I would imagine that in certain niches or scenarios that minimum wage can cause harm. The exception is not the rule though. The overall good it does should exceed all of the bad. Where there can be exceptions made to move towards the best of both worlds care needs to be taken.
Honestly PHP has been pretty good for security if you use the proper manual and actually read it properly. It has a lot of pitfalls but most are detailed in the manual. Unfortunately few people really RTFM or care *how* what they are doing works too much as opposed to that it works. In any language that's a problem.
I've been teaching people about this for ages. I have reviewed perhaps a couple hundred recruitment tests as well. You would be shocked how many can't even indent and you see injections all the time. I sometimes perfect to see manual escaping using the provided functions than prepared queries because prepared hides the problem. I am pretty sure a lot of them use tutorials as they are doing the test and it makes me wonder.
When I am training juniors one of the first thing I get them to do is to learn to go straight to the authoritive manual and ignore the top results. I explain to them how SEO works and that these people are making money sometimes practically plagiarising the manual and then using SEO to get their ad laden version to the top. Originally it came from having for some languages bad manuals or really thick specifications (W3C never wrote decent manuals). They get a bit of traction being one site for multiple languages as well.
It's not just tutorials but also questions (common error messages, problems, etc). Stack overflow has done a really good job of cleaning things up. I still see junk in there rarely but you can at least add your piece. One of the worst cases I saw was when I searched for best MySQL practices and found a guide with some questionable things or poor explanations. The result of that is that I had one developer adding LIMIT 1 to the end of a hundred queries entirely needlessly. This practice added noise to code and led to obscuring possible errors (where if you don't get zero or one result the query is broken). It was never added in the kind of situation you would actually want to limit by one such as with an order by to get the top result. These practices are useless if someone doesn't actually understand what is going on and if they understand that it should be immediately obvious when and when not to limit. That was one of many dodgy things in there. I think the worst has to be where if you downloaded something precompiled for a certain platform you would get an error message about having the wrong library version (dynamic linker error). The guide explained how to hex edit it to look for a different version. Asides from the potential issues this can cause with compatibility and segfaults (security as well), the software was open source so could have been downloaded and recompiled.
I tend to agree. It's just a case mod and maybe something special for the controller or even if it supports carts which I doubt. I used to use emulators a lot a decade ago.
Last time I calculated something like if you pay three or four times more than they charge for a console and a few dozen games then you get a system that can be used as a not entirely bad PC, plus that can emulate a bunch of systems and that can store hundreds of thousands of ROMs in total (most systems are thousands of ROMs to tens of thousands, for tape based they are tiny and you have tens of thousands).
The way they sell these things at the moment just isn't good enough. People want access to everything and essentially something like eat all you can.
I like things that are mainstream and more obscure. None of those attributes tend to factor in though. It depends on the problem. Saying that I occasional have a bias in selection for mainstream which is justifiable. Mainstream in Open Source means more tried and tested, more contribution, more community support and a larger talent pool to hire from. It's not always good. Some things get massive contribution, even too much that quality goes out the window and you have a maintenance nightmare. On the whole though, mainstream tends to be alright.
"The whole Mir hate-fest boggled my mind - it's free software that does something invisible really well."
Actually I got really annoyed at this. Not specifically at Mir. At the whole there's always two things to choose from. Wayland/Mir, Systemd/Upstart, MySQL/MariaDB, oi.js/node.js, Electron/nsjw, etc. Choices are always annoying. Node.js managed to fix things. For a lot of things I find myself avoiding being an early adopter and wait to see how those things work out first to see if they merge or there can only be one.
There are two things I really hate. Bandwagoning and the unique/superior obscure tool obsession. You often see spikes in tech use due to bandwagoning that then drops as the language turns out to be too much trouble but then you still have the lingering stench of it because of a bunch of legacy products that used it. Bandwagoning can be linked to the other thing. Often someone will want to learn an obscure and often over complicated language so to not have competition and because they believe a theoretically superior (perhaps potentially than actually materialised) tool will offer them that. It will make them special or something. This can happen with new tools but ironically everyone has the same inclination so you get a burst of them. Then when they all realise that actually this boat is quite crowded they all bugger off to go master a variety of other obscure languages like Haskell, Erlang, Prolog, Lisp, Ada, R, etc. All of them though secretly dream their language will suddenly become famous and that they'll be the master in it or at the forefront. I just stick with what works well for the problem rather than some new fangled technology then adopt something when it becomes mature enough and suits the problem well. If language A is the traditional choice for domain A, then language B comes out claiming to suit domain A better, I can't really know that without a point of reference, such as language A, except when language A has been used in domain A a million times but language B ten times then I know that language A is a pretty safe bet. Don't get roped into being a guinea pig more than is necessary or that you really have the time for.
