There's a difference between driving a car and knowing where to go.
Currently, Google's self-driving car depends on creating a very detailed 3d map of the world. More detail here. I don't like to link to Wired, but they got an exclusive interview, and it confirms what I just wrote. So no, practically there isn't a difference.
So for a self-driving car to work, there are two choices: either figure out how to make better maps, or create a much smarter car than the one they have now. It has to work a lot better than the Google maps currently does.
He's a criminal and is only not doing more time than Manning (less extenuating circumstances) due to having well connected friends that can tell the concept of "nobody is above or below the law" to fuck off.
Criminal is orthogonal to "great man" and Petraeus is a great man.
Then you end up with a country run no better than a University tennis club or similar.
Well yes, it's not like the Bush years were great. But of course, it depends on the quality of your connections and your character judgement. I expect the Trump presidency to be about the same quality, although with fewer costly wars.
No one's perfect, but Petraeus did good work in Iraq. Handling a counter-insurgency is not easy, and has caused problems in the Philippines for the US, in south Africa for Great Britain, and even for the Romans. Look up the problems of the Boer wars sometime (or even remember Vietnam for the US) to get an idea. The Petraeus Doctrine handled it, and he deserves respect for that.
Later he messed up, of course, but I'm not perfect.
And he did a "heck of a job" didn't he. I really can't tell if you are joking or not since he was mostly hiring from a small group of friends and cronies that he went to school with or knew in Texas.
Yes, that's what business people often do when they think they are hiring good people. "Hey, I know a guy who can do this!" Right.
The theory is that 300M Americans who buy $18 jeans are better off than 300M Americans buying $65 blue jeans. Because if unemployment now is 5% despite losing the USA 65$-jeans-making-jobs loss, that if the jeans jobs were STILL here we'd be screwed.
Yeah, the way I look at it, we're either going to have them making the things in Mexico, or importing the workers to America to work here. Better to let them stay home with their families.
Just like Obama did all the things he promised to do.
I think Trump will actually build the wall for the same reason Cesar built the Pantheon in Rome: he wants a monument to be remembered by. If he could, he would build it out of marble or travertine, but that might be a little out of budget for Mexico (also, I predict he won't have Mexico pay all of it, he'll have most of it paid out of our taxes, with a small contribution from Mexico, and then he'll brag about what a generous negotiator he is).
The wall is literally the central piece of his campaign: not keeping Mexicans out (because it won't do that and he knows it): a monument to himself.
but apparently its hard to know when veracity matters. The answer to "when" veracity matters is "always" you fucking assholes.
lol. So true.
I think we need to get from a community away from "oh, this is what I read in a blog (or on the news or whatever), it must be true" to "oh, I tested this and here are my results"
The only humans that can be beaten by compilers are the ones who took an assembly class for a few weeks, and never looked at it again. I don't personally consider myself an expert on assembly, there are people much much better than me, but I know I can beat the compiler (and I can teach other people how to do it too).
That's kind of what Bush was, too: a leader. He couldn't do it himself, so he tried to hire really good people to get the job done. When he was able to find good people (Petraeus), he did well. When he wasn't able to find good people (Rumsfeld), his presidency went poorly. He was at the mercy of his underlings.
And that is exactly the kind of president Trump will be. Except he'll build a beautiful wall.
It helps the 1% because they own the companies which profit by, for example, employing IT workers. It occasionally helps normal people, if the companies that are reselling or using the services are in tight competition, but mostly it helps the 1%--or in this case, the owners of Disney stock.
Yeah, when weighing compensation, I usually consider stock options to be worth.50 cents each at most (no matter what they are valued at theoretically), unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. RSUs can usually be valued at market value if they vest within a year.
However, and this was my point regardless of your flame, you would be a total fool to attempt to write a modern operating system in assembler, unless it was for a particularly niche purpose, and even then I believe you would be better off writing a compiler for your environment.
Compilers still write really lousy assembly output, and can easily be beaten by a human. The problem is doing so takes so long, it's not worth what you give up in terms of flexibility with a higher-level language.
So in practice, we write everything in a higher level language, but the hot spots sometimes we write in assembly (like memcpy(), for example).
As a male programmer, I don't know how much I earn relative to other programmers.
I am totally willing to break through that barrier. Sharing this information helps us as programmers to get better pay.
