Find a token man working in an all, or mostly female HR department, and Seth the sexism fly.
It's hardly a fair comparison, though. HR is a tiny function in the grand scheme of things, and the fact that women are stereotypically railroaded into admin roles isn't pro-woman sexism.
I see an allegation with no facts. Anyone working in IT understands how to make a screenshot, if not how to log a chat session. Yet no evidence is presented, and what would the easiest thing be for this person to do? Save evidence, because sexual harassment is ILLEGAL.
The article mentions that she does indeed have that evidence. Why does she not present this evidence? Probably because to do so might be illegal. I believe she has the legal right to retain that documentation for the sole purpose of legal action (as either defendant or complainant) and no right to publish it (as it is technically copyright of Uber as she was work-for-hire at the time).
If she was lying, Uber would most likely sue her for defamation/libel/slander in short order, and she would get burned because she wouldn't have the long trail of evidence that she mentioned in the article.
Your claim (repeated) that you have to be the victim to see sexual harassment on the scale she is claiming is moronic. It would be visible to at least everyone on that team. There would be more than one claim from more than one person if it was that rampant.
She explicitly states that there was, and that she had talked to several coworkers who had experienced it.
Sorry, but there are no groups of dudes hanging around conspiring on how to fuck over, and fuck, women in the company.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy -- negative attitudes aren't conscious.
Quite the opposite, since the virtue signalling SJWs are rampant in SF and would have busted the boss to make a name for themselves.
For example: you're sexist, but you think you're not, because you think it's all "SJWs", rather than people who have been genuinely mistreated. In this case, the woman gives a very detailed account, directly referring to matters on company record. Within an hour of picking up the phone, Uber's legal team would have had enough information to know whether this was credible or not. As Uber's official response was "conducting an internal investigation" rather than "completely baseless", I don't believe her claims can be easily dismissed at this point. And yet you believe you are taking a rational approach, even though you are disregarding the facts at hand -- attitude, not conspiracy.
I try to focus about 80% of the grade on higher orders of thinking than recall (see Bloom's Taxonomy for what this means).
Bloom's taxonomy is a wonderful paradox. It takes the idea of higher order thinking and presents it in an easy-to-digest form that requires no higher-order thinking whatsoever. Higher order thinking skills exist outwith and beyond the taxonomy, and any explanations I've seen tied to the taxonomy are weaker than those independent of it.
So please, can we kill Bloom's Taxonomy now? It has outlived it's usefulness by a long chalk.
One of the problems in modern education is the blurring of the lines between "academic" and "vocational" education. In vocational courses, work release, sandwich courses etc were the norm, but more and more, people are being pushed into universities rather than technical colleges/trade schools. Really, the university sector is too large, and we should be attempting to rejuvenate the vocational education sector instead.
That said, I am always very dubious of "skills useful for a job", because the more you talk to industry figures, the narrower that gets. In CS, for example, you end up with students spending a long time working with a specific package and getting good at using it, but never having the time to learn more abstract principles. Someone coming out of a rigorous traditional university education will need training for their first job, yes. However, they'll be able to pick it up quicker, and they'll find it easier to retrain for their next job/role much easier because of the breadth of their backgrounds.
Consider functional programming. How often have you heard industry figures decry CS faculties for teaching it when it was not a "real world" technology? My second year CS programming was in ML after first year being in C, and the next year the course was updated to use Java in both first and second year. And now as parallel and distributed programming takes off, people are scrambling to skill up on FP to get their servers running efficiently. (Yes, it's languages like Haskell rather than ML, but the basic principle of FP carries over.)
Why should the instructor provide the "right" answer? You are given unlimited attempts at the weekly quizzes and any course projects.
A mistake is something to be learned from -- having access to a worked answer allows you to diagnose your own errors. This is important enough in face-to-face teaching, but in the Coursera model there is no personal tutelage, and no scope for individual or common student errors to be addressed in later sessions of the course (because the content is fixed). This makes it absolutely vital that students can spot and work on their own weaknesses.
Yes, he was a drunkard, smoked horrible cigars and made many mistakes in his life, but he had a sense of purpose to his life that went far beyond money. It is a shame that there are not more people like him alive today.
Personally, I think the Indians whose families suffered in Churchill's enforced famine during WWII might disagree with that. Or the so-called "savages" he delighted in killing in his earlier years. It's great that he stood up against Hitler, but he too was interested in the notion of the superiority of "the Aryan stock".
Really, there's not much you can say to defend the character of a man who said that Mahatma Gandhi "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back."...!
