In addition to what epine said, California's tech industry is over 40% foreign-born. Any candidate who runs on an anti-immigrant platform (even if it's only bluster and dog whistling) could be seen as an existential threat to the sector as a whole.
Kinda. Good noise-cancelling headphones (mine are B&O, have also used Bose and it's a similar story) come with Bluetooth, 3.5mm, USB (for both audio and charging), and airplane adapters.
Mind you, never use them while commuting. On public transport, good ol' $10 earbuds are far superior.
I agree with almost everything you say, but the chance that these electro-tchotchkes have batteries that a user can replace is almost, but not quite, zero.
I'm not accusing you of this, but one big fallacy that the climate deniers in particular seem to make is to think that climate scientists are anti-technology.
They're fucking scientists. Only a non-Slashdotter could possibly think that scientists didn't want gadgets and gizmos.
You people hate everything that makes our society what it is.. Life wasn't better before technology. It was WAY FUCKING WORSE.
You do know it's not either/or, right?
Technology is almost always three steps forward, one step back. We are heading in the right direction but we're kidding ourselves if we think anything is risk-free and drawback-free. And we're stupid if we think we can't do anything about that.
The ABS and seatbelts and airbags and other safety gear in my car are not anti-technology. They are technology.
I want technological progress and less pollution that we have now. I don't think that's unreasonable.
It's not their best headline writing, but TFA makes the point clear: cryptocurrencies are not currencies, let alone useful currencies. Their only "use" is speculation, and to an economist, that doesn't count as "useful".
Rust is for morons with delusions that do not have what it takes but think they can write advanced code anyways.
Rust is for programmers who are willing to live with the fact that their codebase may have to be completely rewritten in that time as the idioms of the language are solidified.
If you're a startup which may not even be around in five years, the extra static analysis that Rust gives you over C may be worth paying that price. If you're maintaining a 25 year old several million-line codebase it obviously isn't.
Incidentally, the believers in "just use this great new tool and all your problems will be solved" have been around forever, and they have been just as stupid way back as they are today.
I'm pretty sure that nobody said that. What they said is that the specific problems outlined in this talk are mostly taken care of in Rust.
Contrary to popular belief, Rust isn't a moron language. Rust is the beneficiary of people who have been working on the "safer C" problem for decades; see, for example, Cyclone. It has a lot going for it, but it doesn't have the critical mass of long-term maintained code which makes it a safe bet.
The communist picture of the human is just as noble and inspiring as the libertarian one. The community coming together towards a common goal and common vision.
Communist countries have also been the deadliest regimes in history.
While I think there would be less mass murder perpetrated by the government, there's no reason to think that pure libertarian countries would fare well. No country based on any kind of fundamentalism has ever been good for its people or the world.
Whether you use a drill press, or a numerically controlled mill, or a 3-D printer is immaterial - the effort required on your part to build it does not dictate whether or not you should have that right.
Interesting that you say that, because I have the opposite opinion when it comes to, say, surveillance or warfare.
The police used to be able to track your car by having someone follow it. Now, they could use data pulled from security cameras. The amount of effort and expense required to keep track of you was, I think, a check on the use of that law enforcement tool. The same goes for companies that sell your data. They used to be limited by the amount they could economically collect.
Similarly, the fact that your people could get killed or injured was a check on the use of warfare. The use of drones changed the balance.
If they had started firing, the feds would have lost hard.
Instead, the feds didn't fire (apart from the one idiot who tried to pull a gun while resisting arrest) and won.
TBH I'm not entirely sure what the point is here. The Hammonds didn't even want the Bundys to get involved. Perhaps the moral of the story is that sure, you might have guns, but so does everyone else, including people who very strongly disagree with you.
Very unlikely, once subject to constitutional challenge the law will be scrubbed because you can not by law force any one to remember anything, to do so, would be the direct equivalent of torturing to force a confessions.
I don't know how much you know about the Australian constitution, but good luck on that one. We already have secret quasi-courts with Star Chamber powers, such as the power to compel testimony and imprison silent witnesses, in the form of the various state anti-corruption commissions.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to what epine said, California's tech industry is over 40% foreign-born. Any candidate who runs on an anti-immigrant platform (even if it's only bluster and dog whistling) could be seen as an existential threat to the sector as a whole.
I'm sure this will be a reasoned, nuanced discussion because people who work in tech are above name calling, hasty generalizations, and stereotyping.
IIRC, most dotcoms didn't produce anything that people wanted to pay for.
Yes, but the meaning can be completely from the context.
Kinda. Good noise-cancelling headphones (mine are B&O, have also used Bose and it's a similar story) come with Bluetooth, 3.5mm, USB (for both audio and charging), and airplane adapters.
