By that logic, we shouldn't use that kind of rhetoric for robbers, rapists, and murderers? Also, I'm not railing against "wrong class". That's how fucking owned all the responders on this thread of mine are. They think antipathy for white collar criminals equates to communism or le Terror. I'm not Robespierre to want the people who were purposefully bundling toxic assets thrown in jail, the people who are manipulating LIBOR to face prosecution, etc. These people are real fuck heads, and by these people I don't mean every banker, or every capitalist, or every wealthy person. If you can't appreciate this distinction, you're a tool.
Wealth and health are heavily correlated. People care about crimes like their house being robbed of a few thousand dollars because they're acute phenomena that are easily appreciated. Even when the crime had zero chance of hurting us physically, we all feel outraged and angry upon discovering the loss of our stuff.
We don't notice the theft due to the LIBOR manipulations, for instance. It's hard to connect the dots when we can't afford health care and so we don't go get a checkup as often as we should and we ultimately discover an advanced cancer with a terrible prognosis which would have been better caught early. Stealing a few thousand dollars from some one pennies at a time still ultimately makes it more likely we die early or live lives with more suffering. We're less likely to send our children to college, less likely for them to improve the world for others, and it goes on and on. Our total wealth lives in the potential of human beings to collectively change the human condition. Stealing thousands of dollars from each individual is a big deal. It's just that when it's done to us through mechanisms like quantitative easing, we don't even notice.
Yeah, that stuff happens. We don't notice when we make 50% of what we should because of the totality of white collar crime or other aristocratic bullshit. Nobody is angry that several thousand dollars have been stolen from them via their mortgage because of the LIBOR manipulations. Its invisible to us.
Trillions have been stolen by rich men. People don't care because they don't understand or they've learned to accept the system as it comes to them. It's hard to get outraged about these things because it's unclear what to do. Our legislature seems captured by these fucks, on both sides of the aisle.
It's worse than that, because much of the crime that we experience up front by the poor would be lessened if the economic situation improved for the poor. A rich man's crimes breed poor men's crimes.
Isn't this essentially the hunter gatherer lifestyle? For most of humanity's existence, we basically lived this way until we were forced to give it up to adopt agriculture.
Sounds like you're giving up after the first attempt.
Aren't you making their point for them? Is there some sort of long term value to forcing retail experiences to have built in retry at the consumer level? It seems quite the opposite. Does it make a retailer more competitive if we don't have to have a second attempt when purchasing the stock?
Who cares about the fourth amendment, anyway. We should definitely give the federal government all of our personal information. Maybe install cameras for their viewing benefit in our living rooms? We definitely shouldn't allow anyone to be anonymous on the internet. Or, frankly, any public forum. We need video cameras on all the walmart corkboards right? Just in case it would be useful in solving a crime. Certainly, we can trust the federales to safeguard the bank account information of people who've offended the federales, at least until the democrats are in charge again and then it's probably time to complain about it, yes? Also, wtf is the point of a warrant anymore. It gets in the way of solving crimes, and punishing our political opponents, which soon will be considered the same thing anyway.
Money laundering is when you take illegally gotten gains and make them look like they were legally acquired. Tumblers simply anonymize the source which is not sufficient to consider the funds laundered. It's not like the IRS is going to stop charging you with tax evasion because they can't figure out how you acquired the money. Adding anonymity to the source of funds is not necessarily a crime either. Consider how money is moved through international banks which obscures where the funds originated.
Yes, you too can know the joys of a watered down vote by virtue of living in a densely populated area! Time to share your two senators with many more people! And be gerrymandered so your reps have no interest in what you say.
If you're invested in an all-market fund, the rate of change in the market is meaningful to you. This is the point you're calling "meaningless". Do you not understand it?
How do you acquire an answer to the question "what is the change in my all-market shares since yesterday?" There is no way to answer this question without the information you call meaningless.
It is not meaningless. It just doesn't mean something that you value.
