Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle. Trump doesn't have any "negotiating skills" at all as many believe, [...] Now you can say a lot of bad things about Hillary, but she's a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin, so from Russia's perspective she's a much less desirable option.
The president can do two things with Russia: negotiate treaties or prepare for hostilities. Now, what matters of interest to the American people do you imagine Hillary "negotiating" over with Putin? In what area would her supposedly magical negotiating skills benefit the American people? What specific treaties of benefit to the American people do you think Hillary would negotiate?
With respect to Russia, you're right that Hillary "wouldn't make things easy for Putin", which is precisely why she is so dangerous: she would poke the bear with a sharp stick because she is looking for her place in history and thinks she can handle it. And when it blows up in her face, she'll just have another cringeworthy moment and say "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Hillary is dangerous precisely because she is ambitious, powerful, and wants to make history; what she lacks is restraint, humility, and wisdom.
Trump is a weakling and a coward; that's not as good as restraint, humility, and wisdom, but given that the alternative is an self-deluded, corrupt war monger, it may still be the better choice.
That's fine for a club, but for getting shit done? Pointless. For designing stuff that people are going to use? Dangerous
That's your opinion, not fact. And it's implausible that sticking together a bunch of skilled people who hate each others' guts in a group is going to work better than having a team of people who understand and like each other.
It's government that creates high barriers to entry in the first place. The reason small companies often can't compete is because they can't afford to dealing with all the hurdles government has created. Tech companies don't need to "pull up ladders" because there are no ladders.
Many small players (plus a few other assumptions) is a sufficient condition for optimality of free markets. But it is not a necessary condition for optimality; a free market can still be optimal even in the presence of monopolies. Furthermore, a market doesn't need to be optimal in order to be better than all available alternatives.
But, more fundamentally, those notions of "optimality" or being "better" are rooted in overall economic performance. But what a free market actually is about is the absence of coercion; it is a lucky coincidence that not coercing people also produces overall better outcomes than other economic systems, but free markets would be preferable even if that were not the case.
There can only be so many roads, pipes, and wires leading to your house.
There certainly can be more than one of each, so it's not a "monopoly". If you define a monopoly as anything in which there is any upper limit on the number of providers, then everything is a monopoly.
Part of Government's role is to limit the damage that can be cause by natural monopolies.
The idea that monopolies cause damage is dubious at best. And it is even more dubious to assume that government intervention "limits the damage". In fact, in real life, government creates artifical monopolies, often mandates that people purchase services from those monopolies even if they don't need them, and then jacks up the prices, as it does for roads, pipes, wires, and trash collection.
It's an imperfect system for an imperfect world.
No, it's a corrupt system that results in a worse outcome than simply doing nothing.
"External costs" isn't a well-defined concept. Perhaps you mean "externalities". In any case, imposing costs on your neighbors isn't an "externality", it's a simple violation of private property rights.
HOAs are smaller collectives-- the basic idea is the same.
An HOA is fundamentally different from government: membership in an HOA is a choice, and furthermore, decisions, costs, and benefits are all only made by owners.
I don't have a clear line on where that line should be drawn. Only that the place he said is demonstrably false.
You don't have a clear line because it's the wrong question. Once you realize that membership in "collectives" should be voluntary, the answer to where such lines is to be drawn has a simple answer: wherever it is drawn for the "collectives" that you choose to be a member of.
You're confusing negative and positive rights. Society exists to protect negative rights, like your right to be free from vermin entering into your yard. Societies that attempt to protect positive rights are not free, or where government itself violates negative rights, are not free.
If you don't see how this is true from the rate of advancement, just look at the technical scores. The population of women that stays on the site scores lower than the population of men, but that is after women who performed so badly that they lost hope have been removed from the population, so the difference in scores is probably even larger.
And the point of this is not to conclude that "women are worse than men" (which would be a meaningless assertion), but simply that the populations of men and women that companies recruit from are different, so it shouldn't be surprising if they aren't represented equally or receive equal salaries.
So? Even if your belief that "monocultures" are suboptimal, work isn't all about maximizing productivity. Maybe some women prefer an all female workplace. Maybe some gay men prefer an all gay workplace. What business of yours is it?
I don't see why you think that is an "important finding". The fact remains that women do worse on interviews than men, and hence it's not surprising that companies hire them less. Furthermore, if badly performing women didn't quit after one to two interviews, the average performance of women on the platform would be even worse (your belief that all they need is a little more interview practice is unsupported and implausible).
A program that gives guns to people who need to defend themselves but can't afford to buy them is not "parody": this would be the kind of program that is consistent with what the NRA advocates and many gun owners believe. In fact, such a focus on minorities would be quite smart for conservative and libertarian causes.
People would do well to remember that some of the first gun control laws in the US were Jim Crow laws. Tubman (new $20 bill), the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, Douglass, and many others carried guns and viewed them as important to black liberation and self-protection.
