Somebody else realized that you could announce a digital token, claim it's worth $1 per, make some vague insinuations about hiding from taxes and buying shady stuff, and stupid people would give you actual dollars.
Odd there haven't been more of these actually. I guess they've all been gambling they can make more than $1 per coin by letting the "value" float.
Maybe instead of using a threshold like "billionaire" you could use something a little less arbitrary. Maybe, say, the top 1% of wealth holders?
You're off with the corporate profits though. US corporations apparently take in about 8 trillion a year in profit. Even the US government, the largest in the world, could operate quite happily on a bit more than a third of that.
Unfortunately that seems to be a common issue with codes of conduct. Even with the good ones, somebody can't resist sticking in some absolute statement regarding their favourite issue.
I suspect that a lot of the kneejerk reaction to preferred pronouns comes from a subconscious horror of making a mistake. Most of us probably have the "oh, that's a cute baby girl you have... oh crap, it's a boy" social fear. It's even worse when the subject of the error is an adult, you can't rely on norms of appearance anymore, the proper pronoun might not be one you've ever even heard of, and you have the impression that both the subject and the greater social group are liable to react very strongly to any mistakes.
The resulting social insecurity makes a lot of people act like dicks.
Not true. Good photographers use different film for different situations. Fuji Velvia is beloved by landscape photographers, but it makes people in portraits look weird. Portrait photographers will often use film that is balanced to warm the colours up a bit because it tends to make people (of all colours) look better.
If I remember correctly, the supposedly racist film is actually early black and white film that would preserve detail in white faces but make people with very dark skin just look black. That's actually a basic property of film: the light response is nonlinear so you get more contrast at the dark end and less at the light end.
Creative jobs are worse. Mentally taxing jobs require more off time. Creative people tend to work weird hours and might take advantage of the extra productivity working long hours for a week or two, but then they rest, hard. Ever watched an artist work?
Programmers tend to be young, inexperienced, and think they're special. Or they pull the artist work-like-a-dog-for-a-week then their boss makes them do it for another week. And another.
Farmers do. They're business owners, so it's on them. Although farming is one of the most dangerous occupations, and a pretty good illustration of why mandatory max working hours is a good idea.
Then adjust schedules to the reality of what you can accomplish.
Nobody can work 100 hours a week productively. Software houses might actually be able to hit their deadlines if they enforced reasonable working hours, since chronically working more than 8 hours a day five days a week decreases your productivity.
If you live somewhere the law and employers don't suck, it doesn't.
You are hurting both yourself and your employer by working more than 40 hours a week. There's lots of good research showing that > 8*5 hours a week increases productivity slightly for one week, then decreases it thereafter. It's also terrible for your health.
An employer that doesn't suck will discipline you for working more than is productive, healthy and safe.
Sounds like poor planning to me. Management is failing to come to an agreement on planning with the working staff, which means they're failing to manage effectively. Things shouldn't be getting shoe horned in at the last minute.
Unless the SW developer IS the bidder. That kind of thing is insane. I don't know why anyone signs contracts like that.
At the end of my PhD the university wanted to patent something, and they wanted some example code they could publish to make it easy for others to try out our technique in their application. Great. I volunteered my code but told them it could use a little neatening up. As I was leaving I didn't feel much like doing it for them gratis. So they hired a professional development house to do it. $20k bought a developer for a month. He failed. They kept the $20k. I took a look at what he produced, which was a mess, and did it myself over a weekend. I did not get paid.
That contract should have been for work delivered. If the developer didn't think he could complete the project in the time quoted, he should have upped the estimate.
Thereâ(TM)s some interesting research on this. Not just developers... virtually all time or cost estimates are lowball.
Basically it boils down to bidders knowing that theyâ(TM)re more likely to get the contract by bidding low (or please the boss by guessing low) and slipped targets later arenâ(TM)t catastrophic. IIRC the UK government measured the average overrun and just adds that value to every estimate.
