Let's take Johnny. He's a smart kid, probably has the neurochemical make-up to be some sort of a genius. The problem is, he's retained less knowledge that can be used to adequately assess his raw intelligence through a common battery of questions.
The problem for your hypothesis is that intelligence tests do not rely on knowledge. Intelligence tests assess a person's ability to acquire new knowledge and apply that knowledge to new situations. Tests for intelligence do not ask things like, "Who was the first President of the United States?" Intelligence tests ask things like, "If all zerps are zogs, and all zogs are blarps, are all blarps zerps?" The answer is no, and it doesn't require knowing anything. It's purely a matter of thinking it through. Some people are capable and some aren't.
In 14 studies on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, coaching raised scores by an average of 0.15 standard deviations; in 24 studies on other aptitude and intelligence tests, coaching raised scores by an average of 0.43 standard deviations.
And that's not even touching other big variables like the home environment, cultural bias, knowledge of the opportunity existing, etc.
If you have a gifted child, one that is naturally smart, but can't pass these tests it probably shows a lack a parental involvement.
Have you done similar tests so you know what to prepare your child for?
Do you have other parents in your peer group encouraging and advising you?
Are the tutors/practice tests a small portion of your income?
etc, the answers to all those questions depend a lot on race and income.
For a gifted kid from poor minority parents it usually takes exceptionally dedicated parents.
For a gifted kid from rich white parents it usually takes mildly dedicated parents.
That's how institutional racism works, it's not that it's impossible for group X to do Y, it's that you need to be exceptional to do Y if you're also a member of group X.
Throwing them in a gifted program without that same support structure of the family would be pointless.
Rather it might be the other way around.
Taking a gifted child who already has great family and community support probably doesn't make a big difference. They might get slightly smarter and go to a slightly better university but it's unlikely to be drastic.
But taking a gifted child who doesn't have that family and community support, and giving some support to them in the way of a gifted program, that can make a huge difference. You can take a kid who might barely have made it through high school and send them off to university with the preparation and peer group that will help them succeed.
I would care so much more about Carly here if I believed that any of the candidates won't cooperate fully with the NSA. Heck, one of the very few things Obama actually promised as a candidate was to cut back on this sort of thing, and he reversed as soon as he was in office. Either the NSA has some good shit on everyone in power, and/or everyone in power values convenience over the interests of the people. Sorry, I wouldn't even believe Bernie or Rand Paul here. We've created a monster.
"Do not summon that you cannot dismiss" - H. P. Lovecraft
You don't even need a conspiracy to explain it:
NSA: I need to look at anyone's email I want without a warrant.
Obama: What? Absolutely not, that's a huge invasion of privacy I was elected to stop!!
NSA: Ok, if there's a significant attack on US soil we'll investigate afterwards and find an email that plausibly could have warned us. Someone will then leak this email to the media and everyone will know that if you didn't take away this power we begged you for there was a non-trivial chance we could have saved the tens, hundreds, or even thousands of people who died in that attack.
I have the sneaking suspicion that this is going to backfire massively. They'll have bad data hither and yon as overworked medicos end up entering the wrong codes (hey, it's a broken femur, who cares which side?) as often as the right ones. They won't get the supposed benefits of more granular data because the data will be so screwed up that they won't be able to draw any conclusions at all.
Nothing like an industry standard to screw things up on a grand scale.
I suspect you'll be right for the first five years and there will be a lot of ugly news stories. Then people will figure out how to work with the system, fix the bugs, and then things will get better.
The premise behind these simulations is that giving directions to crowds will improve flow of people.
It's a mighty big assumption that the folks in the crowds would follow a signal to "slow down". Between the culture in general (ever see a tidy British style queue in the middle east?), and the general human dynamics of large crowds of people, I don't have much hope of this being a success.
Perhaps a better solution would be to increase the time window for this event- spread the crowd over a few months instead of a few days.
I actually think that's a fairly good assumption. It might not stop a stampede in progress but the vast majority of the crowd is just going with the flow and doesn't really know what's going on. The activity of the crowd is determined by a very weak signal, if you can give them a strong signal instead they'll probably follow it.
Imagine you have a bunch of giant LED billboards overhead showing everyone in the crowd "SLOW DOWN" or "STOP" or "TURN RIGHT AT 42nd STREET". My guess is people are going to assume the billboards know what they're talking about and follow directions.
