I'm always impressed that software devs and project managers and database architects understand business strategy so well that they only need about 10% of the contextual information about what's going on in the business, and no access to financial statements... and yet can tell that the C-suite has it all wrong. Have you ever thought about being CEO? We would love to have you.
A quote from Machiavelli:
Nor, I hope, will you think it presumptuous that a man of low, really the lowest, station should set out to discuss the way princes ought to govern their peoples. Just as artists who draw landscapes get down in the valley to study the mountains and go up to the mountains to look down on the valley, so one has to be a prince to get to know the character of a people and a man of the people to know the character of a prince.
I personally had to learn the hard way what business strategy is. Had (wait I still have) a company fully based on my skills. I realized that I hadn't a clue as to how I could influence the factors around me and so I quit well in time and went permanent to do what I do best. Then I studied business strategy. (Boy was I naive.) The upshot is that I now can argue as to how a technical decision supports our strategic position.
I now see pretty quickly whether a CEO has a strategy or not. Developing a strategy requires analysis, input from many different disciplines and is a hell of a job to take on. Management by decree has nothing to do with strategy. A strategy is documented reasonably well and enables people within the organisation to naturally contribute to it.
I am not pleased with our CEO. We all aren't. It's a way of life.
I'd settle for one that understands business strategy well and who knows how to keep the company profitable in the mid and in the long term. But those are few and far between.
The employee's choice will inevitably be the most popular one. Which most of the time isn't one bit better than the status quo.
The map is about use in governments. At any rate FOSS cannot be used as a ransom tool for corporations. The issue on whether "it makes money" is moot. But if you want to bring up money, in the long term the US admin would most likely save taxpayers money by switching to FOSS. And US corporations will be forced to fend for themselves even more, without a wealthy uncle to sponsor their businesses.
That's the people that sort stacks of paper, that copy/paste numbers from one spreadsheet to another, that have shorter lines to upper management, that are expected to linger around a company as necessary overhead, that have to be wooed in order to get necessary and over due stuff done and that are never targeted when optimizing. Yet now that are.
Seems logical. But I had expected blue collar to be sacked first. And that A&I would have been able to delay the chopping block (most likely that will have.)
Let's face it. Crap jobs will vanish and will be replaced by cheaper and better better machines. The question is how we as a society will adapt to these changes. More people will be affected that we can imagine. Unemployed will become the default occupation. The unemployed will be so of no fault of their own. Letting these people rot is not just immoral but will cause riots and unrest.
I believe in meritocracy and not in utopia. But reality seems to push us towards the latter. Interesting times are a-changin' (but not exactly like Bob intended.)
With so much time on our hands, will we all become enlightened or will we turn into a bunch of feckless morons?
Coding style is a vehicle to convey your brilliance. You're a decent programmer so conform to whatever the style is on the project you work in. Don't waste your precious short life on arguing about style.
For instance: In order to be able to comply to any coding style, I always set up my modules so that reordering members will not affect the functioning. Want to order constructors, getters/setters and/or other methods differently? Want to order static members in a very specific way? All fine by me.
Just wrote a bitch of a piece of code. I aborted when I fully appreciated that the data model I was adopting simply stank. The crap code code is gone and a cleaner approach now results in actually readable code. The former surely caused my heart rate to rise. The latter to drop due to absolute boredom.
Would the Zurcher team take into consideration that some people actually see sense and backtrack? Or should good coders be visited by ties to be told what they already know?
Where I live we pump water up a mountain into a lake to store energy. Seems to me a simpler solution than using trains.
I wouldn't be surprised if water would be slightly less efficient due to pumps and turbines having higher loss factor and due to water evaporating. But how many trains, tracks and difference in height would you need to have something equivalent to a small lake high up a mountain?
Not a citizen of the UK. Not living in the UK. Hell, not even a native English speaker.
But I'd pay for BBC iPlayer. Easily twice the amount I'd pay for Amazon Prime. The BBC offers opportunities for non mainstream voices to be heard. Comedy, decent science, OK documentaries, reasonably independent news. And I don't care much for other content as I could get that from other sources.
Yet, I feel I don't fully pay the BBC. One indirect part I pay through the TV license in the country I live in, as they -inevitably- serve BBC content. Another part remains unaccounted for.