They are not saying "stop teaching white poets", they are (as the GP said) saying "stop teaching ONLY white poets". And yes, they do teach other poets in other , but the argument here is that having a substantial mandatory core strand dedicated to purely white English men isn't acceptable. It's a valid argument, which is not to say it is correct -- there is equally the valid counterargument that all the major English language poets of that era were white English men, so there really isn't an alternative. Clearly you can't expect to find much 18th or 19th century literature celebrating the rainbow spectrum of sexuality when people were regularly jailed under "sexual deviancy" laws at the time, so there's certainly limits to what can be done.
Regardless, there is a debate to be had, and even if you believe that there is only one sensible outcome to the debate, you should at least give the other side the opportunity to air their views and respectfully challenge their reasoning. Calling them crybabies is hardly going to help.
It's more about users with modern devices that are still using 32-bit apps that haven't been updated in ages.
Yes, I'm thinking the summary writer may have misunderstood.
Apple has tended to offer software support for their older devices for years longer than Google/Microsoft/RIM/etc have. While you could definitely argue that they're still not doing enough in that regard, they're already doing far more than any of the other smartphone manufacturers are.
Accepted. However, the difference is that when Google walks away from support, you can still produce and procure new software for the device, if there's demand. When Apple walks away, you're left locked in an empty garden.
I'm a bit confused about this "stopping" support for 32-bit devices, because as of iOS 10, all non-retina devices are already unsupported, and I didn't think there was a single 32-bit retina iOS device anyway.
What we're looking at here is Apple slowly phasing out the last remnants of sales to old devices. It has been impossible for over a year to release new software targeted at people with old devices through the App Store, and it is about to become impossible to sell them new copies of software that was previously released.
This is what gets me about the Apple model (I'm an iPad Mini user -- non-retina) -- the walled garden does an awful lot to preserve the security of the device, but they then brick us old users up in a tiny corner when us and the devices we bought are of no interest to them. If they want to rent us iPads, rent us them. Don't sell them to us then make them useless when the hardware is still working perfectly well.
And this has nothing to do with the touchbar at all. Predictive text is not a feature of the touchbar, it can be done on any computer. As for scrolling some text on the touchbar, well you can have an application do that on the screen as well.
Presumably, though, the software that locks down the computer to prevent use of applications for assistance isn't able to block the predictive text software on the new Macs.
I'm guessing that the predictive text function is either integrated at the OS level or implemented as an input-device driver, and the exam software can only interact with other software in the application space.
Modern predictive text is likely to be very useful to a cheat, because you would be able to use it as a sort of memory for specific phrases -- batter the things you need into the keyboard three times a day and you'll be able to type two words and get the rest of the thing spat back out word by word, tap-tap-tap, on the TouchBar.
Also, there's the issue of equitable time in the exam. Predictive text was implemented on phones first because even thought the early systems weren't great, they significantly sped up the process of writing on a phone. Now the systems are getting scarily good, and can speed up keyboard work. Thus someone with predictive text has a massive time advantage in the exam over someone who doesn't.
No, it's more an anecdote about how id photographs are a very Caucasian-oriented biometric, given that our salient identifying features are more likely to be clearly visible in a small, slightly-blurry photo that often doesn't look a lot like the person it depicts. i.e. Caucasians have wide differences in hair and eye colour, and in hair type, and the same is not true to the same extent in non-white populations.
Note also that the GP specifically said "Han Chinese", which is a lot more specific than "Asian", and once you're into a very specific ethnic group, other features like face shape and nose structure do tend to get more similar (which is true regardless of whether you're talking about a white or a non-white group) making cheating by impersonation easier.
The pie is not a cheap computer. It is for camera, robots, sensors, and IOT type devices.
The original design brief of the Raspberry Pi was as a cheap computer. If it was intended for cameras, robots, sensors and IoT devices, it would have battery management onboard -- all the use cases you mention are much better server if the device can be powered without wires.
Onboard battery management with standardised support would make the Pi a real prospect to me. Battery management daughterboards for the Pi are almost as expensive as the device itself and block up GPIO pins other hardware might need. I'm also unclear on whether I'm going to have to roll my own operating environment to take advantage of it.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing -- quite the opposite: redundancy is often a good thing. But the justification seems half-hearted, because it doesn't eliminate redundancy, so it's not about eliminating redundancy. It's a block_start token, even if some people choose to play semantics and claim it's part of the command syntax: a block is always preceded by a colon. I don't like the explicit start marker without the explicit end marker. Yes, start marker only does seem a little more like human language, but computer languages aren't human languages.
>There is no reason that indentation levels couldn't be automatically displayed based on the parenthesis data
Yeah, but nobody does that and even Apple and other huge companies have created horrible security bugs because they extended a branch of an "if" statement to two statements without adding the parens around the two statements that one would need then. Huh.
