For a while I tried earplugs + shooters ear muffs. It didn't work: at some point you block off your ears enough and bone convection brings the sound to your ears through your skull. Also when you open your mouth things get louder.
Sad but true. You can see it in the XCode UI changes. A decade ago, it was ugly and sometimes you had to go to the command-line, but it had all the necessary features and once you figured them out it was easy to use.
Now XCode is pretty but it looks like it was designed by a product manager, the UI changes fairly often and the actual meaning of buttons is utterly opaque.
Hackerrank can't measure the best developers because the best developers don't waste time on hackerrank.
Furthermore, even if we assume that some of the best developers do spend time on hackerrank, the questions that hackerrank provides don't measure developer skill particularly well. A lot of them are more like tutorials.
It's basically proof that people prefer features over freedom. Not that I can hold them blameless......there are a few pieces of software I really need...........
Yeah, that's basically how, by having observers from all interested parties making sure no side is doing something illigitimate. Then building the system in a way that if something goes wrong, it will be noticable to one of the observers.
Once you see the printed out ballot in the electronic system, you can cancel or approve it. You could take a picture of it, then cancel it and re-vote.
It's dangerous to think you have the obvious right answer, there are problems with all the obvious solutions.
In your case, the problem is it doesn't allow anonymous voting, which is a requirement for democracy. There are many examples for how non-anonymous voting can be abused, from vote-buying, to putting enemies on a watch list, to outright killing those who voted for the wrong person.
With swig, you can write a C library and automatically use it from 17 different languages. It's cool that Rust is adding compatibility with Python, but they have a ways to go before they come anywhere close to the portability of C.
I'm looking forward to the Rust community adding these features.
Your statement is what matters to particular individuals. Society will collapse if too many people become scammers and stop actually getting stuff done.
Even on their sign-up page they don't implement https.
More evidence that "security" companies are more about social engineering their customers than about protecting them. You can be sure that this certification will be meaningless.
That said, it doesn't bother me nearly as much as a language claiming to support functional programming but not doing tail-call optimisation (1000 recursive calls and your program dies) or else clauses on while loops (another bug in someone else's code that I had to fix was caused by the fact that there are two plausibly sane meanings for this. Python chose the third and the developer assumed they chose one of the others).
FYI the creator of Python doesn't like functional programming. He just added some things in there because people complained.
Slashdot Mirror
For a while I tried earplugs + shooters ear muffs. It didn't work: at some point you block off your ears enough and bone convection brings the sound to your ears through your skull. Also when you open your mouth things get louder.
Sad but true. You can see it in the XCode UI changes. A decade ago, it was ugly and sometimes you had to go to the command-line, but it had all the necessary features and once you figured them out it was easy to use.
Now XCode is pretty but it looks like it was designed by a product manager, the UI changes fairly often and the actual meaning of buttons is utterly opaque.
That's good to know, thanks.
Hackerrank can't measure the best developers because the best developers don't waste time on hackerrank.
Furthermore, even if we assume that some of the best developers do spend time on hackerrank, the questions that hackerrank provides don't measure developer skill particularly well. A lot of them are more like tutorials.
It's basically proof that people prefer features over freedom. Not that I can hold them blameless......there are a few pieces of software I really need...........
Yeah, that's basically how, by having observers from all interested parties making sure no side is doing something illigitimate. Then building the system in a way that if something goes wrong, it will be noticable to one of the observers.
Yeah, that's true. It's similar to the problem of false-bottom voting boxes used in history. How was that problem solved and is prevented?
Once you see the printed out ballot in the electronic system, you can cancel or approve it. You could take a picture of it, then cancel it and re-vote.
That's true of any voting method. No way to prevent that.
Bad idea. It opens for voting abuse in that others can demand to see the your vote.
You don't get to take it out of the voting booth. You are right though, that anything attaching the vote to a person is problematic.
It's dangerous to think you have the obvious right answer, there are problems with all the obvious solutions.
In your case, the problem is it doesn't allow anonymous voting, which is a requirement for democracy. There are many examples for how non-anonymous voting can be abused, from vote-buying, to putting enemies on a watch list, to outright killing those who voted for the wrong person.
Electronic machine that prints the ballot out on paper (so you can verify). You deposit the paper into a bin (or the machine does it automatically).
That way you have the speed and convenience of a machine (no hanging chads), combined with the verifiability of paper.
Are the newer machines in Virginia better, or are they just newer crap?
IF they're from the same vendors, they're just newer crap.
With swig, you can write a C library and automatically use it from 17 different languages. It's cool that Rust is adding compatibility with Python, but they have a ways to go before they come anywhere close to the portability of C.
I'm looking forward to the Rust community adding these features.
Why does Nike care about Defcon? (Also, how did you hear about the Nike party?)
Your statement is what matters to particular individuals. Society will collapse if too many people become scammers and stop actually getting stuff done.
Lily Robotics had everything: Two charismatic young founders; millions in funding; and a product that promised to change the world
Sounds like everything you need to run a good scam.
In the real world what matters is people who get shit done. The rest are just sales.
They can start arresting them one by one, and the cows will all return. No cow wants to be made an example of.
schwit1 adds a quote from Benito Mussolini:
Thanks, I wasn't sure if I should be outraged or not: now I know. sharp intake of breath, with fear and outrage.
Relevant, observant, and on point.
Of those, which are they most likely to achieve?
80/tcp open http Microsoft HTTPAPI httpd 2.0 (SSDP/UPnP)
| http-methods:
|_ Potentially risky methods: TRACE
| http-server-header:
| Microsoft-HTTPAPI/2.0
|_ Microsoft-IIS/8.5
|_http-title: Home Page
Service Info: OS: Windows; CPE: cpe:/o:microsoft:windows
They're not going out of their way to be secure.
Even on their sign-up page they don't implement https.
More evidence that "security" companies are more about social engineering their customers than about protecting them. You can be sure that this certification will be meaningless.
Is Ethereum really worth billions?
That said, it doesn't bother me nearly as much as a language claiming to support functional programming but not doing tail-call optimisation (1000 recursive calls and your program dies) or else clauses on while loops (another bug in someone else's code that I had to fix was caused by the fact that there are two plausibly sane meanings for this. Python chose the third and the developer assumed they chose one of the others).
FYI the creator of Python doesn't like functional programming. He just added some things in there because people complained.