They gave you the derivative and you're recognizing that derivative is only interesting to you if the absolute value (which cannot be inferred from the derivative) is interesting to you. If someone doesn't understand how to interpret statistics, they may not understand the limitations implied in the statement "there was a 400% increase in reported cases of the clap in Jackson County," but I assure you I immediately understood and anyone who regularly uses statistics to make inferences for business purposes would have inferred immediately. This doesn't mean the stats are useless just because a politician can hijack them to mislead the ignorant.
Your data point only shows that misunderstanding the statistic is dangerous and not useful. On the other hand, if we discover that the rate of HIV infection is dramatically correlated with number of sexual partners, have we not used statistics to infer a hypothesis for causality that is bloody useful? Or, if a business wants to determine how many units to make when entering some market so that it doesn't sink too much capital too early and limit its cash flow (and hence its profitability), then it can use stats in a highly profitable way. Stats was also extensively used to track the inbound progress of a storm which probably saved lives in Florida and Houston, recently. Do you really want to take the position that statistics is useless?
People who blame stats for being "lies" are like people who hear a politician lie to them using English and blame English. In nearly all cases, you should either blame your ignorance, the person trying to leverage your ignorance of statistics to inject an understanding that isn't useful, or both.
Statistics is a triumph of modernity which is increasing our quality and length of life.
The idea that you develop more rapidly in weakly typed languages (and, implicitly, the importance of maximizing development time) seems to stem from two erroneous assumptions.
The first is that we spend the majority of our time developing. This may be true for hobbyist programmers and possibly even consulting work for small projects. For any effort beyond that, which is the majority of paid programming work and popular open source products, the majority of time is spent fixing bugs.
The second is that strongly typed languages have to be slower to develop. In almost every domain at almost every level of complexity, I find Scala faster to develop in than Python. It gives me strongly typed error-checking as I write the language by using the presentation compiler (assuming modern IDE) to highlight issues early on. It also gives me type inference so I do not often have to specify the types I'm working in at many declaration sites. Finally, it gives me a terse transformation of collections using the combination of strong typing and type inference. I also spend less time thinking about how to express what I want to do.
For any large scale project, if the IDE can allow you to click through to a definition of a complex type or method definition, this saves oodles and oodles of time because we need to understand what we're calling and reading the code often is faster than reading the manual and deducing where it lied to you. If you're not calling code you didn't write, you're not doing something sufficiently complex as to really be interesting or you're writing something embedded in which case the focus on reducing bugs is even more important. Statically typed languages do a much better job of giving you this reference automatically.
Of course, this is all predicated on the types of development we're doing, because no language anywhere can beat the development speed of another language that has a popular, mature domain-specific library to solve a problem. If the language itself has operators or constructions which excel in a specific domain, it's also difficult to beat that language with any language that lacks that focus.
It does not require a conspiracy theory for it to be true that a pharmaceutical company is unlikely to pump money into looking for a cure. At every level of a company, people will be thinking about how to make money, not how to save the world. If they happened upon a cure, maybe they would share it and work to get it approved. If they have an expensive drug that must be taken for life, why would they spend money looking for a cure? This is why little ole liberal me thinks we should always be doing some government funding of basic research in universities.
It is also not true that every large organization with big secrets eventually loses control over those secrets. At least, not in the real time. We know plenty of secrets now that were kept for decades until they no longer mattered. Nobody knows the formula for coke outside of Coca Cola. There are no whistle blowers behind the strategies that big pharmaceuticals take to avoid their drugs becoming generic. Conspiracies without evidence are inane, yet so is thinking companies are not capable of doing dastardly things in secret.
I would modify it to suggest that your point is that he's "less wrong", in the sense that if it is simply harder to get a compromised compiler into the hands of a user. A variety of obstacles occur in that process. If the user is pulling their binaries over SSL from debian, then debian would likely have to be compromised (Which feels less likely than compromising some application binary in a general sense).
What world do you live on where any of this is true? Our information "super highway" is being used to tear the world apart. People are being indoctrinated not educated.
Citation please. It's being used for a lot of things and it's definitely disruptive. In the aggregate, over the long haul, is it a force for good or evil? Hard to say. It's also hard to point to the mess of interactions and blame destabilizing political events on it.