I have talked to Hillary supporters who have said without any embarrassment: "Of course, she can't keep those promises and she has to lie. But it's vitally important that she get elected and she has to say things because American voters are stupid and she wouldn't get elected otherwise. Once she has been elected, she will just do what's good for the country."
Pedestrians can be legally at fault in car-pedestrian accidents, for example when jaywalking, crossing against a red light, or even by being drunk. In those cases, the pedestrian has no claim against the driver, and the driver of the "several tons of rolling death and metal" can recover damages from the pedestrian.
You should save the people that are actually complying with the law and acting reasonably. Someone crossing the road at a point where visibility is poor and a driverless car can only avoid hitting them by killing its passengers is probably not acting reasonably, and all things being equal, the driverless car should therefore protect its passengers.
Scripting languages and dynamic languages are not the same thing. Ruby is a scripting language and really doesn't have a lot of the tools that exist for a heavy duty dynamic language like, say, Smalltalk.
I advise organizations, and so I tend to be on the side of maintainability - and that requires languages and tools that are naturally maintainable
People can easily create completely unmaintainable code in C++ or Haskell. Static typing is neither necessary nor sufficient for maintainability.
I will note that I have seen very, very expert developers create mountains of unmaintainable code very rapidly, and not even know that their code was unmaintainable.
I create tons of unmaintainable code. Maintainability is just one of many attributes of software. Requiring maintainability when it's not needed is inefficient.
E.g., consider a user who reserves an airline seat, but between the time the user received notice of the available seats, the selected seat is given away. The user does not now the seat was given away (and their UI has not refreshed yet), so they click Submit to reserve the seat. In a synchronous approach, the Submit will fair right then, and so their UI will immediately receive a failure response and can update it self accordingly. But in an async approach, the user will receive a success response, and might even close their browser before a failure message is received
You're thinking of this in a very procedural way: the web form handler calls the seat server, waits for a seat reservation or an error, and then returns a page with success or failure to the user. That's not how people write scalable web applications. Procedural stacks are far too costly to keep around. The way people implement this is usually using some kind asynchronous framework: node.js, Akka, Erlang, or message queueing.
Message queueing is perhaps the easiest to explain: the web form handler transforms the reservation form into a seat reservation request and enqueues that on the reservation server; the reservation server processes the reservation and sends on the result to another server that generates the appropriate response. The whole thing is like a pipeline, and no stage in the pipeline waits for any other stage to complete.
Another framework that is based on asynchronous calls is node.js; it's pretty tedious but fairly widely used. The code would look something like this: app.get("/form", function(request, response) {
async.parallel([
cb => cb(null, reservation_server.reserve_seat(request)),
cb => cb(null, accounting_server.charge_account(request))
],
function(err, results) {
if (err) { response.send("error message"); return; }
async.parallel([
cb => cb(null, reservation_server.commit(results[0])),
cb => cb(null, accounting_server.commit(results[1])),
cb => cb(null, response.send("got reservation for...")
]);
} );
Note that none of the server calls are synchronous, and they actually never return to the calling procedure.
That's not funny, is sad. And it's the same with self driving cars, tibia, 3d printers, and artificial intelligence. The problem isn't a lack of innovation, it's existing corporate interests, unions, and luddites.
There aren't meaningful performance differences in terms of desktop rendering or 3D graphics (and if anything, Linux often comes out slightly ahead). X11 on Linux in practice is a client/server system with direct rendering, just like Windows and OS X. Mir and Wayland are good and necessary efforts because after 30 years, a lot of crud has accumulated in the X codebase, but their introduction won't change much about the user experience.
Furthermore, what kind of native graphics subsystem a Chromebook uses is really irrelevant for whether it offers Ubuntu or not. Many ChromeOS devices still use X11 natively, and it's easy to run Xorg and Ubuntu with a Freon graphics backend on devices that use Freon.
Go and C++ are so different, and C++'s type safety might be stricter, but the type safety of Go is pretty strict. Nuances aside, thus practically speaking,
Type safety isn't the same as typing strategy. C++'s type safety is weaker than Go's (since there are types like "void *"), but it has a more expressive static type system.
I have found that languages like Ruby lead to very unmaintainable code.
I think you're overgeneralizing from your limited experience with a tool-poor scripting language to dynamic languages in general. You can write unmaintainable code in any language: C++, Go, Haskell, Ruby, Python, etc. Writing maintainable code in dynamic languages requires a different skillset on the part of the programmer, but in return, a lot of problems become quite a bit easier to solve. It's a matter of tradeoffs. Even refactoring works quite differently in dynamic languages.
Note that the API still requires requests and responses, so it forces clients and servers to keep track of state even if the computation otherwise doesn't require it. That's because procedure calls are an abstraction that intrinsically involves a notion of state.
