I can understand paying a reasonable amount of money for an in-app purchase, if it makes the game more fun. I can't understand $8700 unless someone's either very rich or obsessed, or treating it as an out-of-game investment. The on-line games I'm familiar with disallow real-world trading, so it's risky at best.
You're talking about legislating politeness here, and I don't know that any significant number of people want to do that. Personally, I'm thick-skinned and perfectly happy to write someone off as a lost cause if they have nothing but insults. BTW, Trump played identity politics very well. The whole opppressed white male Christian thing is identity politics.
As a long-time D&D player, I'd rather be considered a Social Justice Mage, but you go ahead and categorize me if it's convenient for you. I'm completely against censoring ideas. Of course, I'm perfectly prepared to mock bad ideas. It's freedom of speech, just like not applauding the State of the Union address. I wasn't impressed with Damore's work, although he did have some points. He seemed to me to be trying to contribute, and I am not happy about his firing. I think it reflects badly on Google.
I'm curious as to how you'd get around them. If, for some reason, a function is supposed to return a pointer value, and there's no valid value, do you throw an exception? How about coming to the end of a linked list?
nullptr (as C++ calls it) is no more and no less than a guaranteed invalid pointer value that's very easy to test for.
My take on it: you really don't need to know the exact type. You've got a const_iterator. You can use it as an iterator, and dereference it to get a const value. What more do you need from the code?
How can you use iterators and not know what.cbegin() is? It returns a const_iterator for whatever v is.
And, yes, citer could be of assorted different types. Who cares? You want a const_iterator for v, you get a const_iterator for v. If you change the type of v later on, the statement with auto remains valid and says exactly what you want it to say. If you gave a type, then if you changed the type of v you'd have all sorts of lines to change, and if you're lucky they'll all be compile errors.
That's what coding standards are for. They're arguably more necessary in C++ than in most languages. Coding standards that can be automatically enforced are best; next best are coding standards that can be enforced by peer review; the remainder aren't all that useful because somebody's likely to violate them.
I would hope you're using the C++ standard containers and strings and smart pointers, which are templates. Of course, it's much easier to use somebody else's well-designed templates than to write good ones of your own.
And, in the last seven years, with the last three major revisions, C++ has become, I would estimate, three or four times harder than it was before.
Nope. Pretty much all the new stuff is to make it easier to program. Don't use the outdated stuff, and you can always keep a book handy to remind you of what it does.
A lot of the complaints about C++ are because it encapsulates some difficult concepts in syntax that's not too horrible (considering it's C++). General code generation (C++ templates or Lisp macros) is hard. It can also pay off big-time.
I hope you also dislike right-wing identity politics, and are against the Republican's attempt to establish rule through gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Of course, but with thought crimes ever expanding, and the Party Line changing from day to day, it's very easy to inadvertently commit crimes in the eyes of SJWs.
In other words, you're claiming it's very easy to inadvertently offend some people, if you lack tact or respect for others. Since these SJWs, if they exist in any numbers, do not have legislative or judicial power, you're free to ignore them. Similarly, they're free to ignore you.
Brendan Eich's political activities (contributing large amounts of money to deny people basic rights) had a direct impact on his ability to be an effective CEO. Most of us aren't in such a public position, and nobody really cares about our politics. People will care if we're a bunch of jerks, and that's about it. Dickinson was also something of a public face of his company. Be a public asshole, and no company's going to want to be associated with you. In neither case were SJWs responding inappropriately, and the decisions were made by the businesses.
Um, it's their card, and their money. They don't really give a crap about your physical, mental, or spiritual health. They're interested in making money. All their restrictions are based on that.
They apparently think bitcoin purchases are more risky than donut purchases. If you're a reasonably good credit risk, you'll be able to pay off the donuts when the next bill comes. However, if you max out your card on Bitcoin, you may be relying on that investment to pay the credit card company.