I come from a background of hating Agile and in particular Scrum. After looking into it however I came to understand that the structure and concepts are purposeful. I don't believe it's appropriate for all scenarios or problem free but the structure does make sense for a number of scenarios if applied correctly. I do not really believe in a strict form, or at least it should be fairly strict but tailored to specific needs.
What I have noticed is that a lot of people banging on about it don't actually seem to get it. Even some of the books go into la la land turning what are meant to be principles about how a team should operate into something like a game of the sims and the personality traits you should hire for. I don't like that it tends to contain developers, in fact all of your actual productive staff. There's no career progression in Agile if you want to remain technical.
That was my first thought and I came here to post it. Boy was I shocked to see my comment here already.
I tend to agree not only from things like Google plus, as in people want to be anonymous but personal experience in the industry. It's a rookie mistake and a deviation from their core business. Perhaps a guru could make it "work" in a business sense but I doubt it. Probably more to do with making their bans more effective. The more people invest the more they have to lose and the more compliant they are. What will really happen is that they will have to deal with annoying problems like getting harassed and hounded by mental cases that have flipped because they invested a tremendous amount in their reddit identity and then reddit effectively murdered them.
In my experience in the industry so times, hey lets be the next facebook and then copying facebook turning the site into a social network. You start out developing games, online shops, forums, etc which work and then the next step is hey lets make this a social network just like facebook. I haven't worked in places like that for a while now but I wonder if it still goes on. Probably now people are trying to turn their web based shopping site into Amazon, Ebay or God Forbid twitter.
The main project I am on is suffering horribly because of that and almost certain to die. It's even worse than your case however because there are also companies A, B, C and D that all work to provide parts of the whole for the system meaning you have things line (A does X). When it comes to X -> Y -> Z, there's actually a hell of a lot more than that, it's a complicated graph. What ends up happening all the time is that A, B and D will all be asked to implement Y because of disorganisation and things like that. Because of a combination of legacy and being given pieces to the puzzle rather than the entire picture more than half the codebase or more is useless, 90% complete but doing nothing other than imposing a growing maintenance burden. Priorities constantly switch around. In a process that can be X -> Y, they'll then decide they also want Z as well rather than only a partial expansion except then completely forget about it for ages then come back later and ask for an entirely new X/Y before leading on to Z. The waste is enormous. A combination of the client, consultants that are meant to work for us working for themselves and disorganisation means that company C which has been the least decoupled and most isolated from the mess will have the project outsourced to them where they get to do it from scratch largely independent from A, B and D cutting out B from the equation altogether with A performing little more than an ancillary token role to keep some staff employeed and to keep some stake in the project. As A, B, C and D are all competitors as well as partners C needed to deliver Y to A so A could complete Z but instead dragged their heels doing as worse a job as possible so that they could move in and take responsibility Z from A so to have a larger stake in the endeavour.
I've seen this a lot in growing companies. Missing procedures or informal procedures. Sometimes no budget. In my experience it's an added stress to have to keep informally requesting things. If it goes all way through the chain up to the very top of the company it's immensely stressful. Having to justify a purchase to a CEO, etc. Disorganisation like this can happen a lot, sometimes blindspots form where more than 90% of things work great but there's a nagging percent that drags on and on. The problem is that small percent can drag everything else down with it. I do often just buy things myself.
Strategically you would think just ask and see what you get but it's not the roll of the dice each time. It's also a more arduous process than it need be. Strategically it's a complex problem. Probably the more you ask the more you get and when you don't ask someone else might get your cut of the quota. On the other hand you don't want to ask for something in case you deprive yourself of something more important down the line. I find there's a whole set of missing disciplines for these things. Either it's handled however as and when it occasionally happens or turns into a system once it becomes frequent enough. I'm not sure that there's a set of well defined and grounded ideologies of how to scale up a company as is grows, how and when to create processes, apply procedures, etc.
I think any potentially good boss should be able to list their own mistakes and imperfections, however I will spare those stories for a more private audience.