Of course if someone hacks the messaging system you now have the potential for mass casualties. I hope they're taking that into account.
Clinton broke the law regarding how those emails should be handled and she very likely knew she was breaking the law. She did it anyway because it made it easier to keep the emails out of the public record and all it takes is some random aide to type a dumb line in an email and you have a big campaign scandal. This is a strong enough motivation that it sounds like many other people on both sides in similar positions had done very similar things.
I'm also dubious this would be a firing/jailing offence for "little people". This is equivalent to finding an upper level manager who's had their division doing something against company policy for a while. If it really went sideways they might get fired, but much more likely the company just says "you're not supposed to be doing that so stop". It's not like she was covering it up, the non-government email was obvious to anyone who got an email from her.
As for how it affects people's political support. On the Democrat side the only real alternative is Bernie Sanders, and while he is picking up a lot of support he might be too far left to win an election. And on the Republican side the party has frankly gone insane. The best candidate they seem to have to offer is Jeb Bush, the little brother of someone who was arguably one of the worst US presidents is history. That doesn't mean Jeb would be the same but I'd wager that most people on either side would happily take Dubya over any of the current Republican candidates.
So it's perfectly sensible for people to say they're very against what Clinton did and think it was illegal, but they'll still vote for her because they don't have any alternatives.
LoL Obama is a centrist and the Republicans have gone so far right its not funny.
Trump is center-left
Trump is a troll, his policy positions aren't really relevant to his appeal.
and the Democrats have gone so far left-totalitarian they're putting stock in a literal communist (Sanders) because their current more-equal pig is getting caught in her sty.
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
The laws only apply to the little people, not the Clintons. If Whitewater, the Tyson payoff through bogus "futures investing",
Sadly quite true. I don't know much about Whitewater but it sounds like she got special treatement.
the Vince Foster murder, the Ron Brown murder and all the rest didn't even touch her
And then we go off the deep end...
Could the Clintons have covered up a murder? Possibly. But that doesn't mean everyone around them who died under slightly unusual circumstances was actually the victim of some elaborate Urquhartian murder and coverup conspiracy.
But why believe decades of peer reviewed research when a science journalist like Gary Taubes writes a book with a bunch of misrepresented cherry-picked data? (True there's a few researchers who go along to varying extents as well, but they're not the consensus)
Because it works.
Try it.
I've been living on bacon and butter for several years now. I have the body of a super hero.
I'm not questioning the effectiveness of low-carb, I'm questioning the proposed mechanisms and the implications. As for you there's lots of skinny people with very diverse diets.
Also.., as per your question about trusting peer reviewed research...
Read the parent article for a clue.
So coke possibly trying to influence nutrition research means that other research that does nothing to help coke is suspect?
While a journalist who's now a rock star because of his contrarian views on diet has absolutely no motive to skew the results.
I actually RTFA, because this interested me. And its a fascinating subject. I only sorta knew about these, i.e. hackathons, but I didn't realize there where giant, international, money-prize competitions. This, to me, is coding in its rawest, purest form. No business side, no integration, just problem solving in all its pure elegance and source code in all its unhindered, non-process, non-styleguide'd glory. I know I'm a huge geek but its honestly breathtaking.
That being said...this article is horrible. Ashlee Vance, you might be some sort of bestselling darling-of-the-tech-world author, and congrats on your book on Elon Musk or whatever, but I found this writing almost painful to read.
Theyâ(TM)re not the healthiest-looking bunch, with an average weight that appears to be no more than 120 pounds. There's a disturbingly stereotypical assortment of ticks, both verbal and gesticular, as well as bowl haircuts, wan faces, and shabby clothes. Mark Zuckerberg would look like an Adonis in this room.
The funny thing is the opening of the article is a HUGE photo that reveals... a bunch of normal looking people.
Are they a bit smaller than average, sure, their average age is early 20s and you probably don't have many gym rats, they probably even have a bit of acne as well. They aren't well dressed either because they're at a competition where they're given a specific shirt to wear, and being in their early 20s they probably don't have a great sense of style yet either.