BBC! If you're listening, there are people outside the UK willing to pay for great content which you produce. Allow us to pay for access to your content!
And while you're at it: Reduce the influence of parasitic outfits wich implement/support artificial partitioning systems with the sole purpose of bleeding money from you. In the modern world you don't need these any longer.
Also everybody in India will get a Simputer, will be able to crap in toilets for dignity and to prevent pollution, and will be taught that rape is friggin barbaric.
tl;dr: Creative developers are not likely to be replaced by AI.
The terms are blurred. Most people considering themselves developers actually are application programmers. Quite a few exceptional people in CS call themselves or are being classified as programmers. Apparently the almost meek title "programmer" covers more of what those people do than something like "developer".
But in the world of us mortals the title "programmer" is not taken seriously. We need to take recourse in titles like "application programmer", "web designer", "senior developer", "solution architect", "enterprise architect" and so on. But let's be brutally honest; Most of us will never make it into Wikipedia's list of programmers.
At any rate a developer can take an idea, a hunch or a vague concept and create a computing world around it. It requires huge amounts of insight and experience to come up with something simple that solves many business problems elegantly and which is accepted as a business proposition. As of yet I don't see such creative processes being replaced by AI. A machine that wins at chess or at go does so by recognizing patterns in a limited domain or by brute force but not by being particularly intelligent at identifying a problem in need of a solution. The contexts of go, chess and even navigation through traffic are huge but still extremely confined.
However, if your work consists in taking requirements and producing code than expect to be surprised.
Fact is that everything sort of gets harder to get your head around. Making sense of the wonderful but complex applications built on top of many simple concepts is tough when you don't know the basics. And not everyone is interested in taking life as a way to pursue absolute truth, no matter how limited the brain is in doing so.
Back in the days I was happy to naturally understand formulas like E = P * t, P = I * V and V = I * R. Most people around me just couldn't and memorised these to pass tests.
But I realise I have limitations. And many of them. For instance, I can't get my head around the theory of relativity. And I tried for years. I also have to work very hard at social skills.
Taking offence on others not grasping stuff that is plain and easy to yourself is not very logical as we all have our limitations. For me the most effective way to work with this is to perform well in my field of expertise, to radiate authentic pleasure in stuff I do, to cheerfully ignore people less savvy in my field -unless they become nasty and "attack"-, to accept that appreciation is not always fair and to never give up.
I'm certainly not an Apple fanboy. But apparently Apple didn't break any law. Perhaps it would actually break a law by complying to the request.
There are enough security agencies and services that could have done their homework by gathering and processed intelligence. But they didn't. And now they go around begging others for answers. Much like cheating on your tests. Do your homework and stop whining, I'd say.
Much along the lines of VW cheating at benchmarks. Coming with an absolutely crap emissions test, missing the point that engines suddenly perform well and then be dismayed that the tests were so easy to cheat on. It doesn't take a scientist to point out the stupidity of the tests.
To all governments: Wake up! Do you homework. And stop bullying others to do it for you!
Sun is right. Watt is the unit of power. Work is power * time and popular units are Watt-hour, Watt-second or Joule. In this case I'd write something like 3,420 GW-h every year or 3.4 TW-h every year.
The fatties arguments mostly consider weight exclusively; Heavier people pay must pay more because they consume more. Sounds fair. But isn't quite.
There is evidence that obesity may shield from depression. I maintain that obese people are more likely to contribute to good mood and harmony between people and that hence the world is a better place because of that. I admit that it's hard to quantify this but let's consider this as a truth anyway. Would it be fair to put a chagrin tax on slim people?
Slashdot Mirror
Edge of technology. Marvelous details. And all in vivid shades of dark brown. Yay!
I'm always impressed that software devs and project managers and database architects understand business strategy so well that they only need about 10% of the contextual information about what's going on in the business, and no access to financial statements... and yet can tell that the C-suite has it all wrong. Have you ever thought about being CEO? We would love to have you.
A quote from Machiavelli:
Nor, I hope, will you think it presumptuous that a man of low, really the lowest, station should set out to discuss the way princes ought to govern their peoples. Just as artists who draw landscapes get down in the valley to study the mountains and go up to the mountains to look down on the valley, so one has to be a prince to get to know the character of a people and a man of the people to know the character of a prince.
