One of the biggest software companies in the world. They make corporate software that CEOs like, for example, stuff to manage a manufacturing supply pipeline. These are things that a typical Silicon Valley programmer will not spontaneously build, because it's an area of life that we try to avoid.
It's really unfair to say he was dumb in this case though, for sure. It's more accurate to say, "he was unfamiliar with safe shipping practices." Like many people (including myself) don't make backups until they lose something.
Yes, they do, and they offer insurance, too. So if someone doesn't take out insurance on a valuable shipment and they say they 'lost' it, then they are acting dumb.
What they forget is no one cares what phone Trump uses to tweet from. As long as he has a second phone to keep the classified stuff secure, who cares if he also keeps his personal phone?
FWIW there are document preservation laws he needs to comply with, too.
btw I've been thinking about this. How are you thinking of implementing it? The only ways I can think of that will actually work are much more invasive of privacy than what we have now.
That's an argument for closing tax loopholes, not for building regressiveness into the system. You're never going to win an election by saying, "The rich earn more money than you but it doesn't need to be taxed because [they don't spend it]."
Instead of computing income for the year and looking up the tax in a table, compute income - savings = consumption for the year instead. The progressivity is built into the tax table.
That's like giving rich people a no-limit Roth IRA tax shelter, except instead of paying taxes before you put money in, you never have to pay taxes.
If "poor" people (not sure how anyone in the US can be considered poor) spend their income and "rich" people spend their income, they would be taxed at equal rates.
Obviously. Rich people don't spend their income at equal rates as poor people. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you spend all of it. If you're rich, you can save money for investments.
Economists tend to think the most efficient and least distorting thing to do is toss all existing taxes and replace them all with a single, broad-based consumption tax.
I won't support that because it's broadly regressive: poor people pay a higher percentage of their income as tax. You can kind of balance it out, but when that happens (like in California), the middle class pays the highest percentage.
Well, the book was an education book, and it was aimed at helping your students learn to adapt, so I would say it was more than fluff. To really answer that question we'd have to look at the book in detail and its particular advice. That would mean I'd have to go find the book, which is probably not worth the effort.
In our world though, meaning the world of software developers, it's definitely true. The worst about it is that the new technologies are worse than the old ones. I think I'd rather use PHP than an Angular stack, even though my knowledge of Angular is greater than my knowledge of PHP. And PHP is a mess compared to what came before it.
. This one drives me nuts as a systems engineering guy, because the reality is that the cloud just shifts the same issues around in many cases. Your IT guys are not suddenly useless dinosaurs
This one is easy for you to solve: get a book about AWS, call yourself DevOPs, and suddenly with your skills and experience people will think you are a genius. Recruiters will be falling all over themselves to hire you.
Putting operations in the cloud doesn't mean 'magic.' A lot of it doesn't even change. You still have to engineer for HA, you still need plans for what happens when a server fails, you need to plan for what happens when a data center fails. The main difference is that requisitioning a new server takes minutes instead of days (or weeks).
I don't know why we keep falling for the "special relationship" line, we get screwed every time.
The way I see it, it's propaganda to get the US to do what the UK wants. Churchill was good at managing it, and Thatcher was good at managing it. Tony Blair failed big time.
Also, it drove Bismark crazy. Doesn't matter how skilled Merkel is with diplomacy, the US still isn't joining them in WW3.
Your analysis is pathetically shallow. Problem could be you?
Are you done with gratuitous insults now? Since you're the one who presented it as an example of good code (when it's not great), maybe you should explain why. Show you know how to think.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the biggest software companies in the world. They make corporate software that CEOs like, for example, stuff to manage a manufacturing supply pipeline. These are things that a typical Silicon Valley programmer will not spontaneously build, because it's an area of life that we try to avoid.
They also have a director of Buddhist meditation, which is kind of weird tbh.
It's really unfair to say he was dumb in this case though, for sure. It's more accurate to say, "he was unfamiliar with safe shipping practices." Like many people (including myself) don't make backups until they lose something.
I don't know about that, but USPS will insure up to $50,000USD. I guess they weren't using USPS.
Yes, they do, and they offer insurance, too. So if someone doesn't take out insurance on a valuable shipment and they say they 'lost' it, then they are acting dumb.