In a message passing architecture, the primitive by which you invoke functionality on objects is intrinsically stateless, and so network libraries implementing message passing don't force users to deal with state either. That is, all you need to say to send an asynchronous message is "send(&context, request)"; the API doesn't force you to write code to deal with responses on every RPC call. Although originally conceived by Kay for Smalltalk, the first large scale implementation was in Erlang, and there are libraries supporting this programming style in many languages now.
Slashdot Mirror
The president can do two things with Russia: negotiate treaties or prepare for hostilities. Now, what matters of interest to the American people do you imagine Hillary "negotiating" over with Putin? In what area would her supposedly magical negotiating skills benefit the American people? What specific treaties of benefit to the American people do you think Hillary would negotiate?
With respect to Russia, you're right that Hillary "wouldn't make things easy for Putin", which is precisely why she is so dangerous: she would poke the bear with a sharp stick because she is looking for her place in history and thinks she can handle it. And when it blows up in her face, she'll just have another cringeworthy moment and say "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Hillary is dangerous precisely because she is ambitious, powerful, and wants to make history; what she lacks is restraint, humility, and wisdom.
Trump is a weakling and a coward; that's not as good as restraint, humility, and wisdom, but given that the alternative is an self-deluded, corrupt war monger, it may still be the better choice.
That's your opinion, not fact. And it's implausible that sticking together a bunch of skilled people who hate each others' guts in a group is going to work better than having a team of people who understand and like each other.
It's government that creates high barriers to entry in the first place. The reason small companies often can't compete is because they can't afford to dealing with all the hurdles government has created. Tech companies don't need to "pull up ladders" because there are no ladders.
You're confusing optimality with having benefits.
Many small players (plus a few other assumptions) is a sufficient condition for optimality of free markets. But it is not a necessary condition for optimality; a free market can still be optimal even in the presence of monopolies. Furthermore, a market doesn't need to be optimal in order to be better than all available alternatives.
But, more fundamentally, those notions of "optimality" or being "better" are rooted in overall economic performance. But what a free market actually is about is the absence of coercion; it is a lucky coincidence that not coercing people also produces overall better outcomes than other economic systems, but free markets would be preferable even if that were not the case.
There certainly can be more than one of each, so it's not a "monopoly". If you define a monopoly as anything in which there is any upper limit on the number of providers, then everything is a monopoly.
The idea that monopolies cause damage is dubious at best. And it is even more dubious to assume that government intervention "limits the damage". In fact, in real life, government creates artifical monopolies, often mandates that people purchase services from those monopolies even if they don't need them, and then jacks up the prices, as it does for roads, pipes, wires, and trash collection.
No, it's a corrupt system that results in a worse outcome than simply doing nothing.
"External costs" isn't a well-defined concept. Perhaps you mean "externalities". In any case, imposing costs on your neighbors isn't an "externality", it's a simple violation of private property rights.
An HOA is fundamentally different from government: membership in an HOA is a choice, and furthermore, decisions, costs, and benefits are all only made by owners.
You don't have a clear line because it's the wrong question. Once you realize that membership in "collectives" should be voluntary, the answer to where such lines is to be drawn has a simple answer: wherever it is drawn for the "collectives" that you choose to be a member of.
You're confusing negative and positive rights. Society exists to protect negative rights, like your right to be free from vermin entering into your yard. Societies that attempt to protect positive rights are not free, or where government itself violates negative rights, are not free.
You're right: Elizabeth Warren is cheap, she just made a political and academic career out of peddling this self-serving nonsense.
If you don't see how this is true from the rate of advancement, just look at the technical scores. The population of women that stays on the site scores lower than the population of men, but that is after women who performed so badly that they lost hope have been removed from the population, so the difference in scores is probably even larger.
And the point of this is not to conclude that "women are worse than men" (which would be a meaningless assertion), but simply that the populations of men and women that companies recruit from are different, so it shouldn't be surprising if they aren't represented equally or receive equal salaries.
So? Even if your belief that "monocultures" are suboptimal, work isn't all about maximizing productivity. Maybe some women prefer an all female workplace. Maybe some gay men prefer an all gay workplace. What business of yours is it?
I don't see why you think that is an "important finding". The fact remains that women do worse on interviews than men, and hence it's not surprising that companies hire them less. Furthermore, if badly performing women didn't quit after one to two interviews, the average performance of women on the platform would be even worse (your belief that all they need is a little more interview practice is unsupported and implausible).
Europe is also busy at work instituting "gender quotas". Some European nations have entire government departments for women. Go look it up.
A program that gives guns to people who need to defend themselves but can't afford to buy them is not "parody": this would be the kind of program that is consistent with what the NRA advocates and many gun owners believe. In fact, such a focus on minorities would be quite smart for conservative and libertarian causes.