I personally had to learn the hard way what business strategy is. Had (wait I still have) a company fully based on my skills. I realized that I hadn't a clue as to how I could influence the factors around me and so I quit well in time and went permanent to do what I do best. Then I studied business strategy. (Boy was I naive.) The upshot is that I now can argue as to how a technical decision supports our strategic position.
I now see pretty quickly whether a CEO has a strategy or not. Developing a strategy requires analysis, input from many different disciplines and is a hell of a job to take on. Management by decree has nothing to do with strategy. A strategy is documented reasonably well and enables people within the organisation to naturally contribute to it.
I am not pleased with our CEO. We all aren't. It's a way of life.
I'd settle for one that understands business strategy well and who knows how to keep the company profitable in the mid and in the long term. But those are few and far between.
The employee's choice will inevitably be the most popular one. Which most of the time isn't one bit better than the status quo.
The map is about use in governments. At any rate FOSS cannot be used as a ransom tool for corporations. The issue on whether "it makes money" is moot. But if you want to bring up money, in the long term the US admin would most likely save taxpayers money by switching to FOSS. And US corporations will be forced to fend for themselves even more, without a wealthy uncle to sponsor their businesses.
Accounting and invoicing...
That's the people that sort stacks of paper, that copy/paste numbers from one spreadsheet to another, that have shorter lines to upper management, that are expected to linger around a company as necessary overhead, that have to be wooed in order to get necessary and over due stuff done and that are never targeted when optimizing. Yet now that are.
Seems logical. But I had expected blue collar to be sacked first. And that A&I would have been able to delay the chopping block (most likely that will have.)
Let's face it. Crap jobs will vanish and will be replaced by cheaper and better better machines. The question is how we as a society will adapt to these changes. More people will be affected that we can imagine. Unemployed will become the default occupation. The unemployed will be so of no fault of their own. Letting these people rot is not just immoral but will cause riots and unrest.
I believe in meritocracy and not in utopia. But reality seems to push us towards the latter. Interesting times are a-changin' (but not exactly like Bob intended.)
With so much time on our hands, will we all become enlightened or will we turn into a bunch of feckless morons?
Harnessed reverberation, bass voice and predictable plot the US audience loves so much.
AI for brilliant mediocrity. Yay!
CNF2 is good. CNF3 is sometimes better. CNF4 is usually worse.
Sorta. First you analyze your model to be 3NF or 4NF. Then you denormalize in a controlled way. Logic before optimization.
Accidental 2NF usually means the problem wasn't well analyzed. And that most likely there will be problems ahead caused by bad abstraction.
Both Linux and Windows accessing hardware directly so that Linux performs well.
What's the logical next step?
... resides.
For us mortals: Resides is a fancy word for "is chillin' at"
Netflix get this!
I speak for myself. But perhaps other consumers might have similar expectations.
Coding style is a vehicle to convey your brilliance. You're a decent programmer so conform to whatever the style is on the project you work in. Don't waste your precious short life on arguing about style.
For instance: In order to be able to comply to any coding style, I always set up my modules so that reordering members will not affect the functioning. Want to order constructors, getters/setters and/or other methods differently? Want to order static members in a very specific way? All fine by me.
Let's get the real issue at hand be dealt with.
I didn't realize until now that iOS apps run Android.
Just wrote a bitch of a piece of code. I aborted when I fully appreciated that the data model I was adopting simply stank. The crap code code is gone and a cleaner approach now results in actually readable code. The former surely caused my heart rate to rise. The latter to drop due to absolute boredom.
Would the Zurcher team take into consideration that some people actually see sense and backtrack? Or should good coders be visited by ties to be told what they already know?
Where I live we pump water up a mountain into a lake to store energy. Seems to me a simpler solution than using trains.
I wouldn't be surprised if water would be slightly less efficient due to pumps and turbines having higher loss factor and due to water evaporating. But how many trains, tracks and difference in height would you need to have something equivalent to a small lake high up a mountain?
Or an insider's tip?
Not a citizen of the UK. Not living in the UK. Hell, not even a native English speaker.