The bottom line is that it's their money, and they are letting you borrow it for certain uses. If you want to buy Bitcoin, either get a credit card that allows it or use a debit card or another form of your own money.
What was more common was adjustable-rate mortgages which the borrower could afford only when interest rates stayed low. There were also NINJA loans (No INcome, Job, or Assets). In the database I was working with at the time, these were listed as "stated income" and "stated assets", which almost certainly means lies, since if you bothered to establish your income and assets you'd get a considerably lower rate.
The general idea is that Sam buys a house with a liars' loan, its value goes up, and Sam defaults. The bank forecloses and sells the house for more than the initial mortgage, the bank doesn't lose money, and Sam probably winds up with a little. (The financial modeling I was doing then had a parameter for how fast the housing market went up, and they weren't interested in projections with negative numbers there.)
The other general idea is that, if you issued mortgages, you could immediately sell them to financial institutions that would slice them up into tranches and sell the tranches. (You have a lot of loans, some of which will be bad. You establish four tranches. Each tranche gets the money paid on the loans in order, so the first tranche would get the full income stream, the second would get what was left over up to its nominal income stream, and so forth.) At some point, financial institutions seem to have overlooked the possibility that it could fall apart. People who invested in the mortgage scam got better returns than those who didn't until the house of cards blew over.
I can't blame Sam all that much. Sam probably knew little about finance, and was assured that he could get a house by someone who appeared to know a lot more than Sam did. However, the mortgage companies and banks and other financial institutions really should have known about finance. I blame them.
If I buy in-game currency, I'm not expecting to function as an investment. I've decided to spend more money on this game, that's all. Therefore, I'm going to be spending what I can actually afford, not what I can afford if I get lucky with risky investments.
Insurance doesn't reduce expected loss. It reduces uncertainty about fluctuating risk. If there's more defaults, and the company files more insurance claims, the company's premiums will go up.
I theoretically can get cash advances with my credit cards (I've forgotten how), but I don't get as favorably treatment as if I buy something that isn't cash.
They may think they're less likely to get their money when their customer buys a risky investment. If I buy stuff for personal consumption, I've budgeted that money (more or less; I'm a very sloppy budgetter) for it and plan to pay it back. If I buy a risky investment, there's a good chance that I've counted on the investment to have paid off by my next monthly bill, and I may not be able to pay it back if it tanks.
I go to the grocery store and buy groceries with my credit card. The credit card company pays the store, and expects me to pay the next month. No matter how the money comes into existence, it's their money that they're lending me.
Let's see. Athens was a democracy (by the then-current definition), but exacting tribute from one's empire and spending it at home is not specific to democracies. That didn't particularly tick off the Spartans, because they didn't care about the Ionian Greeks that Athens was more or less ruling.
Third-century Rome was not a democracy. It was run by the Emperor (or Emperors; I don't offhand remember when the two-Emperor system came into play). The Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine empire) was not left in isolation, but played an active role in the world for another millennium.
The Savings and Loan crisis, according to your cite, was caused partly by the lack of regulation. (Personally, I remember some of them making loans to tinpot dictatorships and thinking they were secure, but the article doesn't seem to mention them, so it may not have been significant.) It also ran from 1986 to 1995, so it sure doesn't look like a catalyst for a recession more than a decade in the future.
Who needs a credit card anyway? Visa and MasterCard debit cards work fine all over the world.
Credit cards have some real advantages. For example, if someone else makes transactions on my credit card, there's extra items on my bill. If someone else makes transactions on my debit card, I'm out money. In each case, the card company has to go through a process that safeguards me, but I prefer the one that doesn't take money immediately out of my bank account.
In addition, they provide float. I normally pay for things an average of a month or month and a half after I bought them.
They can provide other benefits. When I use my Amazon Visa, I get a certain number of points that are useful to buy things on Amazon.