As for the ticks you can't tell from a photo, but you're looking at people in a very intense and stressful competition, of course they're going to have some ticks. If you saw an NHL player rocking back and forth on the bench before a shift you'd be talking about how pumped and motivated they looked. But if you see a coder doing it before a major competition you suddenly decide they're mentally ill.
His friends explain that he mostly shuns the press after Wired did a story several years ago, which posited the idea that Korotkevich might âoedie a virgin.â
So does anyone know of any good online tech zines that embrace and exalt this culture, instead of trying to find ways to tear people down?
My hunch is that reporters are used to talking to talking to people who get interviewed a lot, the subjects have learned what to say and how to say it. The only time they meet a novice is when they talk to some random member of the public. Now you drop this reporter in a room full of brilliant people and they expect a bunch of brilliant interviews, instead they get a bunch of ordinary people who suck at interviews.
The dashed expectations probably create a lot of contempt.
Man makes name for himself in industry after years of hard work, study, diligent research - not fucking news.
Man is briefly fastest coder after leaving school because he can't cope with having to learn a bit of history alongside his talents - fucking news.
Stop this shit, because Kid who is briefly fastest coder could have gone to fucking school, even specialist computing school, and been an even better coder.
But that's not fucking news, is it?
FTA: With his skills, Korotkevich could get a high-paying job at just about any company in Silicon Valley. But the Belarusian isn’t ready to be a coding professional just yet. This fall he’ll return to class at Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics, he’s said, in possible preparation for a career in science.
He's still in school, from what I could find there's only a single mention near the bottom that says some people are using sport coding as a way to skip college.
Frankly I think that's fine, there are three major benefits to university, giving you credentials, giving you connections, and teaching you the things you're too lazy to learn on your own. But being a successful sport coder can give you the first two, and if you're motivated enough to do that you might have a decent chance of filling in the gaps in your education yourself.
I'm not saying it's a good idea to skip college in general, but there are a small number of people for whom it might be the right call.
Specifically, it's the reaction the body has to the carbohydrates (sugar): spiking insulin levels, blocking the release of fat as a fuel source, and encouraging the body to store energy as fat.
The carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity states that carbohydrates (particularly refined carbohydrates and sugar) are the primary cause of obesity due to their ability to increase circulating insulin, and that the solution to obesity is to restrict carbohydrate intake. Numerous studies have tested this hypothesis, more or less directly, in animals and humans. Despite the fact that many of these studies undermine the hypothesis, it remains extremely popular, both in the popular media and to a lesser extent among researchers.
But why believe decades of peer reviewed research when a science journalist like Gary Taubes writes a book with a bunch of misrepresented cherry-picked data? (True there's a few researchers who go along to varying extents as well, but they're not the consensus)
Couple with the comment that claimed $59,000 isn't enough to crack Tor. The whole thing was a decoy play. Publicly spread doubt in the security of the Tor system, then make a public statement that Tor remains uncompromised.
If you trust the government, you trust Tor, but have few if any reasons to use it. If you distrust the government, you distrust Tor, but have the most reason to need a secure channel to use.
End result, Putin wins.
Possibly, though if I was trying to dodge the US or Iranian government I'd be worried by the fact that Russia thought $60k was enough to crack it.
If I was Russian I might be more likely to use Tor since this whole thing makes Russia look really incompetent when it comes to trying to handle Tor.
Running the program intelligently (and fixing bugs on the fly) is precisely the role I think the US President is supposed to fulfil on domestic matters.
No the role of the president should be to implement and execute the law as written by congress. If the time lines were supposed to be felible congress could have easily have said, "starting not before tax year 2014" and left it to the executive to determine the specific when. They did not write that though, they wrote specific dates, which the president then simply ignored and did his own thing, which he is not entitled to do.
The President has a chance to second guess Congress, its call the veto. if a law is so specific as to be unworkable the president should veto it, and tell Congress why. "I am vetoing this law that I generally like because I can't possibly implement it as written with resources allocated, either send me a version with looser constraints or give me a larger allocation of assets to work with" would be a perfectly presidential response IMHO.
And just like software mistake happen and you have to deal with them.
Just ignoring the parts you don't like or can't effect on the other hand is just illegal. The rest of us don't get to do that!
Sorry mister firemarshall I would have installed a centralized fire detection system while converting this to a commercial space but you known the building is old, and there was no way we were going to be able to run the cables in time... Would not fly.
