely beneath their analytic abilities, and they'd better serve your organization in a managerial capacity, preferably at the division level.
So, yeah, "overqualified" seems like it could apply.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right! All forecasters at the NWS are absolutely essential to accurate, timely forecasting. Why even a random bus crash may be enough to send the US hurdling headlong into 3rd world status.
Oh, and I have a tiger-repelling rock I'd like to sell you.
Well you certainly appealed to a few of the mods. Tell us again about all these "lowlifes." I mean, I'm assuming you have some firsthand knowledge of that.
You're right that there's nothing anti-capitalist about Google's move. Your quick character judgments, though, make it pretty evident that you're not applauding capitalism on display; you're applauding some guy you don't agree with receiving punishment... Just like an upstanding moral person would, I'm sure.
Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other side is right.
Gotta love that unbiased, non-judgmental journalistic addition. I mean, of course Mr. Damore was in the wrong, right? How dare he internally reveal concerns for company direction... especially with wrong ideas.
By the way, all of you defending what he wrote, you're wrong too. Remember, everything is racist, everything is sexist.
I don't refute the equations you lifted from the blog; I generally don't accept blogs as a reputable source, though, and assumed that the thrust of that particular blog was going to be some MOND thing, since that appeared to be your direction.
My point stands, though: those equations show how NG approximates GR for specific circumstances. They do not show that NG scales beyond those circumstances, which a law should be able to do, nor do they correct wrong assumptions made by NG, such as gravity acting instantaneously.
Also, I agree that GR isn't the full answer -- it clearly isn't. GR is a better approximation than NG, but still an approximation, though we don't have a better one now. Experiments, like that in the article, have the potential to shed light on how to improve our approximations by showing where our current laws breakdown.
You seem to suggest that a breakdown of an existing law is just a misapplication, which it is not always the case. That was not the case with NG, by the way, since, as mentioned before, NG assumes propositions that are incorrect. You have yet to address that point and other point's I raised.
Were you posting to refute what I said, or to expand upon it? I think we are saying the same thing.
What? You mean some blog? Sooo reputable!
MOND theories have been proposed all over the place, but the trouble with them is that they don't fit all the observed data. Fit your MOND theory to the CMB, publish your paper in an actual journal, and then we'll talk.
Also, none of the math you posted actually addressed the issues I raised, you just posted a bunch of equations that show that the basics of Newtonian physics represent GR at non-relativistic scales (also known as an approximation). What, did you think I'd be so blown away by your ability to copy-paste equations that I'd concede the point? Fail.
Actually, yes, Newton's theory of gravity was broken by that of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Think it wasn't? Explain to me, using Newton's theories, why time literally runs faster at the top of a mountain than at its base. Explain to me, using Newton's theories, why starlight bends around the Sun.
Sorry, but Newtonian physics is absolutely broken when applied in a context that it wasn't fitted to. Moreover, it makes predictions that aren't a special case of GR; they're just plain wrong (ex. gravity is instantaneous in Newtonian physics, not bound by the speed of light). At best, Newtonian physics represent a good approximation to everyday life, which is hardly a law. And, yes, Newtonian physics were representative of known natural laws until those laws were found to be incomplete.
Unless that machine's characteristics are reproducible, and there's no attempt at obfuscating the experiment to keep others from attempting to reproduce the results... You know, like publishing a peer-reviewed article and such.
Most of the time, the known laws of physics are adhered to because, most of the time, people are exploring avenues where they can achieve a desirable, expected result. Sometimes, though, those laws are broken. That's called a discovery, and it means that, actually, those known laws are an approximation, not laws at all.
I think it stems from a view that shitting all over everything signifies, to others, one's obviously superior intellect. Of course, there is real bullshit out there, but there are also some things that demand we move beyond our current understanding of things: i.e. discoveries. While most things reported as discoveries don't really pan out, the people who shit all over everything seem to have lost all imagination and perspective in favor of intellect-signalling.
Conveniences are often easy to malign as frivolous in the face of obvious life-savers, but stop to think, for a moment, what those conveniences enable. Going with your "they don't have to carry as much around," objection, which is, to me, a fairly disingenuous reading of the article, think of what would be required without the convenience of an iPhone (or other smartphone).