But I'd pay for BBC iPlayer. Easily twice the amount I'd pay for Amazon Prime. The BBC offers opportunities for non mainstream voices to be heard. Comedy, decent science, OK documentaries, reasonably independent news. And I don't care much for other content as I could get that from other sources.
Yet, I feel I don't fully pay the BBC. One indirect part I pay through the TV license in the country I live in, as they -inevitably- serve BBC content. Another part remains unaccounted for.
BBC! If you're listening, there are people outside the UK willing to pay for great content which you produce. Allow us to pay for access to your content!
And while you're at it: Reduce the influence of parasitic outfits wich implement/support artificial partitioning systems with the sole purpose of bleeding money from you. In the modern world you don't need these any longer.
Also everybody in India will get a Simputer, will be able to crap in toilets for dignity and to prevent pollution, and will be taught that rape is friggin barbaric.
So, eventually, was he able to play tetris with the hotel as display?
tl;dr: Creative developers are not likely to be replaced by AI.
The terms are blurred. Most people considering themselves developers actually are application programmers. Quite a few exceptional people in CS call themselves or are being classified as programmers. Apparently the almost meek title "programmer" covers more of what those people do than something like "developer".
But in the world of us mortals the title "programmer" is not taken seriously. We need to take recourse in titles like "application programmer", "web designer", "senior developer", "solution architect", "enterprise architect" and so on. But let's be brutally honest; Most of us will never make it into Wikipedia's list of programmers.
At any rate a developer can take an idea, a hunch or a vague concept and create a computing world around it. It requires huge amounts of insight and experience to come up with something simple that solves many business problems elegantly and which is accepted as a business proposition. As of yet I don't see such creative processes being replaced by AI. A machine that wins at chess or at go does so by recognizing patterns in a limited domain or by brute force but not by being particularly intelligent at identifying a problem in need of a solution. The contexts of go, chess and even navigation through traffic are huge but still extremely confined.
However, if your work consists in taking requirements and producing code than expect to be surprised.
Buddy take a more relaxed view on life.
Fact is that everything sort of gets harder to get your head around. Making sense of the wonderful but complex applications built on top of many simple concepts is tough when you don't know the basics. And not everyone is interested in taking life as a way to pursue absolute truth, no matter how limited the brain is in doing so.
Back in the days I was happy to naturally understand formulas like E = P * t, P = I * V and V = I * R. Most people around me just couldn't and memorised these to pass tests.
But I realise I have limitations. And many of them. For instance, I can't get my head around the theory of relativity. And I tried for years. I also have to work very hard at social skills.
Taking offence on others not grasping stuff that is plain and easy to yourself is not very logical as we all have our limitations. For me the most effective way to work with this is to perform well in my field of expertise, to radiate authentic pleasure in stuff I do, to cheerfully ignore people less savvy in my field -unless they become nasty and "attack"-, to accept that appreciation is not always fair and to never give up.
I imagine that copying 3D printing files should achieve similar result, admittedly with much less cloak and dagger.
But I guess I'm an old fashioned day dreamer.
I'm certainly not an Apple fanboy. But apparently Apple didn't break any law. Perhaps it would actually break a law by complying to the request.
There are enough security agencies and services that could have done their homework by gathering and processed intelligence. But they didn't. And now they go around begging others for answers. Much like cheating on your tests. Do your homework and stop whining, I'd say.
Much along the lines of VW cheating at benchmarks. Coming with an absolutely crap emissions test, missing the point that engines suddenly perform well and then be dismayed that the tests were so easy to cheat on. It doesn't take a scientist to point out the stupidity of the tests.
To all governments: Wake up! Do you homework. And stop bullying others to do it for you!
Sun is right. Watt is the unit of power. Work is power * time and popular units are Watt-hour, Watt-second or Joule. In this case I'd write something like 3,420 GW-h every year or 3.4 TW-h every year.
Results from a study on McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. showed indications. Here's one report on huffingtonpost.ca.
The fatties arguments mostly consider weight exclusively; Heavier people pay must pay more because they consume more. Sounds fair. But isn't quite.
There is evidence that obesity may shield from depression. I maintain that obese people are more likely to contribute to good mood and harmony between people and that hence the world is a better place because of that. I admit that it's hard to quantify this but let's consider this as a truth anyway. Would it be fair to put a chagrin tax on slim people?