Yes, but automatic indentation in the editor would have automatically highlighted the mistake, and the programmer could have fixed it immediately. Why are computer programmers such luddites? We try to fix other people's problems with technology, but insist that our jobs should be carried out using 1970s technology.
Meanwhile, you can just have the indentation signify blocks which is how every human alive understands it anyhow and which require no special editor support and no weird manual fixes by the person editing it.
Humans may not vary much, but computer screens do. Consider that the whole point of things like HTML is to abstract out formatting in order to allow the same content to be rendered on various devices, including print.
I really think it's time we started getting smarter with our coding environments. Customisable display doesn't just mean indentation levels. Maybe you want to see an argument list in one line:
result = functioncall (size=1, number=2, somethingelse=3)
but maybe I want to see it tabulated, with the arguments lined up on individual lines, and both the parameter names and values lined up in two columns. Or maybe just the arguments on different lines, but within setting up columns.
These sorts of differences exist today as "programming style", even in Python (indentation is meaningless in continuation lines in Python). But because the style (rendering) is an integral part of the source code, the programmer is forced to adapt to the chosen style of the team, project or company they work with. This is inefficient and distracts the programmer from the main goal: writing the code.
I'm more efficient when the information is laid out in the way that I find clearest.
But even that may change with time and with what job I'm doing. Maybe I want to be able to "unfold" a single line into a tabulated form for closer examination, or "fold" a tabulated form into a single line to get the "bigger picture" of the code.
But what I shouldn't have to think about is how anyone else is going to see the source code.
doesn't sounds all that unique. Lots of languages let you muck with memory allocation. For example C++
But C++ doesn't have a garbage collector, and more generally most languages have [i]either[/i] implicit garbage collection [i]or[/i] explicit memory management -- Nim has both, allowing you to ignore memory management completely until you're ready to optimise -- that's a very useful thing. I'm no expert on languages, so I don't know which of the more advanced multi-paradigm languages have similar options -- but it's something that's still missing from mainstream languages.
The fact is you should be indenting consistently anyway, so braces and semicolons are superfluous, and ugly.
How is Python's colon any less superfluous? Every block is preceded by a colon, and there is no situation where anything else can go in place of the colon. As far as I can see, the colon is 100% redundant within the syntax. (Excluding list syntax, naturally.)
As I say every time this debate comes up: every code editor I use carries out parenthesis matching. There is no reason that indentation levels couldn't be automatically displayed based on the parenthesis data and rendered to screen based on the user's preferences. If people still want to be able to read the code in a plain text editor, then have the editor save a set number of spaces per indentation level. (2 maybe? 4?)
Show me some code that shows how Nim can do things better. It's more convincing than a list of bullet points anyway.
Wrong question. The single most interesting idea I've seen in Nim isn't something you can see in a piece of code: it's how it aids the programmer in optimising code late. It's only the memory management system, but the idea is that you prototype your code with a garbage collector switched on, and once the code is working, and assuming you need the performance gain, you code up your own memory management routines tailored to your code.
It's an idea that seems logical, but is frustratingly uncommon, and is not normally an in-built feature of the language, but rather just a part of the dev workflow (for example: use a generic sort algorithm from a library during prototyping, then analyse the data you're working with in large-scale tests and select or code a more efficient implementation for your situation). The weakness in doing this manually is that it first means tying your codebase to a library, with its various quirks, and then potentially rewriting vast chunks of code to get it to work with a different library (and then there's the risk of cascading changes).
I think Nim's approach is a small step in the right direction, taking us towards logic first, optimisation later.
Not all of us of course. Mainly those who unreservedly supported either of the two major candidates. I don't know the breakdown among those who supported the other candidates or like me didn't support any.
At the risk of starting a fight, isn't it closed-minded to forget that there are other countries out there, and that your presidential race wasn't a global election...?
Or in short, we're all becoming more closed-minded and insular; trying to invent a tight, uniform group identity and to put up hard borders (build walls?) between our chosen "tribes". This is that good old-fashioned "nationalism" that messed up the world so badly in the mid-20th century.
Slashdot Mirror
And such cases should be called out. But the statistics still indicate that women are getting the shittier end of the stick in all this.
Find a token man working in an all, or mostly female HR department, and Seth the sexism fly.
It's hardly a fair comparison, though. HR is a tiny function in the grand scheme of things, and the fact that women are stereotypically railroaded into admin roles isn't pro-woman sexism.
I see an allegation with no facts. Anyone working in IT understands how to make a screenshot, if not how to log a chat session. Yet no evidence is presented, and what would the easiest thing be for this person to do? Save evidence, because sexual harassment is ILLEGAL.