Instead of a phone, which in addition to medical texts also includes dosage calculators, interaction charts, etc., you'd need -- literally -- volumes of books to cover the same information; information not limited to foundational texts that doctors should have a good handle on anyway, but also the latest journals. Moreover, you'd need to account for the time spent searching through those references, which isn't exactly negligible. But let's ignore time savings (spent gathering books and searching them) for now since, as we both know, doctor's got around before without those texts to lean on. So how did they do it? Memory, which is a nice way of saying an educated (hopefully) guess. If you think that misrecollection didn't play a part in numerous medical issues, I'd invite you to actually read the article the GP referenced.
All this is to say that, yes, there is real-world, life-saving, in fact, benefits to be had from some conveniences.
OS updates are pushed out for phones older than 1 year old, or at least that's the case for many Android phones. My 3-year old phone has the latest OS, so that's really no reason to upgrade hardware, in my eyes.
Still going strong with my 3-year old phone. I don't get the need to upgrade to the very newest thing out there.
My argument is that you're overstating the reason for his ban: what you claimed didn't happen, and, yes, that matters.
I opened with noting that Milo is an asshole. This article, however, is about free speech as it pertains to Twitter, and that applies to assholes like Milo as well. If you claim a free and open platform, you have to apply that standard to everybody. If you claim that specific individuals should be banned for the things they say on that platform, then, if you're Twitter, that's your prerogative, but you don't support free speech. If you can sell that authoritative stance to other users, then good for you, I guess.
They clearly succeeded with you.
What you're talking about is incitement, which may be bad, but is not organization. Organization would involve actively calling on people to engage Leslie. That did not happen here, no matter how much you wish it to have happened.
Twitter banned Milo because they didn't approve of his rhetoric, plain and simple. The whole Ghost Busters thing was just the (very weak) justification they could use to sell the banishment to people like you.
I've yet to see any evidence that Milo organized anybody; that's just the common refrain of people who advocate his banning. What I saw was this:
People were being assholes about Ghost Busters
Milo added his own assholeness
More people started being assholes
In short, what happened with Milo was bandwagon jumping, which happens when pretty much anybody of any celebrity status does anything. That's very different than actually organizing people, but that's kind of inconvenient to admit, isn't it?
Or maybe we don't hear from them because we're trying to detect a mostly unused (or flat-out wrong) signal medium?
Just looking at our own species, we've largely stopped radiating powerful radio signals omnidirectionally, instead opting for either confined communications (ex. fiber optics or terrestrial radio signals that basically breakdown once they hit the ionosphere), or highly directional communications (so the signal strength outside of the narrow target drops off immensely). Really, our heyday for "hey! we're here!" broadcasts has come and gone. Who's to say that other intelligences didn't follow a similar course, and the time for receiving their relatively noisy outbursts came and went when we weren't listening?
I'd also note that this is assuming a similar technological trajectory as our own species. Maybe some other communication technology is much better with sufficiently advanced technology. Sticking to speed-of-light (ish) limited stuff, maybe other advanced intelligences have found a way to utilize neutrino transmissions, for example, which might have some significant benefits over radio communications, depending on what they spend their time doing. We can scarcely detect those right now, let alone run any sort of non-trivial signal analysis on them.
Self-destruction is a possibility, sure, but it seems to be the possibility latched onto most often by those with little imagination who revel in the idea of all the sheeple getting their comeuppance. You know the types... all those doomsday/rapture/climate/etc. catastrophists who, I swear, would be happier with the destruction of the species than being wrong.
Going with the climate example, for a second, I don't want to give the impression that I'm a denialist, or that I think climate change isn't a problem that would be better addressed now than later, but, realistically, it's not the ELE that some believe (wish) it to be. It could, indirectly, lead to massive loss of life, and poorer standards of living, but it's certainly not insurmountable in the realistic worse cases, nor will it lead to civilization collapse.
That's the way most of these predictions go: something is wrong or could go wrong, some loss of life is inevitable, magic happens, and civilization is destroyed if not the species entirely. Personally, I think the only potential self-inflicted species-ender with half a chance of wiping out humanity is a constructed general super-intelligence. In that scenario, though, it's kind of a metamorphosis more than anything, as there's no reason to suspect that such an intelligence would just self-terminate after destroying its creator, so life wouldn't end outright... it would just end for us.
You can't read too well, can you?
I specifically said that, if someone you consider unjust gets into office, you should deal with it and move on. Do you know why I said that? It's because that's what you do in a democratic system. Also, such a person may turn out to be a good person for the job, or may turn out to be exactly as bad as they appear. Since no person has perfect knowledge, it's best to abide by a democratic system that spreads that knowledge across many, even when it appears that the masses are going in a stupid direction (which, by the way, they sometimes do -- that's the reason for terms of office and checks and balances).