We can make some solid claims: science is making it cheaper to produce consumer goods, to produce life saving drugs, and to increase the carrying capacity of the planet. Poverty is decreasing globally and literacy is increasing globally and this is likely due to the aforementioned reasons.
Moreover, it does not seem to me that we can even make a claim that the world is being torn apart. Brexit is the most peaceful secession in history, it seems. For a long time, the great powers of the world have not been in active war with each other. ISIS gets much more ink than it deserves, its terrorism is a rounding error in deaths caused and it's almost certainly not a threat to the existence or prosperity of western civilization. Quality of life and political stability seem to be increasing in a general sense in the third world.
Where is your proof that things are being torn apart? Is it because your cousin voted for someone you dislike and has the gall to post irritating memes about it on Facebook?
is it just me or when you read an article like this one does your "This is a crock of sh*t" alarm go off?
Seems like about 1 million assumptions and taking estimates into facts and global averages into local and assuming 100 utilization of generation and zero pollution cost of manufacture and disposal of generation equipment. Plus probably more. I mean I love renewable energy but this article just smells bad despite all the clean renewable air.
Estimation can be a useful tool even in areas where estimation is highly susceptible to bias.
For better or worse he's going to be President of the United States for the next three years and a couple months. Everyone, those dozens of CEOs of "American" companies included, would do well to remember that.
This is an awfully nice place you have here. Shame if anything were to happen to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno about GP, but I like the fact that big, heavily-populated states (California, New York, Texas) don't get to set the agenda for the rest of us.
Yes, Tyranny of the Minority is fun when you're the minority.
Remove the Electoral College, and you have a situation where candidates only need pander to a small handful of states...
You mean they'd have to pander to a majority of the people, who are worth less than you are worth because you dislike their politics.
By that logic, we shouldn't use that kind of rhetoric for robbers, rapists, and murderers? Also, I'm not railing against "wrong class". That's how fucking owned all the responders on this thread of mine are. They think antipathy for white collar criminals equates to communism or le Terror. I'm not Robespierre to want the people who were purposefully bundling toxic assets thrown in jail, the people who are manipulating LIBOR to face prosecution, etc. These people are real fuck heads, and by these people I don't mean every banker, or every capitalist, or every wealthy person. If you can't appreciate this distinction, you're a tool.
Wealth and health are heavily correlated. People care about crimes like their house being robbed of a few thousand dollars because they're acute phenomena that are easily appreciated. Even when the crime had zero chance of hurting us physically, we all feel outraged and angry upon discovering the loss of our stuff.
We don't notice the theft due to the LIBOR manipulations, for instance. It's hard to connect the dots when we can't afford health care and so we don't go get a checkup as often as we should and we ultimately discover an advanced cancer with a terrible prognosis which would have been better caught early. Stealing a few thousand dollars from some one pennies at a time still ultimately makes it more likely we die early or live lives with more suffering. We're less likely to send our children to college, less likely for them to improve the world for others, and it goes on and on. Our total wealth lives in the potential of human beings to collectively change the human condition. Stealing thousands of dollars from each individual is a big deal. It's just that when it's done to us through mechanisms like quantitative easing, we don't even notice.
Yeah, that stuff happens. We don't notice when we make 50% of what we should because of the totality of white collar crime or other aristocratic bullshit. Nobody is angry that several thousand dollars have been stolen from them via their mortgage because of the LIBOR manipulations. Its invisible to us.
Trillions have been stolen by rich men. People don't care because they don't understand or they've learned to accept the system as it comes to them. It's hard to get outraged about these things because it's unclear what to do. Our legislature seems captured by these fucks, on both sides of the aisle.
It's worse than that, because much of the crime that we experience up front by the poor would be lessened if the economic situation improved for the poor. A rich man's crimes breed poor men's crimes.
Were the Hitler quotes actually offensive though? What were they?
Fortune isn't a museum or a history class, it's a database of inspiring quotes. It's not an appropriate place for nazis.
People have been saying politics have been destroying the open source movement since about five minutes after the first source was forked.
Wouldn't it be amusing if "Anonymous Coward" was changed to "Russian Agitator"?
