A deflationary system means any debt you hold becomes a larger and larger portion of your income over time. That means purchasing anything large requires squirreling money away and not spending it, decreasing revenues and thus jobs. Inflationary systems allow you to buy something for a percentage of your income, have it, and commit to spending that money on the thing over time; however, the portion of your income locked up in your debt payments becomes smaller over time.
All this doesn't matter as long as it's relatively predictable. You could easily make the opposite argument: "Who would loan money when the value of the loan is going to decrease over time? The loaner would not get paid back as much as he loaned in the first place."
The problems with Ethereum put emphasis on how excellent the software engineering work is on Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto (whoever he is) did some solid, solid work, which hasn't been easy to emulate in other systems created by people who aren't so good at software engineering.
In fairness, we don't have much experience trying. People just assume that inflationary systems are good because that's what they want to do. In most likelihood, inflationary or deflationary probably doesn't make any difference, as long as it's predictable.
In addition to your excellent point, "Cost to make" creates a floor to the price......if the price people are willing to pay goes below that floor, it won't be on the market for much longer.
tbh I'm not sure how that is a problem.......unless you have some kind of "algorithm = bad" knee-jerk reaction. It's not like human editors choosing what we see is so great.
Economist article is trying to point out how unfair women are working as software engineers
I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you clarify? You might have made a grammar mistake in there (the way it is currently written, it appears that there are "unfair women:" the women are being unfair to others!).
Because it's old news. Anyone who looked at the emails already knew it (see this for example). We don't need to rehash the story here, especially when there's no tech angle. The only real news is that the DNC is turning away from the Clintons.
Besides that, Hillary is kind of old news now. Her power over world events is quickly waning. So it's hardly news that matters anymore.
"He didn't say that women are worse programmers than men. He said that they choose not to be engineers (which is true, and you agree with it), possibly for biological reasons. Once women choose to become engineers, they are just as good as men." ltr
That's nothing. Wait till I tell you what I read in the Voynich manuscript. The noodle is going to blow your mind. IFOs all over the place (for those people who are not yet awake, an IFO is like a UFO but I. People like you are why we got stuck with Trump). On the seventh page of the manuscript it clearly states poe's law is the best law.
That's why we have global warming. Shouldn't have covered it up so some of the steam can come out, keep things cooler. I don't know what NASA is doing, I think for three minutes and I come up with better ideas than all of NASA scientists. This is why Donald Trump got elected wake up.
The basic problem is that he asserts that women make, on average, biologically inferior engineers.
He didn't. He said that they choose not to be engineers (which is true, and you agree with it), possibly for biological reasons. Once women choose to become engineers, they are just as good as men.
If Damore wasn't actually making any assertions then all he was doing was stirring the pot. Trying to evade responsibility by only making "suggestions" is actually rather transparent to most people.
Nah, he was saying that Google's current (at that time) methods for increasing the number of women programmers were ineffective.
It is kind of ironic that right now Google is facing a lawsuit for discriminating against women, and also one for discriminating against men. Where will the insanity end??
I read through that article, but I don't think it's a fair characterization of Damore's paper. From my reading of his paper (or whatever, I don't want to go read it again):
Damore was saying: A) There are many possible reasons for the gender gap among programmers: here are some suggestions; and B) Google's current recruiting methods are not effective.
The Economist article you linked to took those "here are some suggestions" and turned them into absolute assertions. You can tell the Economist article is confused because of phrases like, "at least that’s what you seem to be doing; you don’t quite say so." He doesn't say so because that's not what he's doing: the Economist author got confused because he assumed Damore was actually trying to make a solid assertion.
Biggest problem with Golang right now is that they are planning a backwards incompatible version 2. I was mostly happy with the language until that happened.
Also worth mentioning: it's primary use case is with network programming (which it does well). For other use cases, C might be better.
Slashdot Mirror
A deflationary system means any debt you hold becomes a larger and larger portion of your income over time. That means purchasing anything large requires squirreling money away and not spending it, decreasing revenues and thus jobs. Inflationary systems allow you to buy something for a percentage of your income, have it, and commit to spending that money on the thing over time; however, the portion of your income locked up in your debt payments becomes smaller over time.
All this doesn't matter as long as it's relatively predictable. You could easily make the opposite argument: "Who would loan money when the value of the loan is going to decrease over time? The loaner would not get paid back as much as he loaned in the first place."