I would probably say the worst I had was one who went overboard with time management. I joined a project that was a one man team originally. The other guy was a great developer. He had been working on the project himself for at least a year so he had the privilege of knowing the codebase well. The writer's privilege is that you tend to remember the codebase well and intuitively being that you wrote it. It's also more in sync with your natural style and thinking. This meant that I couldn't do tasks as quickly especially as there were also things in the technology stack that I had to learn. At this point the project was also close to release but stuck in the stage of fixing a release date to be next week but things dragging on for longer.
Anyway the boss was extreme into time management. He didn't only give me a number of tasks but also specified how long each was to take based on the performance of the other pre-existing developer on the project. When I say he specified how long each task should take I don't mean something like a days work but it would be things such as 15 minutes, 1 hour, etc. He was a decent guy but his time management was extreme. I was confronted with that quite early on without much opportunity to work at a natural pace and increase overtime as I became more aware of my surroundings in the code. I was effectively being raced with the other developer.
I responded pretty badly to this and was inexperienced only working in a single environment beforehand. Rather than question it or negotiate I actually tried to stick to the time limits and not leave anything to the next day. I appreciated the time sensitivity but when you have a new developer you really need to work according to a curve. The first tasks will take disproportionately long because of the learning curve. This meant for the first task for example it was a desperate rush to get it working that forewent a lot of the learning. I ended up cutting corners, missing things, etc. It meant everything for the whole day had to be done at an extreme pace. There often wasn't time to double check everything, a lot of things based on unconfirmed assumptions and really not an entirely pleasant outcome.
I'm not sure it was only me. I could see that while the situation was much better for the existing developer there did seem to be some issues arising from the rapid pace. A lot of the tasks and bugs I found myself fixing looked like they wouldn't have arisen if things hadn't have been rushed. There had been a few places where sacrificing the future for the present was beginning to hit home. I wouldn't say the experience was completely fruitless as I learnt a lot quickly but it also started to really burn me out. I also kept getting bounced from area to area with the tasks rather than getting to learn each in depth which didn't entirely help.
I think they're great until they're too strict. Obviously a one letter password will suck for example but demanding a fifty letter password would be too much. Between that there's some debate.
Lots of people are too strict or make it too complicated and that's what people like you and me hate. What they should do instead if rather than prohibit passwords that appear weak warn about it instead and indeed that's what a lot of people do.
Ultimately though for brute force the burden is more on the software than the user. Essentially your software should make it hard to try to login with loads of passwords but at the same time should avoid side effects like locking out the legitimate user. For all the attention spent on the users the software can still be insecure.
From a security perspective excessive rules on passwords never guarantee security. You still have to assume that users will get hacked and have mechanisms to help mitigate and manage it, for example letting the user see previous logins, warning them of unusual logins and the like.
The ultimate metric for security mechanisms should be to try to block the hacker as much as possible while blocking the user as little as possible. It's an often paradoxical challenge but not a useless perspective. In a lot of cases things like really strict password rules like you must have one of each character type, etc significantly block users while only accomplishing so much in most cases when it comes to blocking hackers.
I forgot about that. So really hydrothermal or underground water supply would be best, IE, soaked layer of soil. But it sounds like the water would run away quite easily anyway.
I'm not an expert but even if plants can grow in it you can't have anything that will get in the food chain either. Using seed and potato sprouts as an indication might be flawed. Potatoes and seeds are pretty well self contained with all the things they need to launch sprouts. It doesn't mean they will take hold or create a viable plant. Conditions on Mars might trigger sprouts but it's meaningless if they don't survive anyway. It would be tricking the plant to sprout.
There are two scenarios which I will mix up a bit. One is tossing some seeds onto Mars and letting them grow wild. The other is to have controlled growth. The latter is far more likely. Deliberately contaminating Mars the former way is no small thing.
Mars also has a range of low temperatures even in the hottest parts that are extreme by earth standards and where you get such temperatures on Earth you don't get much plant life. The plants would have to support an particularly wide range of temperatures on a day to day basis. It's on the fringe of what plant life on earth will tolerate. You could have a simple kind of green house to take the edge of and plants could be modified to tolerate this but they wouldn't be super productive. Both are likely. You would want containment anyway so to harvest oxygen. Thinner atmosphere, cold and less light means that growth will be slow compared to earth. You can engineer survival but not equal productivity to that on earth.