The article mentions that she does indeed have that evidence. Why does she not present this evidence? Probably because to do so might be illegal. I believe she has the legal right to retain that documentation for the sole purpose of legal action (as either defendant or complainant) and no right to publish it (as it is technically copyright of Uber as she was work-for-hire at the time).
If she was lying, Uber would most likely sue her for defamation/libel/slander in short order, and she would get burned because she wouldn't have the long trail of evidence that she mentioned in the article.
Your claim (repeated) that you have to be the victim to see sexual harassment on the scale she is claiming is moronic. It would be visible to at least everyone on that team. There would be more than one claim from more than one person if it was that rampant.
She explicitly states that there was, and that she had talked to several coworkers who had experienced it.
Sorry, but there are no groups of dudes hanging around conspiring on how to fuck over, and fuck, women in the company.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy -- negative attitudes aren't conscious.
Quite the opposite, since the virtue signalling SJWs are rampant in SF and would have busted the boss to make a name for themselves.
For example: you're sexist, but you think you're not, because you think it's all "SJWs", rather than people who have been genuinely mistreated. In this case, the woman gives a very detailed account, directly referring to matters on company record. Within an hour of picking up the phone, Uber's legal team would have had enough information to know whether this was credible or not. As Uber's official response was "conducting an internal investigation" rather than "completely baseless", I don't believe her claims can be easily dismissed at this point. And yet you believe you are taking a rational approach, even though you are disregarding the facts at hand -- attitude, not conspiracy.
I try to focus about 80% of the grade on higher orders of thinking than recall (see Bloom's Taxonomy for what this means).
Bloom's taxonomy is a wonderful paradox. It takes the idea of higher order thinking and presents it in an easy-to-digest form that requires no higher-order thinking whatsoever. Higher order thinking skills exist outwith and beyond the taxonomy, and any explanations I've seen tied to the taxonomy are weaker than those independent of it.
So please, can we kill Bloom's Taxonomy now? It has outlived it's usefulness by a long chalk.
That said, I am always very dubious of "skills useful for a job", because the more you talk to industry figures, the narrower that gets. In CS, for example, you end up with students spending a long time working with a specific package and getting good at using it, but never having the time to learn more abstract principles. Someone coming out of a rigorous traditional university education will need training for their first job, yes. However, they'll be able to pick it up quicker, and they'll find it easier to retrain for their next job/role much easier because of the breadth of their backgrounds.
Consider functional programming. How often have you heard industry figures decry CS faculties for teaching it when it was not a "real world" technology? My second year CS programming was in ML after first year being in C, and the next year the course was updated to use Java in both first and second year. And now as parallel and distributed programming takes off, people are scrambling to skill up on FP to get their servers running efficiently. (Yes, it's languages like Haskell rather than ML, but the basic principle of FP carries over.)
Why should the instructor provide the "right" answer? You are given unlimited attempts at the weekly quizzes and any course projects.
A mistake is something to be learned from -- having access to a worked answer allows you to diagnose your own errors. This is important enough in face-to-face teaching, but in the Coursera model there is no personal tutelage, and no scope for individual or common student errors to be addressed in later sessions of the course (because the content is fixed). This makes it absolutely vital that students can spot and work on their own weaknesses.
Yes, he was a drunkard, smoked horrible cigars and made many mistakes in his life, but he had a sense of purpose to his life that went far beyond money. It is a shame that there are not more people like him alive today.
Personally, I think the Indians whose families suffered in Churchill's enforced famine during WWII might disagree with that. Or the so-called "savages" he delighted in killing in his earlier years. It's great that he stood up against Hitler, but he too was interested in the notion of the superiority of "the Aryan stock".
Really, there's not much you can say to defend the character of a man who said that Mahatma Gandhi "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back."...!
They are not saying "stop teaching white poets", they are (as the GP said) saying "stop teaching ONLY white poets". And yes, they do teach other poets in other , but the argument here is that having a substantial mandatory core strand dedicated to purely white English men isn't acceptable. It's a valid argument, which is not to say it is correct -- there is equally the valid counterargument that all the major English language poets of that era were white English men, so there really isn't an alternative. Clearly you can't expect to find much 18th or 19th century literature celebrating the rainbow spectrum of sexuality when people were regularly jailed under "sexual deviancy" laws at the time, so there's certainly limits to what can be done.
Regardless, there is a debate to be had, and even if you believe that there is only one sensible outcome to the debate, you should at least give the other side the opportunity to air their views and respectfully challenge their reasoning. Calling them crybabies is hardly going to help.