The problems with Ethereum put emphasis on how excellent the software engineering work is on Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto (whoever he is) did some solid, solid work, which hasn't been easy to emulate in other systems created by people who aren't so good at software engineering.
and think a deflationary system is good
In fairness, we don't have much experience trying. People just assume that inflationary systems are good because that's what they want to do. In most likelihood, inflationary or deflationary probably doesn't make any difference, as long as it's predictable.
In addition to your excellent point, "Cost to make" creates a floor to the price......if the price people are willing to pay goes below that floor, it won't be on the market for much longer.
Here you go.
tbh I'm not sure how that is a problem.......unless you have some kind of "algorithm = bad" knee-jerk reaction. It's not like human editors choosing what we see is so great.
Economist article is trying to point out how unfair women are working as software engineers
I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you clarify? You might have made a grammar mistake in there (the way it is currently written, it appears that there are "unfair women:" the women are being unfair to others!).
Because it's old news. Anyone who looked at the emails already knew it (see this for example). We don't need to rehash the story here, especially when there's no tech angle. The only real news is that the DNC is turning away from the Clintons.
Besides that, Hillary is kind of old news now. Her power over world events is quickly waning. So it's hardly news that matters anymore.
I get why people modded me troll or funny but I'm a little concerned about the chap who modded me insightful.......
Nitpicking again? s/believe/convinced/
Nah, it's totally fine with me if you believe whatever you do. That's up to you.
Barkeeper is actually a fun job (in a bar or pub),
that's true it can be like a social event with you at the center.
Nice link.
"He didn't say that women are worse programmers than men. He said that they choose not to be engineers (which is true, and you agree with it), possibly for biological reasons. Once women choose to become engineers, they are just as good as men." ltr
It remained 'controversial' until Dupont found replacement chemicals that worked almost as well. At that point, everyone was happy to ban them.
That's nothing. Wait till I tell you what I read in the Voynich manuscript. The noodle is going to blow your mind. IFOs all over the place (for those people who are not yet awake, an IFO is like a UFO but I. People like you are why we got stuck with Trump). On the seventh page of the manuscript it clearly states poe's law is the best law.
Well, keep reading, maybe you'll understand what he said so you don't have to attack strawmen.
That's why we have global warming. Shouldn't have covered it up so some of the steam can come out, keep things cooler. I don't know what NASA is doing, I think for three minutes and I come up with better ideas than all of NASA scientists. This is why Donald Trump got elected wake up.
exercise + nutrition. Get yourself a health coach if you need it.
The basic problem is that he asserts that women make, on average, biologically inferior engineers.
He didn't. He said that they choose not to be engineers (which is true, and you agree with it), possibly for biological reasons. Once women choose to become engineers, they are just as good as men.
Also you don't need to capitalize each word. This is English, not German.
In English, you capitalize most words in a title. See for example.
Ever since cell phones came out, I don't even notice DST anymore. It just kind of happens and my clocks adjust automatically.
The reason it doesn't happen is because people will be upset when they find out they have to be on 'winter' time all year round.
If Damore wasn't actually making any assertions then all he was doing was stirring the pot. Trying to evade responsibility by only making "suggestions" is actually rather transparent to most people.
Nah, he was saying that Google's current (at that time) methods for increasing the number of women programmers were ineffective.
The rest of your post is well-written and clear.
It is kind of ironic that right now Google is facing a lawsuit for discriminating against women, and also one for discriminating against men. Where will the insanity end??
I read through that article, but I don't think it's a fair characterization of Damore's paper. From my reading of his paper (or whatever, I don't want to go read it again):
Damore was saying: A) There are many possible reasons for the gender gap among programmers: here are some suggestions; and B) Google's current recruiting methods are not effective.
The Economist article you linked to took those "here are some suggestions" and turned them into absolute assertions. You can tell the Economist article is confused because of phrases like, "at least that’s what you seem to be doing; you don’t quite say so." He doesn't say so because that's not what he's doing: the Economist author got confused because he assumed Damore was actually trying to make a solid assertion.
Biggest problem with Golang right now is that they are planning a backwards incompatible version 2. I was mostly happy with the language until that happened.
Also worth mentioning: it's primary use case is with network programming (which it does well). For other use cases, C might be better.