In case anyone cares, at my last job I got $160k per year, including stock and bonuses (be careful on the bonuses, that's where they can rip you off).
Sure, when you're comfortable, that's when you're going to do your best negotiation; use whatever reason feels best to you.
Just be aware that your opposing party is going to make arguments that make no sense whatsoever, and you have no obligation to counter their arguments directly. If you can't think of a good counter-argument on the spot, just say a *reason*.
The reason does matter! It's a lot more effective if it's some variation of "you should pay me more because I'm so good at my job that it's worth it."
That's more effective for you because you believe it. In practice, the form and delivery of the argument is more important than its actual substance when discussing with 95% of the population (otherwise no one would win elections with empty slogans like "Hope and Change" or "Make America Great Again").
Yeah. I don't know if that counts as 'unauthorized' since he wasn't an attorney, but it certainly was making legal threats without having consulted an attorney first.
When I was promoted at my last job, I did not negotiating because I was afraid I wouldn't be given the job.
It's a matter of timing. Negotiate at the proper time, after they have declared that they want to hire you, and have given you an offer (giving you an offer is a declaration that they want to hire you).
Secondly, it's a matter of attitude. When they give you the offer, be enthusiastic, "Wow, this is great! This job offer is the best, I would love to accept it and want to work with you! The only problem is (reasons: my dog has expensive grooming, my commute is long and I need extra to pay for that, I want to work late every day and extra hard for you and I want to be compensated appropriately)." The reason doesn't matter. Just talk about how great it is to be at the job, but you'd like it if they didn't pay you more.
Thirdly, do not make ultimatums or threaten. That way if they can't pay you more, you are still free to accept the original offer.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between driving a car and knowing where to go.
Currently, Google's self-driving car depends on creating a very detailed 3d map of the world. More detail here. I don't like to link to Wired, but they got an exclusive interview, and it confirms what I just wrote. So no, practically there isn't a difference.
So for a self-driving car to work, there are two choices: either figure out how to make better maps, or create a much smarter car than the one they have now. It has to work a lot better than the Google maps currently does.
I'll get modded down for this, but remember this is the same technology that's supposed to be giving us self-driving cars within the next five years.
That meme is kind of out-dated. Not sure you noticed, but we have a socialist candidate for president.
That's patently stupid.
Yes, it is, but it's also a method for defining value.
He's a criminal and is only not doing more time than Manning (less extenuating circumstances) due to having well connected friends that can tell the concept of "nobody is above or below the law" to fuck off.
Criminal is orthogonal to "great man" and Petraeus is a great man.
Then you end up with a country run no better than a University tennis club or similar.
Well yes, it's not like the Bush years were great. But of course, it depends on the quality of your connections and your character judgement. I expect the Trump presidency to be about the same quality, although with fewer costly wars.
We live in a World that's falling apart now - some of it is even our fault (all those decades meddling in the Middle East over oil).
Don't worry, we'll soon have a president that will make America great again. :/
the supposed value of a good is an imaginary property that no economist in history has ever clearly defined.
I like the rest of your post, but wanted to point out here that Marx made a pretty thorough attempt at this by defining value in terms of labor.
Later he messed up, of course, but I'm not perfect.
And he did a "heck of a job" didn't he. I really can't tell if you are joking or not since he was mostly hiring from a small group of friends and cronies that he went to school with or knew in Texas.
Yes, that's what business people often do when they think they are hiring good people. "Hey, I know a guy who can do this!" Right.
I remember how boring I thought this election season would be. Good thing my hat is made of chocolate. Madison Avenue strikes gold!
Yeah, the entertainment factor is off the charts.
...and that's why he's 100,000x richer than you will ever be, right?
Yes, yes, actually it is why. He inherited his money.
The theory is that 300M Americans who buy $18 jeans are better off than 300M Americans buying $65 blue jeans. Because if unemployment now is 5% despite losing the USA 65$-jeans-making-jobs loss, that if the jeans jobs were STILL here we'd be screwed.
Yeah, the way I look at it, we're either going to have them making the things in Mexico, or importing the workers to America to work here. Better to let them stay home with their families.
he'll build a beautiful wall.
Just like Obama did all the things he promised to do.
I think Trump will actually build the wall for the same reason Cesar built the Pantheon in Rome: he wants a monument to be remembered by. If he could, he would build it out of marble or travertine, but that might be a little out of budget for Mexico (also, I predict he won't have Mexico pay all of it, he'll have most of it paid out of our taxes, with a small contribution from Mexico, and then he'll brag about what a generous negotiator he is).