People would do well to remember that some of the first gun control laws in the US were Jim Crow laws. Tubman (new $20 bill), the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, Douglass, and many others carried guns and viewed them as important to black liberation and self-protection.
Fifteen minutes maximum you say? I suppose that means Kirk/Spock is now limited to quickies, rather than involving lots of character development.
I have talked to Hillary supporters who have said without any embarrassment: "Of course, she can't keep those promises and she has to lie. But it's vitally important that she get elected and she has to say things because American voters are stupid and she wouldn't get elected otherwise. Once she has been elected, she will just do what's good for the country."
Pedestrians can be legally at fault in car-pedestrian accidents, for example when jaywalking, crossing against a red light, or even by being drunk. In those cases, the pedestrian has no claim against the driver, and the driver of the "several tons of rolling death and metal" can recover damages from the pedestrian.
You should save the people that are actually complying with the law and acting reasonably. Someone crossing the road at a point where visibility is poor and a driverless car can only avoid hitting them by killing its passengers is probably not acting reasonably, and all things being equal, the driverless car should therefore protect its passengers.
Scripting languages and dynamic languages are not the same thing. Ruby is a scripting language and really doesn't have a lot of the tools that exist for a heavy duty dynamic language like, say, Smalltalk.
People can easily create completely unmaintainable code in C++ or Haskell. Static typing is neither necessary nor sufficient for maintainability.
I create tons of unmaintainable code. Maintainability is just one of many attributes of software. Requiring maintainability when it's not needed is inefficient.
You're thinking of this in a very procedural way: the web form handler calls the seat server, waits for a seat reservation or an error, and then returns a page with success or failure to the user. That's not how people write scalable web applications. Procedural stacks are far too costly to keep around. The way people implement this is usually using some kind asynchronous framework: node.js, Akka, Erlang, or message queueing.
Message queueing is perhaps the easiest to explain: the web form handler transforms the reservation form into a seat reservation request and enqueues that on the reservation server; the reservation server processes the reservation and sends on the result to another server that generates the appropriate response. The whole thing is like a pipeline, and no stage in the pipeline waits for any other stage to complete.
Another framework that is based on asynchronous calls is node.js; it's pretty tedious but fairly widely used. The code would look something like this:
app.get("/form", function(request, response) {
async.parallel([
cb => cb(null, reservation_server.reserve_seat(request)),
cb => cb(null, accounting_server.charge_account(request))
],
function(err, results) {
if (err) { response.send("error message"); return; }
async.parallel([
cb => cb(null, reservation_server.commit(results[0])),
cb => cb(null, accounting_server.commit(results[1])),
cb => cb(null, response.send("got reservation for...")
]);
}
);
Note that none of the server calls are synchronous, and they actually never return to the calling procedure.
That's not funny, is sad. And it's the same with self driving cars, tibia, 3d printers, and artificial intelligence. The problem isn't a lack of innovation, it's existing corporate interests, unions, and luddites.
Yeah: corporate lobbying and crony capitalism.
There aren't meaningful performance differences in terms of desktop rendering or 3D graphics (and if anything, Linux often comes out slightly ahead). X11 on Linux in practice is a client/server system with direct rendering, just like Windows and OS X. Mir and Wayland are good and necessary efforts because after 30 years, a lot of crud has accumulated in the X codebase, but their introduction won't change much about the user experience.
Furthermore, what kind of native graphics subsystem a Chromebook uses is really irrelevant for whether it offers Ubuntu or not. Many ChromeOS devices still use X11 natively, and it's easy to run Xorg and Ubuntu with a Freon graphics backend on devices that use Freon.
Type safety isn't the same as typing strategy. C++'s type safety is weaker than Go's (since there are types like "void *"), but it has a more expressive static type system.
I think you're overgeneralizing from your limited experience with a tool-poor scripting language to dynamic languages in general. You can write unmaintainable code in any language: C++, Go, Haskell, Ruby, Python, etc. Writing maintainable code in dynamic languages requires a different skillset on the part of the programmer, but in return, a lot of problems become quite a bit easier to solve. It's a matter of tradeoffs. Even refactoring works quite differently in dynamic languages.
http://www.grpc.io/docs/tutori...
Note that the API still requires requests and responses, so it forces clients and servers to keep track of state even if the computation otherwise doesn't require it. That's because procedure calls are an abstraction that intrinsically involves a notion of state.
In a message passing architecture, the primitive by which you invoke functionality on objects is intrinsically stateless, and so network libraries implementing message passing don't force users to deal with state either. That is, all you need to say to send an asynchronous message is "send(&context, request)"; the API doesn't force you to write code to deal with responses on every RPC call. Although originally conceived by Kay for Smalltalk, the first large scale implementation was in Erlang, and there are libraries supporting this programming style in many languages now.