I do suspect that you might find some plants on Earth that would work to some degree on mars with little effort if you put them in the right spot such as where you get melt water but they might not be the kind of plants you want in terms of food. Saying that Earth plants depend on a complex ecosystem not found on mars.
When it comes to problems like this you need to actually understand the problem. For example why does it exist, is it a real problem?
Who dictated the rule that the average salary for all men and all women must be the same overall? Why must women have equal pay? Biology makes it very clear that while men and women greatly overlap men do have a leading edge and that's just how it is. Earning equal rank and salary is not the natural state of affairs for a species that exhibits a significant and meaningful amount of sexual dimorphism.
Equal pay laws are meant to work not for an entire population but for subsets. For example whatever salaries a company awards it can't be based on sex. It can be based on things such as performance, loyalty, contribution and so on. If men do better in these areas that's just how it is.
I appreciate there are genuine problems in the developing world but this approach looks atrocious when it comes to actually addressing that. It repeats all of the same mistakes being made in developing countries. This notion of more women have to be this or that has to stop. It's starting to become dangerous as particularly vulnerable but over represented in high positions or rank and salary minority groups such as Orientals and Jews have started to notice. One of the main reasons it came about here is because groups are trying to sneak around anti affirmative action regulations which normally tend to focus on race where as sex is overlooked. It's not only white men and over performing minority groups that suffer from this but women can as well when people take it upon themselves to dictate how women should live and work.
Missing elements in developing nations for women are things such as birth control, appropriate family planning and education. Laws may also be absent that ensure fair practices in the workplace. In fact developing countries generally have problems with making and enforcing laws to the extent you would expect in a developed country. You have other problems such as sometimes with a massive labour surplus why wouldn't it naturally become that the men work more and the women focus on family life more? The situation in the west came out of a shortage in the labour force. As much as one might want to see developing countries adhere to the same ideals we do there's a reality to things as well where it's just not that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine that in certain niches or scenarios that minimum wage can cause harm. The exception is not the rule though. The overall good it does should exceed all of the bad. Where there can be exceptions made to move towards the best of both worlds care needs to be taken.
Egyptians did it already.
Honestly PHP has been pretty good for security if you use the proper manual and actually read it properly. It has a lot of pitfalls but most are detailed in the manual. Unfortunately few people really RTFM or care *how* what they are doing works too much as opposed to that it works. In any language that's a problem.
I've been teaching people about this for ages. I have reviewed perhaps a couple hundred recruitment tests as well. You would be shocked how many can't even indent and you see injections all the time. I sometimes perfect to see manual escaping using the provided functions than prepared queries because prepared hides the problem. I am pretty sure a lot of them use tutorials as they are doing the test and it makes me wonder.
When I am training juniors one of the first thing I get them to do is to learn to go straight to the authoritive manual and ignore the top results. I explain to them how SEO works and that these people are making money sometimes practically plagiarising the manual and then using SEO to get their ad laden version to the top. Originally it came from having for some languages bad manuals or really thick specifications (W3C never wrote decent manuals). They get a bit of traction being one site for multiple languages as well.
It's not just tutorials but also questions (common error messages, problems, etc). Stack overflow has done a really good job of cleaning things up. I still see junk in there rarely but you can at least add your piece. One of the worst cases I saw was when I searched for best MySQL practices and found a guide with some questionable things or poor explanations. The result of that is that I had one developer adding LIMIT 1 to the end of a hundred queries entirely needlessly. This practice added noise to code and led to obscuring possible errors (where if you don't get zero or one result the query is broken). It was never added in the kind of situation you would actually want to limit by one such as with an order by to get the top result. These practices are useless if someone doesn't actually understand what is going on and if they understand that it should be immediately obvious when and when not to limit. That was one of many dodgy things in there. I think the worst has to be where if you downloaded something precompiled for a certain platform you would get an error message about having the wrong library version (dynamic linker error). The guide explained how to hex edit it to look for a different version. Asides from the potential issues this can cause with compatibility and segfaults (security as well), the software was open source so could have been downloaded and recompiled.
Pretty sure it's IRC :D
I like Soldier.
My favorite of his was Kin Dza Dza. I can't for the life of me remember why or any part of the movie though.
Ideocracy
I'm still waiting for someone to release box. It's in Star Cops.