The rest of us weren't given an electoral mandate specifically to implement laws with some degree of discretion.
Clearly he doesn't have complete discretion, the specific line is for the SCOTUS to decide, but I think saying "this deadline as laid out is clearly a problem because of X which the law didn't anticipate".
Consider the alternative which is software code where you literally have to cover every possible contingency and even trivial bills would take months or even years to write and be orders of magnitude larger.
Or you could make the bills so vague that the president really can do whatever they want.
Given that I think the current system "this is what we want, get as close as possible without being stupid" works pretty well.
Once the enterprising company has spent the money developing it, there wouldn't be much incentive to stop just because another player dropped prices. It would be then just a battle for whoever had deeper pockets.
Then price drops towards cost of production. The first pharma still gets the windfall from between when they jacked up prices and the enterprising company finally got up an running. The enterprising company might never make a profit since the price drops the moment they enter the market.
The enterprising company knows this will happen which is why they don't enter the market to being with.
Daraprim (generic name Pyrimethamine) is also used a alternative treatment for maleria where quinine cannot be used, although resistance is now prevalent worldwide. The manufacturing cost is roughly $1 per 25 mg tablet, so even the old price of $13.50 per tablet is a very substantial markup. A typical course of treatment requires around 90 to 120 tablets.
Anyone in the USA needing this drug should fly to the UK where it is still manufactured by GKN and sold for the equivalent of $70 for 90 tablets. Those same 90 tablets would cost $67,500 at the new price in the USA, so the saving would be substantial even allowing for air fare, hotel, etc.
Some enterprising company willing to spend the money to get approval to import the drug from the UK would put this startup out of business. Hopefully.
Unless the startup just drops the price back down to put the enterprising company out of business.
The whole idea behind drug pricing is really weird. How do you determine a price for something that can literally mean the difference between life and death? What happens when you have things like drug plans, insurance, and regulations to ensure quality. I really don't know how you'd expect a market to properly function.
I also don't buy that argument -- otherwise how the hell did Tesla jump start into an already saturated market? If Apple was smart they would just buy Tesla to save them years of experience.:-)
Just because a company is_currently_ not in an existing market doesn't imply that they won't be hiring people who can lay the foundation.
Impossible? No. Hard? Yes.
Tesla didn't enter an already saturated market. They entered an untapped sub-market that traditional auto-makers aren't ready to enter (Telsa can afford to make major screwups and have limitations that an established auto-maker can't get away with).
Similarly Apple didn't enter a saturated phone market, they entered a very new smartphone market. A market they were one of the best positioned players to enter..
If Apple wants to make another Mercedes they've got a very tough battle ahead. But if they want to make a self-driving car, electric car, or if they have some other idea that traditional car manufacturers haven't done for some reason, then they've got a shot.
We're reverting back to the the 1800's again, this is barbaric. Would it be acceptable if a pair of white parents said that a bakery wasn't unwelcoming towards whites and therefore proceeded to buile one with a big "Whites Only" sign on the front? No, it wouldn't be permissible in today's soxiety, yet this atrocity is. Or is it perhaps okay because the two camps are "seperate but equal"?
It's permissible because despite the superficial similarity these types of segregation are completely different in both motive and effect.
"Whites only" was an attempt to exclude black people from white society.
But girls are already excluded from computer culture in a lot of ways, so any girl trying to enter often finds herself the lone girl in a "boys only" club designed for boys.
The objective of the "girls only" camp is to give the girls a venue in which to develop their interest. Afterwards they'll be much better suited to enter the men's only world of adult software development.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take Johnny. He's a smart kid, probably has the neurochemical make-up to be some sort of a genius. The problem is, he's retained less knowledge that can be used to adequately assess his raw intelligence through a common battery of questions.
The problem for your hypothesis is that intelligence tests do not rely on knowledge. Intelligence tests assess a person's ability to acquire new knowledge and apply that knowledge to new situations. Tests for intelligence do not ask things like, "Who was the first President of the United States?" Intelligence tests ask things like, "If all zerps are zogs, and all zogs are blarps, are all blarps zerps?" The answer is no, and it doesn't require knowing anything. It's purely a matter of thinking it through. Some people are capable and some aren't.