Isn't this essentially the hunter gatherer lifestyle? For most of humanity's existence, we basically lived this way until we were forced to give it up to adopt agriculture.
Until we won't even be able to prove it's fake.
Sounds like you're giving up after the first attempt.
Aren't you making their point for them? Is there some sort of long term value to forcing retail experiences to have built in retry at the consumer level? It seems quite the opposite. Does it make a retailer more competitive if we don't have to have a second attempt when purchasing the stock?
Should we call it AOL-internet, too?
Who cares about the fourth amendment, anyway. We should definitely give the federal government all of our personal information. Maybe install cameras for their viewing benefit in our living rooms? We definitely shouldn't allow anyone to be anonymous on the internet. Or, frankly, any public forum. We need video cameras on all the walmart corkboards right? Just in case it would be useful in solving a crime. Certainly, we can trust the federales to safeguard the bank account information of people who've offended the federales, at least until the democrats are in charge again and then it's probably time to complain about it, yes? Also, wtf is the point of a warrant anymore. It gets in the way of solving crimes, and punishing our political opponents, which soon will be considered the same thing anyway.
Money laundering is when you take illegally gotten gains and make them look like they were legally acquired. Tumblers simply anonymize the source which is not sufficient to consider the funds laundered. It's not like the IRS is going to stop charging you with tax evasion because they can't figure out how you acquired the money. Adding anonymity to the source of funds is not necessarily a crime either. Consider how money is moved through international banks which obscures where the funds originated.
Yes, you too can know the joys of a watered down vote by virtue of living in a densely populated area! Time to share your two senators with many more people! And be gerrymandered so your reps have no interest in what you say.
AWS
If you're invested in an all-market fund, the rate of change in the market is meaningful to you. This is the point you're calling "meaningless". Do you not understand it?
How do you acquire an answer to the question "what is the change in my all-market shares since yesterday?" There is no way to answer this question without the information you call meaningless.
It is not meaningless. It just doesn't mean something that you value.
They gave you the derivative and you're recognizing that derivative is only interesting to you if the absolute value (which cannot be inferred from the derivative) is interesting to you. If someone doesn't understand how to interpret statistics, they may not understand the limitations implied in the statement "there was a 400% increase in reported cases of the clap in Jackson County," but I assure you I immediately understood and anyone who regularly uses statistics to make inferences for business purposes would have inferred immediately. This doesn't mean the stats are useless just because a politician can hijack them to mislead the ignorant.
Your data point only shows that misunderstanding the statistic is dangerous and not useful. On the other hand, if we discover that the rate of HIV infection is dramatically correlated with number of sexual partners, have we not used statistics to infer a hypothesis for causality that is bloody useful? Or, if a business wants to determine how many units to make when entering some market so that it doesn't sink too much capital too early and limit its cash flow (and hence its profitability), then it can use stats in a highly profitable way. Stats was also extensively used to track the inbound progress of a storm which probably saved lives in Florida and Houston, recently. Do you really want to take the position that statistics is useless?
People who blame stats for being "lies" are like people who hear a politician lie to them using English and blame English. In nearly all cases, you should either blame your ignorance, the person trying to leverage your ignorance of statistics to inject an understanding that isn't useful, or both.
Statistics is a triumph of modernity which is increasing our quality and length of life.
The idea that you develop more rapidly in weakly typed languages (and, implicitly, the importance of maximizing development time) seems to stem from two erroneous assumptions.
The first is that we spend the majority of our time developing. This may be true for hobbyist programmers and possibly even consulting work for small projects. For any effort beyond that, which is the majority of paid programming work and popular open source products, the majority of time is spent fixing bugs.
The second is that strongly typed languages have to be slower to develop. In almost every domain at almost every level of complexity, I find Scala faster to develop in than Python. It gives me strongly typed error-checking as I write the language by using the presentation compiler (assuming modern IDE) to highlight issues early on. It also gives me type inference so I do not often have to specify the types I'm working in at many declaration sites. Finally, it gives me a terse transformation of collections using the combination of strong typing and type inference. I also spend less time thinking about how to express what I want to do.