Skydiving also requires zero skill and zero talent, I suppose. To do either banking or skydiving and avoid going splat, I'd advise skill, talent, and education.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand paying a reasonable amount of money for an in-app purchase, if it makes the game more fun. I can't understand $8700 unless someone's either very rich or obsessed, or treating it as an out-of-game investment. The on-line games I'm familiar with disallow real-world trading, so it's risky at best.
You're talking about legislating politeness here, and I don't know that any significant number of people want to do that. Personally, I'm thick-skinned and perfectly happy to write someone off as a lost cause if they have nothing but insults. BTW, Trump played identity politics very well. The whole opppressed white male Christian thing is identity politics.
As a long-time D&D player, I'd rather be considered a Social Justice Mage, but you go ahead and categorize me if it's convenient for you. I'm completely against censoring ideas. Of course, I'm perfectly prepared to mock bad ideas. It's freedom of speech, just like not applauding the State of the Union address. I wasn't impressed with Damore's work, although he did have some points. He seemed to me to be trying to contribute, and I am not happy about his firing. I think it reflects badly on Google.
If you exterminate all humans, you won't have any security issues in your code. Seems simple enough to me.
I'm curious as to how you'd get around them. If, for some reason, a function is supposed to return a pointer value, and there's no valid value, do you throw an exception? How about coming to the end of a linked list? nullptr (as C++ calls it) is no more and no less than a guaranteed invalid pointer value that's very easy to test for.
My take on it: you really don't need to know the exact type. You've got a const_iterator. You can use it as an iterator, and dereference it to get a const value. What more do you need from the code?
How can you use iterators and not know what .cbegin() is? It returns a const_iterator for whatever v is.
And, yes, citer could be of assorted different types. Who cares? You want a const_iterator for v, you get a const_iterator for v. If you change the type of v later on, the statement with auto remains valid and says exactly what you want it to say. If you gave a type, then if you changed the type of v you'd have all sorts of lines to change, and if you're lucky they'll all be compile errors.
That's what coding standards are for. They're arguably more necessary in C++ than in most languages. Coding standards that can be automatically enforced are best; next best are coding standards that can be enforced by peer review; the remainder aren't all that useful because somebody's likely to violate them.
I would hope you're using the C++ standard containers and strings and smart pointers, which are templates. Of course, it's much easier to use somebody else's well-designed templates than to write good ones of your own.
Not if it's NP-complete.
It's copy-paste, and it has some polished writing in it. It smells like propaganda to me, and that is relevant to considering it.
Nope. Pretty much all the new stuff is to make it easier to program. Don't use the outdated stuff, and you can always keep a book handy to remind you of what it does.
A lot of the complaints about C++ are because it encapsulates some difficult concepts in syntax that's not too horrible (considering it's C++). General code generation (C++ templates or Lisp macros) is hard. It can also pay off big-time.
I hope you also dislike right-wing identity politics, and are against the Republican's attempt to establish rule through gerrymandering and voter suppression.
In other words, you're claiming it's very easy to inadvertently offend some people, if you lack tact or respect for others. Since these SJWs, if they exist in any numbers, do not have legislative or judicial power, you're free to ignore them. Similarly, they're free to ignore you.
Brendan Eich's political activities (contributing large amounts of money to deny people basic rights) had a direct impact on his ability to be an effective CEO. Most of us aren't in such a public position, and nobody really cares about our politics. People will care if we're a bunch of jerks, and that's about it. Dickinson was also something of a public face of his company. Be a public asshole, and no company's going to want to be associated with you. In neither case were SJWs responding inappropriately, and the decisions were made by the businesses.
Um, it's their card, and their money. They don't really give a crap about your physical, mental, or spiritual health. They're interested in making money. All their restrictions are based on that.
They apparently think bitcoin purchases are more risky than donut purchases. If you're a reasonably good credit risk, you'll be able to pay off the donuts when the next bill comes. However, if you max out your card on Bitcoin, you may be relying on that investment to pay the credit card company.
The bottom line is that it's their money, and they are letting you borrow it for certain uses. If you want to buy Bitcoin, either get a credit card that allows it or use a debit card or another form of your own money.