Except coaching does work for intelligence tests
In 14 studies on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, coaching raised scores by an average of 0.15 standard deviations; in 24 studies on other aptitude and intelligence tests, coaching raised scores by an average of 0.43 standard deviations.
And that's not even touching other big variables like the home environment, cultural bias, knowledge of the opportunity existing, etc.
If you have a gifted child, one that is naturally smart, but can't pass these tests it probably shows a lack a parental involvement.
Have you done similar tests so you know what to prepare your child for?
Do you have other parents in your peer group encouraging and advising you?
Are the tutors/practice tests a small portion of your income?
etc, the answers to all those questions depend a lot on race and income.
For a gifted kid from poor minority parents it usually takes exceptionally dedicated parents.
For a gifted kid from rich white parents it usually takes mildly dedicated parents.
That's how institutional racism works, it's not that it's impossible for group X to do Y, it's that you need to be exceptional to do Y if you're also a member of group X.
Throwing them in a gifted program without that same support structure of the family would be pointless.
Rather it might be the other way around.
Taking a gifted child who already has great family and community support probably doesn't make a big difference. They might get slightly smarter and go to a slightly better university but it's unlikely to be drastic.
But taking a gifted child who doesn't have that family and community support, and giving some support to them in the way of a gifted program, that can make a huge difference. You can take a kid who might barely have made it through high school and send them off to university with the preparation and peer group that will help them succeed.
I would care so much more about Carly here if I believed that any of the candidates won't cooperate fully with the NSA. Heck, one of the very few things Obama actually promised as a candidate was to cut back on this sort of thing, and he reversed as soon as he was in office. Either the NSA has some good shit on everyone in power, and/or everyone in power values convenience over the interests of the people. Sorry, I wouldn't even believe Bernie or Rand Paul here. We've created a monster.
"Do not summon that you cannot dismiss" - H. P. Lovecraft
You don't even need a conspiracy to explain it:
NSA: I need to look at anyone's email I want without a warrant.
Obama: What? Absolutely not, that's a huge invasion of privacy I was elected to stop!!
NSA: Ok, if there's a significant attack on US soil we'll investigate afterwards and find an email that plausibly could have warned us. Someone will then leak this email to the media and everyone will know that if you didn't take away this power we begged you for there was a non-trivial chance we could have saved the tens, hundreds, or even thousands of people who died in that attack.
Obama: Snoop away!
I have the sneaking suspicion that this is going to backfire massively. They'll have bad data hither and yon as overworked medicos end up entering the wrong codes (hey, it's a broken femur, who cares which side?) as often as the right ones. They won't get the supposed benefits of more granular data because the data will be so screwed up that they won't be able to draw any conclusions at all.
Nothing like an industry standard to screw things up on a grand scale.
I suspect you'll be right for the first five years and there will be a lot of ugly news stories. Then people will figure out how to work with the system, fix the bugs, and then things will get better.
This will be an interesting challenge for the 21st century, what do we do with all the people who are no longer required to make stuff?
Same thing we do with them already. Management.
The premise behind these simulations is that giving directions to crowds will improve flow of people.
It's a mighty big assumption that the folks in the crowds would follow a signal to "slow down". Between the culture in general (ever see a tidy British style queue in the middle east?), and the general human dynamics of large crowds of people, I don't have much hope of this being a success.
Perhaps a better solution would be to increase the time window for this event- spread the crowd over a few months instead of a few days.
I actually think that's a fairly good assumption. It might not stop a stampede in progress but the vast majority of the crowd is just going with the flow and doesn't really know what's going on. The activity of the crowd is determined by a very weak signal, if you can give them a strong signal instead they'll probably follow it.
Imagine you have a bunch of giant LED billboards overhead showing everyone in the crowd "SLOW DOWN" or "STOP" or "TURN RIGHT AT 42nd STREET". My guess is people are going to assume the billboards know what they're talking about and follow directions.
Of course if someone hacks the messaging system you now have the potential for mass casualties. I hope they're taking that into account.
Clinton broke the law regarding how those emails should be handled and she very likely knew she was breaking the law. She did it anyway because it made it easier to keep the emails out of the public record and all it takes is some random aide to type a dumb line in an email and you have a big campaign scandal. This is a strong enough motivation that it sounds like many other people on both sides in similar positions had done very similar things.