For any large scale project, if the IDE can allow you to click through to a definition of a complex type or method definition, this saves oodles and oodles of time because we need to understand what we're calling and reading the code often is faster than reading the manual and deducing where it lied to you. If you're not calling code you didn't write, you're not doing something sufficiently complex as to really be interesting or you're writing something embedded in which case the focus on reducing bugs is even more important. Statically typed languages do a much better job of giving you this reference automatically.
Of course, this is all predicated on the types of development we're doing, because no language anywhere can beat the development speed of another language that has a popular, mature domain-specific library to solve a problem. If the language itself has operators or constructions which excel in a specific domain, it's also difficult to beat that language with any language that lacks that focus.
It does not require a conspiracy theory for it to be true that a pharmaceutical company is unlikely to pump money into looking for a cure. At every level of a company, people will be thinking about how to make money, not how to save the world. If they happened upon a cure, maybe they would share it and work to get it approved. If they have an expensive drug that must be taken for life, why would they spend money looking for a cure? This is why little ole liberal me thinks we should always be doing some government funding of basic research in universities.
It is also not true that every large organization with big secrets eventually loses control over those secrets. At least, not in the real time. We know plenty of secrets now that were kept for decades until they no longer mattered. Nobody knows the formula for coke outside of Coca Cola. There are no whistle blowers behind the strategies that big pharmaceuticals take to avoid their drugs becoming generic. Conspiracies without evidence are inane, yet so is thinking companies are not capable of doing dastardly things in secret.
"Welcome to core Statistics"
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Wake me when they can do straight math without needing to fudge numbers.
I believe another term for permanent sleep is death? It's definitely a sign of brain death not to recognize the value of statistics to our world.
You could also say that AGW is a Rube Goldberg contraption that provides no means of falsification or validation.
EVERYTHING that happens is laid at AGW's feet. Too Much or Too Little of everything is deemed the fault of AGW.
It's the Theory of EVERYTHING!
... which we can falsify with capital letters!
You have a point.
I would modify it to suggest that your point is that he's "less wrong", in the sense that if it is simply harder to get a compromised compiler into the hands of a user. A variety of obstacles occur in that process. If the user is pulling their binaries over SSL from debian, then debian would likely have to be compromised (Which feels less likely than compromising some application binary in a general sense).
What world do you live on where any of this is true? Our information "super highway" is being used to tear the world apart. People are being indoctrinated not educated.
Citation please. It's being used for a lot of things and it's definitely disruptive. In the aggregate, over the long haul, is it a force for good or evil? Hard to say. It's also hard to point to the mess of interactions and blame destabilizing political events on it.
We can make some solid claims: science is making it cheaper to produce consumer goods, to produce life saving drugs, and to increase the carrying capacity of the planet. Poverty is decreasing globally and literacy is increasing globally and this is likely due to the aforementioned reasons.
Moreover, it does not seem to me that we can even make a claim that the world is being torn apart. Brexit is the most peaceful secession in history, it seems. For a long time, the great powers of the world have not been in active war with each other. ISIS gets much more ink than it deserves, its terrorism is a rounding error in deaths caused and it's almost certainly not a threat to the existence or prosperity of western civilization. Quality of life and political stability seem to be increasing in a general sense in the third world.
Where is your proof that things are being torn apart? Is it because your cousin voted for someone you dislike and has the gall to post irritating memes about it on Facebook?
is it just me or when you read an article like this one does your "This is a crock of sh*t" alarm go off?
Seems like about 1 million assumptions and taking estimates into facts and global averages into local and assuming 100 utilization of generation and zero pollution cost of manufacture and disposal of generation equipment. Plus probably more. I mean I love renewable energy but this article just smells bad despite all the clean renewable air.
Estimation can be a useful tool even in areas where estimation is highly susceptible to bias.
For better or worse he's going to be President of the United States for the next three years and a couple months. Everyone, those dozens of CEOs of "American" companies included, would do well to remember that.
This is an awfully nice place you have here. Shame if anything were to happen to it.
https://news.vice.com/story/vice-news-tonight-full-episode-charlottesville-race-and-terror
Contains plenty of those 'not-nazis' talking about how their long term goal is eradication of 'others'.