By the way, do you have anything to your claims about Obama? I saw the same sorts of things stated when Bush was in office and, while I didn't and still don't support the guy, those sorts of claims are, frankly, unconvincing since challenges to Bush's and Obama's actions are available for all to see, as are the well-informed rebuttals. Or was I just supposed to accept the accusation as proof?
Hmm, the very accusation is proof. Where have I heard that before?
You don't think that maybe that ACLU board member was speaking in hyperbole? Though his sentiment was pretty clearly in poor taste, he should absolutely have the right to express it without facing criminal prosecution. Suggesting that he should face "legal issues from his incitement to shoot people" is, to me, little different than when SJWs try to shut down a conversation by claiming overblown harassment. Don't borrow from their playbook; speech and thought are really not things to police.
Regarding his/her (and maybe your?) point about the actions to take if it's evident that the "side of justice is going to lose," well, sometimes the unjust win; it's as simple as that. The thing is, though, they're not granted unlimited power (at least in the US) because of all of the checks and balances built in to prevent that (some seriously good planning there), nor are they given enough time to overcome those checks and balances. If, for example, Trump won the presidency, he wouldn't be able to just enact his anti-Muslim position because he'd need Congressional approval first (and that seems highly unlikely). Moreover, if he proved to be the fuck-up that he appears to be while President, he'd probably be replaced in 4 years.
Just because there's a prospect of somebody bad getting through the democratic system doesn't mean that you scrap the whole thing. That's basically throwing everything into winning a battle while losing the war. Sometimes you've just got to deal with an asshole before moving on.
Hopefully they truly uncovered the issue in the launch vehicle, and don't suffer any more mid-launch explosions. Aside from that, the part that interests me is the continued testing of the reusable first stage. Reviewing the video of their failed sea attempt, it's apparent that they were tantalizingly close to success there, and I can't help but wonder if they decided on a land attempt to mitigate environmental factors (ex. crosswinds) that may have been more prevalent at sea. It would be pretty amazing if they could prove the concept with this next attempt.
Since when has Fermilab fallen into disuse? It doesn't have an accelerator as powerful as the LHC at CERN, but it's still very active in experimentation, and still draws from expert talent to design and conduct those experiments. It's not like any recent physics grad can just walk up to Fermilab and get a job, and I guarantee that the experimentalists noted in the summary were already well-established in their field.
As has been noted elsewhere, the plans for the wage increase predate the lawsuit by a wide margin (the original wage discussion goes back to 2010), and short-term profitability has actually increased substantially since the wage increase. Also, it seems quite unlikely that a CEO could just raise wages in the time-frame necessary to act as the smokescreen suggested in the article.
I'm not saying that Dan Price's motives are squeaky clean, but sometimes things that look pretty cut and dry really aren't... unless, of course, you decide that your preferred narrative is more important than the details.
Who knows if Dan is a wife-beater or not? While he could well be the contemptible person that his wife claims, she could also be trying to ruin the guy now 9 years later (maybe she's dissatisfied with some aspect of their split). That's the problem with he-said she-said crap flinging: anyone can say anything at basically any time. Unless there's some corroborating evidence, I'll treat her story as exactly that: a story.
I know it's a matter of taste, but I understand why Python, aside from simply being popular, is used so often. Having spent time using several languages, I can say that brevity bordering on the obscure (often mistaken for elegance) is not something to encourage. Don't get me wrong, it's great if you can reduce the steps used to implement an algorithm (especially if you get big-O benefits as well), but simply reducing line counts isn't anything to brag about. I mean, who cares if you implemented something in a single line of Perl that took 5 lines of Python for me? Eighteen months later, when the code gets dug up for whatever reason, I know which will be far easier to follow and correct if needed.
That, to me, is the real strength of Python: it enforces readability without requiring too many extra characters (Tcl being representative of the other extreme). If using an interpreted language isn't an issue, it almost always seems like the way to go for my tastes.
Well, it could mean that: Those who can't be trusted to change a light bulb personally would undoubtedly perform well if given the opportunity to leverage efficiencies already in place like they probably did in college (get someone else to do it). The type of analysis used to reach that conclusion is exactly the type necessary to increase quarterly earnings per share, since such a person can excel in identifying run-rate synergies and the like. Given this person's potential, your light bulb work is surely beneath their analytic abilities, and they'd better serve your organization in a managerial capacity, preferably at the division level.
So, yeah, "overqualified" seems like it could apply.