ok, you are right, putting it in the bank does take 10% out of circulation. Depending on the money velocity (of putting it in the bank vs spending it), that could create more or less money.
However, putting it in stocks or bonds does not take any out of circulation:)
Linus is a chill guy. If you look at who he insults, the vast majority of time, it's himself. When people call him a dick, they usually don't understand his communication style.
What it suggests, to me, is that the community is far more welcoming than credited for.
It's much more welcoming. I don't understand all the accusations against tech people for discrimination. If you want to see real sexism, look at salespeople or doctors or bankers. They create truly hostile environments, it is well documented, and yet no one focuses on them. Instead, it's all on tech. Why?
I'm going to be contrarian here and say that, Thomas Edison was a great man. At the very least, setting up a lab for inventing was very impressive, and clearly a predecessor to Bell Labs.
The reason California became the tech hub was because of non-compete laws in New Jersey. Shockley couldn't build a lab in New Jersey to compete with Bell Labs because it would have been against state law, but California didn't have such laws.
In California, anyone who had an idea could quit their job and start a new company. So people did it. In New Jersey, they expected you to stay with the company for life, and had laws to enforce that paradigm. I'm saying this based on what the article presented. If you want to know the answer, skip to the bottom, the rest of the article is just entertaining filler.
Reportedly the Soviets spent decades trying to mess with elections during the cold war fwiw. I guess there's no real reason they would stop after the end.
In this case, you will benefit by giving everyone a period each week (four hours, or a whole day) to do nothing but work on bugs. Let everyone choose whatever bug they want from the bug list and fix it. The renewed focus on bugs will focus everyone on producing higher quality code, and can even re-energize the team.
Oh mother fucker, if you have 45,000 open bugs that's clearly wrong. Maybe there's no way to do it right, but zero bugsis achievable.
If you don't fix your bugs, then technical debt will begin to pile up and overwhelm you. In fact, one of the quickest ways to judge the quality of a codebase is to look at the number of bugs in the bug tracker (of course that can be gamed also, like any metric).
Your problem isn't the bug-tracker. Switching to a different project management tool will not help you.
It will help if you ditch your bug-prioritizing meeting and spend four hours a week each picking bugs and random and fixing them. In fact, make it an eight hour event.
We even hired an expensive Atlassian consultant to help, but $8k later he simply made things more complicated.
Yeah, you should have hired someone to fix bugs. That would have actually made things better.
It's hard to look down on anyone who writes a bunch of code and releases it for free, whether it's under the GPL or the BSD license, it's still fairly generous.
This requires admin access on the computer, to install drivers. A more normal (and easier) way to accomplish the same thing would be to infect all the files on the share.
That's easy: they were designed for a mix of pedestrian traffic and horse-drawn wagons. That's why cities like Boston or San Francisco are laid out differently than, say, Las Vegas, which pretty much came into being after the advent of cars. If you look at Las Vegas its street grid has a superficial resemblance to San Francisco's but there's a subtle but important difference: at any random point in that network you're closer on average to a major traffic artery with capacity to handle high speed, high volume traffic than you would be in San Francisco.
You can't expect a street network optimized for traffic moving at 10 mph
No, you didn't read my post. That explains some of the layout, but it sure doesn't explain the lousy street signage. Seriously, even Modesto does a much better job posting street signs that are easily visible, and crosswalk signs that are non-existent.
If you're patched up to the latest, you're not getting infected
This is absolutely not true. A zero-day is by definition a vulnerability that is not yet known to the software vendor, so no patch can exist, and yet hackers can know about it.
We've actually seen examples where Microsoft hasn't patched security flaws, and the flaw was being exploited by hackers. Here is one example, there are plenty.
Look on the corner of Gough and Grove, a perfect place for a "walk/don't walk" light, no reason to not put it.
Look at Market street. It's basically an accident waiting to happen for everyone.
Look at McAllister street. It's a popular biking spot, but it's an accident waiting to happen. It's definitely not the worst biking spot in the city, but it's one I can think of off the top of my head. I've nearly killed a few bikers there myself. I would have if my aim were better.
I don't know who San Francisco streets are designed for, but it's certainly not people. For one thing, street signs are often hidden or non-existent. For another thing, in places where a "walk/don't walk" sign would make perfect sense, they are often absent.....even in areas with high pedestrian accidents. The street is partly optimized for driving, partly optimized for walking, partly optimized for biking, and partly optimized to being as annoying as possible to outsiders.
The streets of San Francisco are not well designed by any perspective.
There is a group of dyed-in-the-wool gypsies that come through our area once in a while, who visit small businesses, and present them with suits for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) noncompliance. They operate with a complicit attorney, and they usually extort the offenders with a smallish monetary settlement.
The law was designed to act like that. The politicians didn't want to spend money to create an enforcement squad, so they wrote it in a way to make sure lawyers can get a profit from these lawsuits. It feels rather scummy but it is that way on purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
ok, you are right, putting it in the bank does take 10% out of circulation. Depending on the money velocity (of putting it in the bank vs spending it), that could create more or less money.
:)
However, putting it in stocks or bonds does not take any out of circulation
Linus is a chill guy. If you look at who he insults, the vast majority of time, it's himself. When people call him a dick, they usually don't understand his communication style.
What it suggests, to me, is that the community is far more welcoming than credited for.