I'm also dubious this would be a firing/jailing offence for "little people". This is equivalent to finding an upper level manager who's had their division doing something against company policy for a while. If it really went sideways they might get fired, but much more likely the company just says "you're not supposed to be doing that so stop". It's not like she was covering it up, the non-government email was obvious to anyone who got an email from her.
As for how it affects people's political support. On the Democrat side the only real alternative is Bernie Sanders, and while he is picking up a lot of support he might be too far left to win an election. And on the Republican side the party has frankly gone insane. The best candidate they seem to have to offer is Jeb Bush, the little brother of someone who was arguably one of the worst US presidents is history. That doesn't mean Jeb would be the same but I'd wager that most people on either side would happily take Dubya over any of the current Republican candidates.
So it's perfectly sensible for people to say they're very against what Clinton did and think it was illegal, but they'll still vote for her because they don't have any alternatives.
LoL Obama is a centrist and the Republicans have gone so far right its not funny.
Trump is center-left
Trump is a troll, his policy positions aren't really relevant to his appeal.
and the Democrats have gone so far left-totalitarian they're putting stock in a literal communist (Sanders) because their current more-equal pig is getting caught in her sty.
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
The laws only apply to the little people, not the Clintons. If Whitewater, the Tyson payoff through bogus "futures investing",
Sadly quite true. I don't know much about Whitewater but it sounds like she got special treatement.
the Vince Foster murder, the Ron Brown murder and all the rest didn't even touch her
And then we go off the deep end...
Could the Clintons have covered up a murder? Possibly. But that doesn't mean everyone around them who died under slightly unusual circumstances was actually the victim of some elaborate Urquhartian murder and coverup conspiracy.
They should see a doctor before the spread. Lyme disease is pretty unpleasant.
Well to be fair there's bound to be a lot of bugs around in a competition like that.
But why believe decades of peer reviewed research when a science journalist like Gary Taubes writes a book with a bunch of misrepresented cherry-picked data? (True there's a few researchers who go along to varying extents as well, but they're not the consensus)
Because it works.
Try it.
I've been living on bacon and butter for several years now. I have the body of a super hero.
I'm not questioning the effectiveness of low-carb, I'm questioning the proposed mechanisms and the implications. As for you there's lots of skinny people with very diverse diets.
Also.., as per your question about trusting peer reviewed research...
Read the parent article for a clue.
So coke possibly trying to influence nutrition research means that other research that does nothing to help coke is suspect?
While a journalist who's now a rock star because of his contrarian views on diet has absolutely no motive to skew the results.
The correct pronunciation of the word "were?" Maybe you are thinking of where/wear.
We're/were
I guess they aren't technically homophones though I think the mistake comes from the same place of confusing two very similar looking/sounding words.
Assholery aside, "where" and "were" aren't homophones.
Aren't they?
The definition is:
A homophone is a word that is pronounced the same as another word but differs in meaning, and may differ in spelling.
Where/were seems to fit the definition and most of the sites I could find seemed to agree, is there something I'm missing?
I actually RTFA, because this interested me. And its a fascinating subject. I only sorta knew about these, i.e. hackathons, but I didn't realize there where giant, international, money-prize competitions. This, to me, is coding in its rawest, purest form. No business side, no integration, just problem solving in all its pure elegance and source code in all its unhindered, non-process, non-styleguide'd glory. I know I'm a huge geek but its honestly breathtaking.
That being said...this article is horrible. Ashlee Vance, you might be some sort of bestselling darling-of-the-tech-world author, and congrats on your book on Elon Musk or whatever, but I found this writing almost painful to read.
Theyâ(TM)re not the healthiest-looking bunch, with an average weight that appears to be no more than 120 pounds. There's a disturbingly stereotypical assortment of ticks, both verbal and gesticular, as well as bowl haircuts, wan faces, and shabby clothes. Mark Zuckerberg would look like an Adonis in this room.
The funny thing is the opening of the article is a HUGE photo that reveals... a bunch of normal looking people.
Are they a bit smaller than average, sure, their average age is early 20s and you probably don't have many gym rats, they probably even have a bit of acne as well. They aren't well dressed either because they're at a competition where they're given a specific shirt to wear, and being in their early 20s they probably don't have a great sense of style yet either.