Even if it is a problem, which it could become with so many Joe Randoms buying drones, it's easily addressed through enforcement of existing laws. Illegally flying in restricted airspace comes with some hefty penalties.
Already done. Airports have restricted airspace all around them, usually in a kind of inverted cone pattern that protects approaching and departing aircraft. You can't fly a kite in that airspace.
IIRC the drone manufacturers are supposed to build in automatic safeguards that prevent their drones from entering such airspace. Never mind that the RC aircraft community has managed just fine without such things for decades.
"And I'd suggest that this principle is only true today"
Unlikely. It's fairly easy to make a qubit. It's fairly easy, but not trivial, to put a bunch of them on a chip. It's hard to put a bunch of them on a chip, have them highly coupled, and have them maintain coherence long enough to do something useful. And it gets harder rapidly the more you want to have, due to real physical limitations.
That's probably not true. Quantum computers are more difficult to make the more qubits you need to stick together. In a conventional computer the "difficulty" of a computation is dominated by the number of operations. In a quantum computer it tends to be dominated by the number of qubits that are required.
Super symmetry is technically a standalone idea, but super string theory, which is the modern version of string theory, includes super symmetry as a pretty essential part.
It's not really that simple. Hypothesis and theory are a bit ill defined.
The best definition, closest to what is generally used in practice, is that a theory is some kind of logical and/or mathematical framework that provides some explanatory power. A hypothesis is a specific prediction, that can, at least in principle, be tested by experiment.
A good theory should make predictions (generate hypotheses) that can be tested.
Eddington's eclipse expedition tested the hypothesis that starlight would be deflected near the eclipsed sun. This hypothesis is a consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Slashdot Mirror
Microplastics are found extensively in water. Most animals drink water. Including vegans.
Somebody else realized that you could announce a digital token, claim it's worth $1 per, make some vague insinuations about hiding from taxes and buying shady stuff, and stupid people would give you actual dollars.
Odd there haven't been more of these actually. I guess they've all been gambling they can make more than $1 per coin by letting the "value" float.
What an odd conclusion. Particularly when reading an article about how an ambitious engineering project failed.
You could read the article you linked to. It's quite informative. Answers your question explicitly.
Ironic. Every iPhone up to the 7 (and likely beyond that, but I don't have one) has had external, visible screws.
Maybe instead of using a threshold like "billionaire" you could use something a little less arbitrary. Maybe, say, the top 1% of wealth holders?
You're off with the corporate profits though. US corporations apparently take in about 8 trillion a year in profit. Even the US government, the largest in the world, could operate quite happily on a bit more than a third of that.
Unfortunately that seems to be a common issue with codes of conduct. Even with the good ones, somebody can't resist sticking in some absolute statement regarding their favourite issue.
I suspect that a lot of the kneejerk reaction to preferred pronouns comes from a subconscious horror of making a mistake. Most of us probably have the "oh, that's a cute baby girl you have... oh crap, it's a boy" social fear. It's even worse when the subject of the error is an adult, you can't rely on norms of appearance anymore, the proper pronoun might not be one you've ever even heard of, and you have the impression that both the subject and the greater social group are liable to react very strongly to any mistakes.
The resulting social insecurity makes a lot of people act like dicks.
Some people have crappy parents. Others figure that when they turn 18 they can forget all those stupid rules.
Not true. Good photographers use different film for different situations. Fuji Velvia is beloved by landscape photographers, but it makes people in portraits look weird. Portrait photographers will often use film that is balanced to warm the colours up a bit because it tends to make people (of all colours) look better.
If I remember correctly, the supposedly racist film is actually early black and white film that would preserve detail in white faces but make people with very dark skin just look black. That's actually a basic property of film: the light response is nonlinear so you get more contrast at the dark end and less at the light end.
Creative jobs are worse. Mentally taxing jobs require more off time. Creative people tend to work weird hours and might take advantage of the extra productivity working long hours for a week or two, but then they rest, hard. Ever watched an artist work?