It's much more welcoming. I don't understand all the accusations against tech people for discrimination. If you want to see real sexism, look at salespeople or doctors or bankers. They create truly hostile environments, it is well documented, and yet no one focuses on them. Instead, it's all on tech. Why?
I'm going to be contrarian here and say that, Thomas Edison was a great man. At the very least, setting up a lab for inventing was very impressive, and clearly a predecessor to Bell Labs.
The reason California became the tech hub was because of non-compete laws in New Jersey. Shockley couldn't build a lab in New Jersey to compete with Bell Labs because it would have been against state law, but California didn't have such laws.
In California, anyone who had an idea could quit their job and start a new company. So people did it. In New Jersey, they expected you to stay with the company for life, and had laws to enforce that paradigm. I'm saying this based on what the article presented. If you want to know the answer, skip to the bottom, the rest of the article is just entertaining filler.
"Silicon Valley" is going to do things that are profitable. Expecting anything else is unrealistic, as nice as it would be.
Reportedly the Soviets spent decades trying to mess with elections during the cold war fwiw. I guess there's no real reason they would stop after the end.
In this case, you will benefit by giving everyone a period each week (four hours, or a whole day) to do nothing but work on bugs. Let everyone choose whatever bug they want from the bug list and fix it. The renewed focus on bugs will focus everyone on producing higher quality code, and can even re-energize the team.
Oh mother fucker, if you have 45,000 open bugs that's clearly wrong. Maybe there's no way to do it right, but zero bugs is achievable.
If you don't fix your bugs, then technical debt will begin to pile up and overwhelm you. In fact, one of the quickest ways to judge the quality of a codebase is to look at the number of bugs in the bug tracker (of course that can be gamed also, like any metric).
We use JIRA, and have about 45,000 open issues
Your problem isn't the bug-tracker. Switching to a different project management tool will not help you.
It will help if you ditch your bug-prioritizing meeting and spend four hours a week each picking bugs and random and fixing them. In fact, make it an eight hour event.
We even hired an expensive Atlassian consultant to help, but $8k later he simply made things more complicated.
Yeah, you should have hired someone to fix bugs. That would have actually made things better.
My own personal reason for watching eSports is to improve my skill by watching them.
In this hypothetical, most of the residents wouldn't be unemployed, because tourism is only a small portion of the San Francisco economy.
It's hard to look down on anyone who writes a bunch of code and releases it for free, whether it's under the GPL or the BSD license, it's still fairly generous.
Oh yeah, keep talking, your jealousy is showing :)
Sounds cold. I remember last winter I worse some sweatshirts a lot.
Politicians are very, very, afraid of doing anything that raises taxes, and have been since Reagan.
Afraid of raising taxes, yes of course. But not afraid of spending money!! That goes for both parties.
This requires admin access on the computer, to install drivers. A more normal (and easier) way to accomplish the same thing would be to infect all the files on the share.
You can make things better for cars, or better for pedestrians, but not both.
No, making better signs would be better for everyone.
It gets that cold where you live??? How can you live there????
That's easy: they were designed for a mix of pedestrian traffic and horse-drawn wagons. That's why cities like Boston or San Francisco are laid out differently than, say, Las Vegas, which pretty much came into being after the advent of cars. If you look at Las Vegas its street grid has a superficial resemblance to San Francisco's but there's a subtle but important difference: at any random point in that network you're closer on average to a major traffic artery with capacity to handle high speed, high volume traffic than you would be in San Francisco. You can't expect a street network optimized for traffic moving at 10 mph
No, you didn't read my post. That explains some of the layout, but it sure doesn't explain the lousy street signage. Seriously, even Modesto does a much better job posting street signs that are easily visible, and crosswalk signs that are non-existent.
If you're patched up to the latest, you're not getting infected
This is absolutely not true. A zero-day is by definition a vulnerability that is not yet known to the software vendor, so no patch can exist, and yet hackers can know about it.
We've actually seen examples where Microsoft hasn't patched security flaws, and the flaw was being exploited by hackers. Here is one example, there are plenty.
Look on the corner of Gough and Grove, a perfect place for a "walk/don't walk" light, no reason to not put it.
Look at Market street. It's basically an accident waiting to happen for everyone.
Look at McAllister street. It's a popular biking spot, but it's an accident waiting to happen. It's definitely not the worst biking spot in the city, but it's one I can think of off the top of my head. I've nearly killed a few bikers there myself. I would have if my aim were better.
I don't know who San Francisco streets are designed for, but it's certainly not people. For one thing, street signs are often hidden or non-existent. For another thing, in places where a "walk/don't walk" sign would make perfect sense, they are often absent.....even in areas with high pedestrian accidents. The street is partly optimized for driving, partly optimized for walking, partly optimized for biking, and partly optimized to being as annoying as possible to outsiders.
The streets of San Francisco are not well designed by any perspective.
Yeah, it's amazing how often laws are written in a way that somehow gives lawyers more work.
There is a group of dyed-in-the-wool gypsies that come through our area once in a while, who visit small businesses, and present them with suits for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) noncompliance. They operate with a complicit attorney, and they usually extort the offenders with a smallish monetary settlement.
The law was designed to act like that. The politicians didn't want to spend money to create an enforcement squad, so they wrote it in a way to make sure lawyers can get a profit from these lawsuits. It feels rather scummy but it is that way on purpose.