I tend to agree. It's just a case mod and maybe something special for the controller or even if it supports carts which I doubt. I used to use emulators a lot a decade ago. Last time I calculated something like if you pay three or four times more than they charge for a console and a few dozen games then you get a system that can be used as a not entirely bad PC, plus that can emulate a bunch of systems and that can store hundreds of thousands of ROMs in total (most systems are thousands of ROMs to tens of thousands, for tape based they are tiny and you have tens of thousands). The way they sell these things at the moment just isn't good enough. People want access to everything and essentially something like eat all you can.
I like things that are mainstream and more obscure. None of those attributes tend to factor in though. It depends on the problem. Saying that I occasional have a bias in selection for mainstream which is justifiable. Mainstream in Open Source means more tried and tested, more contribution, more community support and a larger talent pool to hire from. It's not always good. Some things get massive contribution, even too much that quality goes out the window and you have a maintenance nightmare. On the whole though, mainstream tends to be alright.
"The whole Mir hate-fest boggled my mind - it's free software that does something invisible really well."
Actually I got really annoyed at this. Not specifically at Mir. At the whole there's always two things to choose from. Wayland/Mir, Systemd/Upstart, MySQL/MariaDB, oi.js/node.js, Electron/nsjw, etc. Choices are always annoying. Node.js managed to fix things. For a lot of things I find myself avoiding being an early adopter and wait to see how those things work out first to see if they merge or there can only be one.
There are two things I really hate. Bandwagoning and the unique/superior obscure tool obsession. You often see spikes in tech use due to bandwagoning that then drops as the language turns out to be too much trouble but then you still have the lingering stench of it because of a bunch of legacy products that used it. Bandwagoning can be linked to the other thing. Often someone will want to learn an obscure and often over complicated language so to not have competition and because they believe a theoretically superior (perhaps potentially than actually materialised) tool will offer them that. It will make them special or something. This can happen with new tools but ironically everyone has the same inclination so you get a burst of them. Then when they all realise that actually this boat is quite crowded they all bugger off to go master a variety of other obscure languages like Haskell, Erlang, Prolog, Lisp, Ada, R, etc. All of them though secretly dream their language will suddenly become famous and that they'll be the master in it or at the forefront. I just stick with what works well for the problem rather than some new fangled technology then adopt something when it becomes mature enough and suits the problem well. If language A is the traditional choice for domain A, then language B comes out claiming to suit domain A better, I can't really know that without a point of reference, such as language A, except when language A has been used in domain A a million times but language B ten times then I know that language A is a pretty safe bet. Don't get roped into being a guinea pig more than is necessary or that you really have the time for.
I come from a background of hating Agile and in particular Scrum. After looking into it however I came to understand that the structure and concepts are purposeful. I don't believe it's appropriate for all scenarios or problem free but the structure does make sense for a number of scenarios if applied correctly. I do not really believe in a strict form, or at least it should be fairly strict but tailored to specific needs.
What I have noticed is that a lot of people banging on about it don't actually seem to get it. Even some of the books go into la la land turning what are meant to be principles about how a team should operate into something like a game of the sims and the personality traits you should hire for. I don't like that it tends to contain developers, in fact all of your actual productive staff. There's no career progression in Agile if you want to remain technical.
I take time off sometimes even though I am in the same situation above.
There's always the hit by a bus scenario.
Then simulate it. The less time you take off the more critical your presence is.
I find that the best way to have people able to cover for me is to have them cover for me. Rule by neglect.
By staying present all the time all you are really doing is depriving anyone the opportunity to fill your shoes.
Whether you like Trump or not, Trump has been in office for how long?
The spam filter as well that acts like a localised shadow ban and sometimes fires on things that aren't spam.
Their marketing guys want it.
That was my first thought and I came here to post it. Boy was I shocked to see my comment here already.
I tend to agree not only from things like Google plus, as in people want to be anonymous but personal experience in the industry. It's a rookie mistake and a deviation from their core business. Perhaps a guru could make it "work" in a business sense but I doubt it. Probably more to do with making their bans more effective. The more people invest the more they have to lose and the more compliant they are. What will really happen is that they will have to deal with annoying problems like getting harassed and hounded by mental cases that have flipped because they invested a tremendous amount in their reddit identity and then reddit effectively murdered them.
In my experience in the industry so times, hey lets be the next facebook and then copying facebook turning the site into a social network. You start out developing games, online shops, forums, etc which work and then the next step is hey lets make this a social network just like facebook. I haven't worked in places like that for a while now but I wonder if it still goes on. Probably now people are trying to turn their web based shopping site into Amazon, Ebay or God Forbid twitter.