As for the ticks you can't tell from a photo, but you're looking at people in a very intense and stressful competition, of course they're going to have some ticks. If you saw an NHL player rocking back and forth on the bench before a shift you'd be talking about how pumped and motivated they looked. But if you see a coder doing it before a major competition you suddenly decide they're mentally ill.
His friends explain that he mostly shuns the press after Wired did a story several years ago, which posited the idea that Korotkevich might âoedie a virgin.â
So does anyone know of any good online tech zines that embrace and exalt this culture, instead of trying to find ways to tear people down?
My hunch is that reporters are used to talking to talking to people who get interviewed a lot, the subjects have learned what to say and how to say it. The only time they meet a novice is when they talk to some random member of the public. Now you drop this reporter in a room full of brilliant people and they expect a bunch of brilliant interviews, instead they get a bunch of ordinary people who suck at interviews.
The dashed expectations probably create a lot of contempt.
Considering you don't know the difference between "where" or "were" you shouldn't criticize her writing skills.
I wasn't aware that not confusing homophones was a necessary prerequisite to diagnosing assholery.
Man makes name for himself in industry after years of hard work, study, diligent research - not fucking news.
Man is briefly fastest coder after leaving school because he can't cope with having to learn a bit of history alongside his talents - fucking news.
Stop this shit, because Kid who is briefly fastest coder could have gone to fucking school, even specialist computing school, and been an even better coder.
But that's not fucking news, is it?
FTA:
With his skills, Korotkevich could get a high-paying job at just about any company in Silicon Valley. But the Belarusian isn’t ready to be a coding professional just yet. This fall he’ll return to class at Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics, he’s said, in possible preparation for a career in science.
He's still in school, from what I could find there's only a single mention near the bottom that says some people are using sport coding as a way to skip college.
Frankly I think that's fine, there are three major benefits to university, giving you credentials, giving you connections, and teaching you the things you're too lazy to learn on your own. But being a successful sport coder can give you the first two, and if you're motivated enough to do that you might have a decent chance of filling in the gaps in your education yourself.
I'm not saying it's a good idea to skip college in general, but there are a small number of people for whom it might be the right call.
You say "gridlock" like it's a bad thing.
Every time Congress does anything, more of our rights and more of our money disappear.
They can all take a good long vacation, if you ask me.
You might have to join them if your job requires government funding and they force another shutdown.
Specifically, it's the reaction the body has to the carbohydrates (sugar): spiking insulin levels, blocking the release of fat as a fuel source, and encouraging the body to store energy as fat.
Or not
The carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity states that carbohydrates (particularly refined carbohydrates and sugar) are the primary cause of obesity due to their ability to increase circulating insulin, and that the solution to obesity is to restrict carbohydrate intake. Numerous studies have tested this hypothesis, more or less directly, in animals and humans. Despite the fact that many of these studies undermine the hypothesis, it remains extremely popular, both in the popular media and to a lesser extent among researchers.
But why believe decades of peer reviewed research when a science journalist like Gary Taubes writes a book with a bunch of misrepresented cherry-picked data? (True there's a few researchers who go along to varying extents as well, but they're not the consensus)
Couple with the comment that claimed $59,000 isn't enough to crack Tor.
The whole thing was a decoy play. Publicly spread doubt in the security of the Tor system, then make a public statement that Tor remains uncompromised.
If you trust the government, you trust Tor, but have few if any reasons to use it.
If you distrust the government, you distrust Tor, but have the most reason to need a secure channel to use.
End result, Putin wins.
Possibly, though if I was trying to dodge the US or Iranian government I'd be worried by the fact that Russia thought $60k was enough to crack it.
If I was Russian I might be more likely to use Tor since this whole thing makes Russia look really incompetent when it comes to trying to handle Tor.
Running the program intelligently (and fixing bugs on the fly) is precisely the role I think the US President is supposed to fulfil on domestic matters.
No the role of the president should be to implement and execute the law as written by congress. If the time lines were supposed to be felible congress could have easily have said, "starting not before tax year 2014" and left it to the executive to determine the specific when. They did not write that though, they wrote specific dates, which the president then simply ignored and did his own thing, which he is not entitled to do.
The President has a chance to second guess Congress, its call the veto. if a law is so specific as to be unworkable the president should veto it, and tell Congress why. "I am vetoing this law that I generally like because I can't possibly implement it as written with resources allocated, either send me a version with looser constraints or give me a larger allocation of assets to work with" would be a perfectly presidential response IMHO.