There's been propaganda since Ugg and Lurr first started drawing on cave walls.
If you have actual evidence of that, it would be so cool.
Pizza, maybe. They don't seem to like that, for some reason.
What they forget is no one cares what phone Trump uses to tweet from. As long as he has a second phone to keep the classified stuff secure, who cares if he also keeps his personal phone?
FWIW there are document preservation laws he needs to comply with, too.
I think it's more likely that the dealer lies and doesn't actually send a coin than that the USPS loses your mail.
compute income - savings = consumption
btw I've been thinking about this. How are you thinking of implementing it? The only ways I can think of that will actually work are much more invasive of privacy than what we have now.
That's an argument for closing tax loopholes, not for building regressiveness into the system. You're never going to win an election by saying, "The rich earn more money than you but it doesn't need to be taxed because [they don't spend it]."
So, serious question, how would you go about hacking his cell phone? Get him to download an app?
Instead of computing income for the year and looking up the tax in a table, compute income - savings = consumption for the year instead. The progressivity is built into the tax table.
That's like giving rich people a no-limit Roth IRA tax shelter, except instead of paying taxes before you put money in, you never have to pay taxes.
If "poor" people (not sure how anyone in the US can be considered poor) spend their income and "rich" people spend their income, they would be taxed at equal rates.
Obviously. Rich people don't spend their income at equal rates as poor people. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you spend all of it. If you're rich, you can save money for investments.
Economists tend to think the most efficient and least distorting thing to do is toss all existing taxes and replace them all with a single, broad-based consumption tax.
I won't support that because it's broadly regressive: poor people pay a higher percentage of their income as tax. You can kind of balance it out, but when that happens (like in California), the middle class pays the highest percentage.
The whole point of every story of Utopia ever written is that Utopia CAN NOT EXIST!
I'm 90% sure that wasn't the point of the actual Utopia. Excellent book, btw; highly recommend.
It also allowed nesting of functions.
FWIW GCC allows that now in C.
I wonder what Trumps re-election prospects will be given a dramatic rise in jobs and economic growth is pretty much assured at this point,
Expectations for him are so low that all he has to do is not be Hitler and he'll have exceeded expectation.
the coverage of PewDiePie -scandal in past day was covered best here on slashdot.
I think PewDiePie was a "don't care"
heh.......what exactly did you think was meant by this comment? Maybe you should change the subject and talk about kittens. Or get some knowledge.
Well, the book was an education book, and it was aimed at helping your students learn to adapt, so I would say it was more than fluff. To really answer that question we'd have to look at the book in detail and its particular advice. That would mean I'd have to go find the book, which is probably not worth the effort.
In our world though, meaning the world of software developers, it's definitely true. The worst about it is that the new technologies are worse than the old ones. I think I'd rather use PHP than an Angular stack, even though my knowledge of Angular is greater than my knowledge of PHP. And PHP is a mess compared to what came before it.
What will you do when/if inflation kicks in, and interest rates jump?
. This one drives me nuts as a systems engineering guy, because the reality is that the cloud just shifts the same issues around in many cases. Your IT guys are not suddenly useless dinosaurs
This one is easy for you to solve: get a book about AWS, call yourself DevOPs, and suddenly with your skills and experience people will think you are a genius. Recruiters will be falling all over themselves to hire you.
Putting operations in the cloud doesn't mean 'magic.' A lot of it doesn't even change. You still have to engineer for HA, you still need plans for what happens when a server fails, you need to plan for what happens when a data center fails. The main difference is that requisitioning a new server takes minutes instead of days (or weeks).
A few years back I read a book on education that said,
"The future doesn't belong to those who find a job and keep it. The future belongs to those who can adapt."
I don't know why we keep falling for the "special relationship" line, we get screwed every time.
The way I see it, it's propaganda to get the US to do what the UK wants. Churchill was good at managing it, and Thatcher was good at managing it. Tony Blair failed big time.
Also, it drove Bismark crazy. Doesn't matter how skilled Merkel is with diplomacy, the US still isn't joining them in WW3.
Your analysis is pathetically shallow. Problem could be you?
Are you done with gratuitous insults now? Since you're the one who presented it as an example of good code (when it's not great), maybe you should explain why. Show you know how to think.