What was more common was adjustable-rate mortgages which the borrower could afford only when interest rates stayed low. There were also NINJA loans (No INcome, Job, or Assets). In the database I was working with at the time, these were listed as "stated income" and "stated assets", which almost certainly means lies, since if you bothered to establish your income and assets you'd get a considerably lower rate.
The general idea is that Sam buys a house with a liars' loan, its value goes up, and Sam defaults. The bank forecloses and sells the house for more than the initial mortgage, the bank doesn't lose money, and Sam probably winds up with a little. (The financial modeling I was doing then had a parameter for how fast the housing market went up, and they weren't interested in projections with negative numbers there.)
The other general idea is that, if you issued mortgages, you could immediately sell them to financial institutions that would slice them up into tranches and sell the tranches. (You have a lot of loans, some of which will be bad. You establish four tranches. Each tranche gets the money paid on the loans in order, so the first tranche would get the full income stream, the second would get what was left over up to its nominal income stream, and so forth.) At some point, financial institutions seem to have overlooked the possibility that it could fall apart. People who invested in the mortgage scam got better returns than those who didn't until the house of cards blew over.
I can't blame Sam all that much. Sam probably knew little about finance, and was assured that he could get a house by someone who appeared to know a lot more than Sam did. However, the mortgage companies and banks and other financial institutions really should have known about finance. I blame them.
If I buy in-game currency, I'm not expecting to function as an investment. I've decided to spend more money on this game, that's all. Therefore, I'm going to be spending what I can actually afford, not what I can afford if I get lucky with risky investments.
Insurance doesn't reduce expected loss. It reduces uncertainty about fluctuating risk. If there's more defaults, and the company files more insurance claims, the company's premiums will go up.
I theoretically can get cash advances with my credit cards (I've forgotten how), but I don't get as favorably treatment as if I buy something that isn't cash.
They may think they're less likely to get their money when their customer buys a risky investment. If I buy stuff for personal consumption, I've budgeted that money (more or less; I'm a very sloppy budgetter) for it and plan to pay it back. If I buy a risky investment, there's a good chance that I've counted on the investment to have paid off by my next monthly bill, and I may not be able to pay it back if it tanks.
I go to the grocery store and buy groceries with my credit card. The credit card company pays the store, and expects me to pay the next month. No matter how the money comes into existence, it's their money that they're lending me.
Let's see. Athens was a democracy (by the then-current definition), but exacting tribute from one's empire and spending it at home is not specific to democracies. That didn't particularly tick off the Spartans, because they didn't care about the Ionian Greeks that Athens was more or less ruling.
Third-century Rome was not a democracy. It was run by the Emperor (or Emperors; I don't offhand remember when the two-Emperor system came into play). The Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine empire) was not left in isolation, but played an active role in the world for another millennium.
The Savings and Loan crisis, according to your cite, was caused partly by the lack of regulation. (Personally, I remember some of them making loans to tinpot dictatorships and thinking they were secure, but the article doesn't seem to mention them, so it may not have been significant.) It also ran from 1986 to 1995, so it sure doesn't look like a catalyst for a recession more than a decade in the future.
Credit cards have some real advantages. For example, if someone else makes transactions on my credit card, there's extra items on my bill. If someone else makes transactions on my debit card, I'm out money. In each case, the card company has to go through a process that safeguards me, but I prefer the one that doesn't take money immediately out of my bank account.
In addition, they provide float. I normally pay for things an average of a month or month and a half after I bought them.
They can provide other benefits. When I use my Amazon Visa, I get a certain number of points that are useful to buy things on Amazon.
Whose annual GDP? The US GDP is a lot higher than four trillion..
There is no decision of Obama's that Trump can't make worse.
Skydiving also requires zero skill and zero talent, I suppose. To do either banking or skydiving and avoid going splat, I'd advise skill, talent, and education.