Mind you, never use them while commuting. On public transport, good ol' $10 earbuds are far superior.
Apple is probably hanging out for the day when every time the battery runs down, just your device to your local Apple Store and hand over $100.
another set of batteries to deal with
I agree with almost everything you say, but the chance that these electro-tchotchkes have batteries that a user can replace is almost, but not quite, zero.
TBH I'm not sure that's a bad idea.
Anyone who thinks this is as good idea doesn't have kids who regularly lose, break, and launder small items.
So, if I understand you correctly, it doesn't support anything.
It doesn't support anything and it's not their fault.
That subway urine smell is legacy fragrance.
while ((thing = next_thing_or_null_if_no_more_things())) {
do_something_with(thing);
}
In the 90s it was all "knowledge-based systems" and in the noughties it was all "intelligent agents".
That's not what "perk" (strictly speaking "perq", short for "perquisite") means.
The golden rule of Slashdot is "never RTFA". Petrified and naked in hot grits or something.
I'm not accusing you of this, but one big fallacy that the climate deniers in particular seem to make is to think that climate scientists are anti-technology.
They're fucking scientists. Only a non-Slashdotter could possibly think that scientists didn't want gadgets and gizmos.
You people hate everything that makes our society what it is.. Life wasn't better before technology. It was WAY FUCKING WORSE.
You do know it's not either/or, right?
Technology is almost always three steps forward, one step back. We are heading in the right direction but we're kidding ourselves if we think anything is risk-free and drawback-free. And we're stupid if we think we can't do anything about that.
The ABS and seatbelts and airbags and other safety gear in my car are not anti-technology. They are technology.
I want technological progress and less pollution that we have now. I don't think that's unreasonable.
"All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde
It's not their best headline writing, but TFA makes the point clear: cryptocurrencies are not currencies, let alone useful currencies. Their only "use" is speculation, and to an economist, that doesn't count as "useful".
Rust is for morons with delusions that do not have what it takes but think they can write advanced code anyways.
Rust is for programmers who are willing to live with the fact that their codebase may have to be completely rewritten in that time as the idioms of the language are solidified.
If you're a startup which may not even be around in five years, the extra static analysis that Rust gives you over C may be worth paying that price. If you're maintaining a 25 year old several million-line codebase it obviously isn't.
Incidentally, the believers in "just use this great new tool and all your problems will be solved" have been around forever, and they have been just as stupid way back as they are today.
I'm pretty sure that nobody said that. What they said is that the specific problems outlined in this talk are mostly taken care of in Rust.
Contrary to popular belief, Rust isn't a moron language. Rust is the beneficiary of people who have been working on the "safer C" problem for decades; see, for example, Cyclone. It has a lot going for it, but it doesn't have the critical mass of long-term maintained code which makes it a safe bet.
The communist picture of the human is just as noble and inspiring as the libertarian one. The community coming together towards a common goal and common vision.
Communist countries have also been the deadliest regimes in history.
While I think there would be less mass murder perpetrated by the government, there's no reason to think that pure libertarian countries would fare well. No country based on any kind of fundamentalism has ever been good for its people or the world.
Whether you use a drill press, or a numerically controlled mill, or a 3-D printer is immaterial - the effort required on your part to build it does not dictate whether or not you should have that right .
Interesting that you say that, because I have the opposite opinion when it comes to, say, surveillance or warfare.
The police used to be able to track your car by having someone follow it. Now, they could use data pulled from security cameras. The amount of effort and expense required to keep track of you was, I think, a check on the use of that law enforcement tool. The same goes for companies that sell your data. They used to be limited by the amount they could economically collect.
Similarly, the fact that your people could get killed or injured was a check on the use of warfare. The use of drones changed the balance.
If they had started firing, the feds would have lost hard.
Instead, the feds didn't fire (apart from the one idiot who tried to pull a gun while resisting arrest) and won.
TBH I'm not entirely sure what the point is here. The Hammonds didn't even want the Bundys to get involved. Perhaps the moral of the story is that sure, you might have guns, but so does everyone else, including people who very strongly disagree with you.
By your logic the feds should have been able to roll over over those militiamen, [...]
Of course they could have. They didn't want to, because Waco.
It was a good day when we upgraded to an Addiator.
What have Millennials killed this time?
Very unlikely, once subject to constitutional challenge the law will be scrubbed because you can not by law force any one to remember anything, to do so, would be the direct equivalent of torturing to force a confessions.
I don't know how much you know about the Australian constitution, but good luck on that one. We already have secret quasi-courts with Star Chamber powers, such as the power to compel testimony and imprison silent witnesses, in the form of the various state anti-corruption commissions.