The main project I am on is suffering horribly because of that and almost certain to die. It's even worse than your case however because there are also companies A, B, C and D that all work to provide parts of the whole for the system meaning you have things line (A does X). When it comes to X -> Y -> Z, there's actually a hell of a lot more than that, it's a complicated graph. What ends up happening all the time is that A, B and D will all be asked to implement Y because of disorganisation and things like that. Because of a combination of legacy and being given pieces to the puzzle rather than the entire picture more than half the codebase or more is useless, 90% complete but doing nothing other than imposing a growing maintenance burden. Priorities constantly switch around. In a process that can be X -> Y, they'll then decide they also want Z as well rather than only a partial expansion except then completely forget about it for ages then come back later and ask for an entirely new X/Y before leading on to Z. The waste is enormous. A combination of the client, consultants that are meant to work for us working for themselves and disorganisation means that company C which has been the least decoupled and most isolated from the mess will have the project outsourced to them where they get to do it from scratch largely independent from A, B and D cutting out B from the equation altogether with A performing little more than an ancillary token role to keep some staff employeed and to keep some stake in the project. As A, B, C and D are all competitors as well as partners C needed to deliver Y to A so A could complete Z but instead dragged their heels doing as worse a job as possible so that they could move in and take responsibility Z from A so to have a larger stake in the endeavour.
I've seen this a lot in growing companies. Missing procedures or informal procedures. Sometimes no budget. In my experience it's an added stress to have to keep informally requesting things. If it goes all way through the chain up to the very top of the company it's immensely stressful. Having to justify a purchase to a CEO, etc. Disorganisation like this can happen a lot, sometimes blindspots form where more than 90% of things work great but there's a nagging percent that drags on and on. The problem is that small percent can drag everything else down with it. I do often just buy things myself.
Strategically you would think just ask and see what you get but it's not the roll of the dice each time. It's also a more arduous process than it need be. Strategically it's a complex problem. Probably the more you ask the more you get and when you don't ask someone else might get your cut of the quota. On the other hand you don't want to ask for something in case you deprive yourself of something more important down the line. I find there's a whole set of missing disciplines for these things. Either it's handled however as and when it occasionally happens or turns into a system once it becomes frequent enough. I'm not sure that there's a set of well defined and grounded ideologies of how to scale up a company as is grows, how and when to create processes, apply procedures, etc.
I think any potentially good boss should be able to list their own mistakes and imperfections, however I will spare those stories for a more private audience.
I would probably say the worst I had was one who went overboard with time management. I joined a project that was a one man team originally. The other guy was a great developer. He had been working on the project himself for at least a year so he had the privilege of knowing the codebase well. The writer's privilege is that you tend to remember the codebase well and intuitively being that you wrote it. It's also more in sync with your natural style and thinking. This meant that I couldn't do tasks as quickly especially as there were also things in the technology stack that I had to learn. At this point the project was also close to release but stuck in the stage of fixing a release date to be next week but things dragging on for longer.
Anyway the boss was extreme into time management. He didn't only give me a number of tasks but also specified how long each was to take based on the performance of the other pre-existing developer on the project. When I say he specified how long each task should take I don't mean something like a days work but it would be things such as 15 minutes, 1 hour, etc. He was a decent guy but his time management was extreme. I was confronted with that quite early on without much opportunity to work at a natural pace and increase overtime as I became more aware of my surroundings in the code. I was effectively being raced with the other developer.
I responded pretty badly to this and was inexperienced only working in a single environment beforehand. Rather than question it or negotiate I actually tried to stick to the time limits and not leave anything to the next day. I appreciated the time sensitivity but when you have a new developer you really need to work according to a curve. The first tasks will take disproportionately long because of the learning curve. This meant for the first task for example it was a desperate rush to get it working that forewent a lot of the learning. I ended up cutting corners, missing things, etc. It meant everything for the whole day had to be done at an extreme pace. There often wasn't time to double check everything, a lot of things based on unconfirmed assumptions and really not an entirely pleasant outcome.
I'm not sure it was only me. I could see that while the situation was much better for the existing developer there did seem to be some issues arising from the rapid pace. A lot of the tasks and bugs I found myself fixing looked like they wouldn't have arisen if things hadn't have been rushed. There had been a few places where sacrificing the future for the present was beginning to hit home. I wouldn't say the experience was completely fruitless as I learnt a lot quickly but it also started to really burn me out. I also kept getting bounced from area to area with the tasks rather than getting to learn each in depth which didn't entirely help.