Programmers tend to be young, inexperienced, and think they're special. Or they pull the artist work-like-a-dog-for-a-week then their boss makes them do it for another week. And another.
Farmers do. They're business owners, so it's on them. Although farming is one of the most dangerous occupations, and a pretty good illustration of why mandatory max working hours is a good idea.
Then adjust schedules to the reality of what you can accomplish.
Nobody can work 100 hours a week productively. Software houses might actually be able to hit their deadlines if they enforced reasonable working hours, since chronically working more than 8 hours a day five days a week decreases your productivity.
If you live somewhere the law and employers don't suck, it doesn't.
You are hurting both yourself and your employer by working more than 40 hours a week. There's lots of good research showing that > 8*5 hours a week increases productivity slightly for one week, then decreases it thereafter. It's also terrible for your health.
An employer that doesn't suck will discipline you for working more than is productive, healthy and safe.
Sounds like poor planning to me. Management is failing to come to an agreement on planning with the working staff, which means they're failing to manage effectively. Things shouldn't be getting shoe horned in at the last minute.
Unless the SW developer IS the bidder. That kind of thing is insane. I don't know why anyone signs contracts like that.
At the end of my PhD the university wanted to patent something, and they wanted some example code they could publish to make it easy for others to try out our technique in their application. Great. I volunteered my code but told them it could use a little neatening up. As I was leaving I didn't feel much like doing it for them gratis. So they hired a professional development house to do it. $20k bought a developer for a month. He failed. They kept the $20k. I took a look at what he produced, which was a mess, and did it myself over a weekend. I did not get paid.
That contract should have been for work delivered. If the developer didn't think he could complete the project in the time quoted, he should have upped the estimate.
Thereâ(TM)s some interesting research on this. Not just developers... virtually all time or cost estimates are lowball.
Basically it boils down to bidders knowing that theyâ(TM)re more likely to get the contract by bidding low (or please the boss by guessing low) and slipped targets later arenâ(TM)t catastrophic. IIRC the UK government measured the average overrun and just adds that value to every estimate.
Make excessive overtime illegal (or enforce existing laws). If you miss a deadline the scheduling manager is at fault.
Even if it is a problem, which it could become with so many Joe Randoms buying drones, it's easily addressed through enforcement of existing laws. Illegally flying in restricted airspace comes with some hefty penalties.
Already done. Airports have restricted airspace all around them, usually in a kind of inverted cone pattern that protects approaching and departing aircraft. You can't fly a kite in that airspace.
IIRC the drone manufacturers are supposed to build in automatic safeguards that prevent their drones from entering such airspace. Never mind that the RC aircraft community has managed just fine without such things for decades.
"And I'd suggest that this principle is only true today"
Unlikely. It's fairly easy to make a qubit. It's fairly easy, but not trivial, to put a bunch of them on a chip. It's hard to put a bunch of them on a chip, have them highly coupled, and have them maintain coherence long enough to do something useful. And it gets harder rapidly the more you want to have, due to real physical limitations.
That's probably not true. Quantum computers are more difficult to make the more qubits you need to stick together. In a conventional computer the "difficulty" of a computation is dominated by the number of operations. In a quantum computer it tends to be dominated by the number of qubits that are required.
Super symmetry is technically a standalone idea, but super string theory, which is the modern version of string theory, includes super symmetry as a pretty essential part.
It's not really that simple. Hypothesis and theory are a bit ill defined.
The best definition, closest to what is generally used in practice, is that a theory is some kind of logical and/or mathematical framework that provides some explanatory power. A hypothesis is a specific prediction, that can, at least in principle, be tested by experiment.
A good theory should make predictions (generate hypotheses) that can be tested.
Eddington's eclipse expedition tested the hypothesis that starlight would be deflected near the eclipsed sun. This hypothesis is a consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Being confident, when you're also competent, makes you more likely to do something big.
Being arrogant makes you more likely to walk straight into a catastrophe because you're too much of a dick to question yourself.
Yes, a lot of people confuse them.