And just like software mistake happen and you have to deal with them.
Just ignoring the parts you don't like or can't effect on the other hand is just illegal. The rest of us don't get to do that!
Sorry mister firemarshall I would have installed a centralized fire detection system while converting this to a commercial space but you known the building is old, and there was no way we were going to be able to run the cables in time... Would not fly.
The rest of us weren't given an electoral mandate specifically to implement laws with some degree of discretion.
Clearly he doesn't have complete discretion, the specific line is for the SCOTUS to decide, but I think saying "this deadline as laid out is clearly a problem because of X which the law didn't anticipate".
Consider the alternative which is software code where you literally have to cover every possible contingency and even trivial bills would take months or even years to write and be orders of magnitude larger.
Or you could make the bills so vague that the president really can do whatever they want.
Given that I think the current system "this is what we want, get as close as possible without being stupid" works pretty well.
Once the enterprising company has spent the money developing it, there wouldn't be much incentive to stop just because another player dropped prices. It would be then just a battle for whoever had deeper pockets.
Then price drops towards cost of production. The first pharma still gets the windfall from between when they jacked up prices and the enterprising company finally got up an running. The enterprising company might never make a profit since the price drops the moment they enter the market.
The enterprising company knows this will happen which is why they don't enter the market to being with.
Your comment is the real meat of this story. All outlets are being lazy and stupid by making the story all about this one unethical businesskid.
I'm not sure if I'd call them lazy and stupid.
If you want to rally people to a cause there's nothing better than an unrepentant entitled asshole nominating himself as the villain.
Daraprim (generic name Pyrimethamine) is also used a alternative treatment for maleria where quinine cannot be used, although resistance is now prevalent worldwide. The manufacturing cost is roughly $1 per 25 mg tablet, so even the old price of $13.50 per tablet is a very substantial markup. A typical course of treatment requires around 90 to 120 tablets.
Anyone in the USA needing this drug should fly to the UK where it is still manufactured by GKN and sold for the equivalent of $70 for 90 tablets. Those same 90 tablets would cost $67,500 at the new price in the USA, so the saving would be substantial even allowing for air fare, hotel, etc.
Some enterprising company willing to spend the money to get approval to import the drug from the UK would put this startup out of business. Hopefully.
Unless the startup just drops the price back down to put the enterprising company out of business.
The whole idea behind drug pricing is really weird. How do you determine a price for something that can literally mean the difference between life and death? What happens when you have things like drug plans, insurance, and regulations to ensure quality. I really don't know how you'd expect a market to properly function.
Agreed!
I also don't buy that argument -- otherwise how the hell did Tesla jump start into an already saturated market? If Apple was smart they would just buy Tesla to save them years of experience. :-)
Just because a company is_currently_ not in an existing market doesn't imply that they won't be hiring people who can lay the foundation.
Impossible? No. Hard? Yes.
Tesla didn't enter an already saturated market. They entered an untapped sub-market that traditional auto-makers aren't ready to enter (Telsa can afford to make major screwups and have limitations that an established auto-maker can't get away with).
Similarly Apple didn't enter a saturated phone market, they entered a very new smartphone market. A market they were one of the best positioned players to enter..
If Apple wants to make another Mercedes they've got a very tough battle ahead. But if they want to make a self-driving car, electric car, or if they have some other idea that traditional car manufacturers haven't done for some reason, then they've got a shot.
We're reverting back to the the 1800's again, this is barbaric. Would it be acceptable if a pair of white parents said that a bakery wasn't unwelcoming towards whites and therefore proceeded to buile one with a big "Whites Only" sign on the front? No, it wouldn't be permissible in today's soxiety, yet this atrocity is. Or is it perhaps okay because the two camps are "seperate but equal"?
It's permissible because despite the superficial similarity these types of segregation are completely different in both motive and effect.
"Whites only" was an attempt to exclude black people from white society.
But girls are already excluded from computer culture in a lot of ways, so any girl trying to enter often finds herself the lone girl in a "boys only" club designed for boys.
The objective of the "girls only" camp is to give the girls a venue in which to develop their interest. Afterwards they'll be much better suited to enter the men's only world of adult software development.