I think they're great until they're too strict. Obviously a one letter password will suck for example but demanding a fifty letter password would be too much. Between that there's some debate.
Lots of people are too strict or make it too complicated and that's what people like you and me hate. What they should do instead if rather than prohibit passwords that appear weak warn about it instead and indeed that's what a lot of people do.
Ultimately though for brute force the burden is more on the software than the user. Essentially your software should make it hard to try to login with loads of passwords but at the same time should avoid side effects like locking out the legitimate user. For all the attention spent on the users the software can still be insecure.
From a security perspective excessive rules on passwords never guarantee security. You still have to assume that users will get hacked and have mechanisms to help mitigate and manage it, for example letting the user see previous logins, warning them of unusual logins and the like.
The ultimate metric for security mechanisms should be to try to block the hacker as much as possible while blocking the user as little as possible. It's an often paradoxical challenge but not a useless perspective. In a lot of cases things like really strict password rules like you must have one of each character type, etc significantly block users while only accomplishing so much in most cases when it comes to blocking hackers.
I forgot about that. So really hydrothermal or underground water supply would be best, IE, soaked layer of soil. But it sounds like the water would run away quite easily anyway.
I'm not an expert but even if plants can grow in it you can't have anything that will get in the food chain either. Using seed and potato sprouts as an indication might be flawed. Potatoes and seeds are pretty well self contained with all the things they need to launch sprouts. It doesn't mean they will take hold or create a viable plant. Conditions on Mars might trigger sprouts but it's meaningless if they don't survive anyway. It would be tricking the plant to sprout.
There are two scenarios which I will mix up a bit. One is tossing some seeds onto Mars and letting them grow wild. The other is to have controlled growth. The latter is far more likely. Deliberately contaminating Mars the former way is no small thing.
Mars also has a range of low temperatures even in the hottest parts that are extreme by earth standards and where you get such temperatures on Earth you don't get much plant life. The plants would have to support an particularly wide range of temperatures on a day to day basis. It's on the fringe of what plant life on earth will tolerate. You could have a simple kind of green house to take the edge of and plants could be modified to tolerate this but they wouldn't be super productive. Both are likely. You would want containment anyway so to harvest oxygen. Thinner atmosphere, cold and less light means that growth will be slow compared to earth. You can engineer survival but not equal productivity to that on earth.
I do suspect that you might find some plants on Earth that would work to some degree on mars with little effort if you put them in the right spot such as where you get melt water but they might not be the kind of plants you want in terms of food. Saying that Earth plants depend on a complex ecosystem not found on mars.
* being made in developing countries. developed.
When it comes to problems like this you need to actually understand the problem. For example why does it exist, is it a real problem?
Who dictated the rule that the average salary for all men and all women must be the same overall? Why must women have equal pay? Biology makes it very clear that while men and women greatly overlap men do have a leading edge and that's just how it is. Earning equal rank and salary is not the natural state of affairs for a species that exhibits a significant and meaningful amount of sexual dimorphism.
Equal pay laws are meant to work not for an entire population but for subsets. For example whatever salaries a company awards it can't be based on sex. It can be based on things such as performance, loyalty, contribution and so on. If men do better in these areas that's just how it is.
I appreciate there are genuine problems in the developing world but this approach looks atrocious when it comes to actually addressing that. It repeats all of the same mistakes being made in developing countries. This notion of more women have to be this or that has to stop. It's starting to become dangerous as particularly vulnerable but over represented in high positions or rank and salary minority groups such as Orientals and Jews have started to notice. One of the main reasons it came about here is because groups are trying to sneak around anti affirmative action regulations which normally tend to focus on race where as sex is overlooked. It's not only white men and over performing minority groups that suffer from this but women can as well when people take it upon themselves to dictate how women should live and work.
Missing elements in developing nations for women are things such as birth control, appropriate family planning and education. Laws may also be absent that ensure fair practices in the workplace. In fact developing countries generally have problems with making and enforcing laws to the extent you would expect in a developed country. You have other problems such as sometimes with a massive labour surplus why wouldn't it naturally become that the men work more and the women focus on family life more? The situation in the west came out of a shortage in the labour force. As much as one might want to see developing countries adhere to the same ideals we do there's a reality to things as well where it's just not that simple.