The wall is literally the central piece of his campaign: not keeping Mexicans out (because it won't do that and he knows it): a monument to himself.
but apparently its hard to know when veracity matters. The answer to "when" veracity matters is "always" you fucking assholes.
lol. So true.
I think we need to get from a community away from "oh, this is what I read in a blog (or on the news or whatever), it must be true" to "oh, I tested this and here are my results"
The only humans that can be beaten by compilers are the ones who took an assembly class for a few weeks, and never looked at it again. I don't personally consider myself an expert on assembly, there are people much much better than me, but I know I can beat the compiler (and I can teach other people how to do it too).
But, really, this is what GlassDoor is there for.
Yeah. I'm not trying to get everyone to 'confess,'
but we would all benefit if we were more open talking about how much money we make.
What Trump excels at is being a business LEADER.
That's kind of what Bush was, too: a leader. He couldn't do it himself, so he tried to hire really good people to get the job done. When he was able to find good people (Petraeus), he did well. When he wasn't able to find good people (Rumsfeld), his presidency went poorly. He was at the mercy of his underlings.
And that is exactly the kind of president Trump will be. Except he'll build a beautiful wall.
It helps the 1% because they own the companies which profit by, for example, employing IT workers. It occasionally helps normal people, if the companies that are reselling or using the services are in tight competition, but mostly it helps the 1%--or in this case, the owners of Disney stock.
For people in the US it's been uneven, but for these people it's been a huge success. I'm ok with that.
Yeah, when weighing compensation, I usually consider stock options to be worth .50 cents each at most (no matter what they are valued at theoretically), unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. RSUs can usually be valued at market value if they vest within a year.
However, and this was my point regardless of your flame, you would be a total fool to attempt to write a modern operating system in assembler, unless it was for a particularly niche purpose, and even then I believe you would be better off writing a compiler for your environment.
Compilers still write really lousy assembly output, and can easily be beaten by a human. The problem is doing so takes so long, it's not worth what you give up in terms of flexibility with a higher-level language.
So in practice, we write everything in a higher level language, but the hot spots sometimes we write in assembly (like memcpy(), for example).
I've seen no attempts at self-programming computers yet,
It's hard for me to even imagine what this would look like.....prolog is the closest thing I can think of, but that's still not even close to AI.
As a male programmer, I don't know how much I earn relative to other programmers.
I am totally willing to break through that barrier. Sharing this information helps us as programmers to get better pay.
In case anyone cares, at my last job I got $160k per year, including stock and bonuses (be careful on the bonuses, that's where they can rip you off).
Sure, when you're comfortable, that's when you're going to do your best negotiation; use whatever reason feels best to you.
Just be aware that your opposing party is going to make arguments that make no sense whatsoever, and you have no obligation to counter their arguments directly. If you can't think of a good counter-argument on the spot, just say a *reason*.
The reason does matter! It's a lot more effective if it's some variation of "you should pay me more because I'm so good at my job that it's worth it."
That's more effective for you because you believe it. In practice, the form and delivery of the argument is more important than its actual substance when discussing with 95% of the population (otherwise no one would win elections with empty slogans like "Hope and Change" or "Make America Great Again").
Yeah. I don't know if that counts as 'unauthorized' since he wasn't an attorney, but it certainly was making legal threats without having consulted an attorney first.
And some people will actually read the study and do an analysis. That is why Slashdot is worth visiting, because some people actually read the study.
When I was promoted at my last job, I did not negotiating because I was afraid I wouldn't be given the job.
It's a matter of timing. Negotiate at the proper time, after they have declared that they want to hire you, and have given you an offer (giving you an offer is a declaration that they want to hire you).
Secondly, it's a matter of attitude. When they give you the offer, be enthusiastic, "Wow, this is great! This job offer is the best, I would love to accept it and want to work with you! The only problem is (reasons: my dog has expensive grooming, my commute is long and I need extra to pay for that, I want to work late every day and extra hard for you and I want to be compensated appropriately)." The reason doesn't matter. Just talk about how great it is to be at the job, but you'd like it if they didn't pay you more.
Thirdly, do not make ultimatums or threaten. That way if they can't pay you more, you are still free to accept the original offer.