I don't know if we are *truly* alone in the University, but it sure is empty here in the proof-reading department.
I wish the same could be said of the computer rooms. I keep ending up on my iPad cos all the machines are taken.
You are completely ignorant.
Yes, I am.. or rather I was. Ignorance is cured by informing, so thank you for correcting me.
It's more about users with modern devices that are still using 32-bit apps that haven't been updated in ages.
Yes, I'm thinking the summary writer may have misunderstood.
Apple has tended to offer software support for their older devices for years longer than Google/Microsoft/RIM/etc have. While you could definitely argue that they're still not doing enough in that regard, they're already doing far more than any of the other smartphone manufacturers are.
Accepted. However, the difference is that when Google walks away from support, you can still produce and procure new software for the device, if there's demand. When Apple walks away, you're left locked in an empty garden.
I'm a bit confused about this "stopping" support for 32-bit devices, because as of iOS 10, all non-retina devices are already unsupported, and I didn't think there was a single 32-bit retina iOS device anyway.
What we're looking at here is Apple slowly phasing out the last remnants of sales to old devices. It has been impossible for over a year to release new software targeted at people with old devices through the App Store, and it is about to become impossible to sell them new copies of software that was previously released.
This is what gets me about the Apple model (I'm an iPad Mini user -- non-retina) -- the walled garden does an awful lot to preserve the security of the device, but they then brick us old users up in a tiny corner when us and the devices we bought are of no interest to them. If they want to rent us iPads, rent us them. Don't sell them to us then make them useless when the hardware is still working perfectly well.
This article is about iOS, not Mac OS/OS X. There are no fat binaries on iOS -- it is an either/or proposition.
And this has nothing to do with the touchbar at all. Predictive text is not a feature of the touchbar, it can be done on any computer. As for scrolling some text on the touchbar, well you can have an application do that on the screen as well.
Presumably, though, the software that locks down the computer to prevent use of applications for assistance isn't able to block the predictive text software on the new Macs.
I'm guessing that the predictive text function is either integrated at the OS level or implemented as an input-device driver, and the exam software can only interact with other software in the application space.
Modern predictive text is likely to be very useful to a cheat, because you would be able to use it as a sort of memory for specific phrases -- batter the things you need into the keyboard three times a day and you'll be able to type two words and get the rest of the thing spat back out word by word, tap-tap-tap, on the TouchBar.
Also, there's the issue of equitable time in the exam. Predictive text was implemented on phones first because even thought the early systems weren't great, they significantly sped up the process of writing on a phone. Now the systems are getting scarily good, and can speed up keyboard work. Thus someone with predictive text has a massive time advantage in the exam over someone who doesn't.
Is this a "all asians look the same" anecdote?
No, it's more an anecdote about how id photographs are a very Caucasian-oriented biometric, given that our salient identifying features are more likely to be clearly visible in a small, slightly-blurry photo that often doesn't look a lot like the person it depicts. i.e. Caucasians have wide differences in hair and eye colour, and in hair type, and the same is not true to the same extent in non-white populations.
Note also that the GP specifically said "Han Chinese", which is a lot more specific than "Asian", and once you're into a very specific ethnic group, other features like face shape and nose structure do tend to get more similar (which is true regardless of whether you're talking about a white or a non-white group) making cheating by impersonation easier.
It is use cases.
The pie is not a cheap computer. It is for camera, robots, sensors, and IOT type devices.
The original design brief of the Raspberry Pi was as a cheap computer. If it was intended for cameras, robots, sensors and IoT devices, it would have battery management onboard -- all the use cases you mention are much better server if the device can be powered without wires.
Onboard battery management with standardised support would make the Pi a real prospect to me. Battery management daughterboards for the Pi are almost as expensive as the device itself and block up GPIO pins other hardware might need. I'm also unclear on whether I'm going to have to roll my own operating environment to take advantage of it.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing -- quite the opposite: redundancy is often a good thing. But the justification seems half-hearted, because it doesn't eliminate redundancy, so it's not about eliminating redundancy. It's a block_start token, even if some people choose to play semantics and claim it's part of the command syntax: a block is always preceded by a colon. I don't like the explicit start marker without the explicit end marker. Yes, start marker only does seem a little more like human language, but computer languages aren't human languages.
>There is no reason that indentation levels couldn't be automatically displayed based on the parenthesis data
Yeah, but nobody does that and even Apple and other huge companies have created horrible security bugs because they extended a branch of an "if" statement to two statements without adding the parens around the two statements that one would need then. Huh.
Yes, but automatic indentation in the editor would have automatically highlighted the mistake, and the programmer could have fixed it immediately. Why are computer programmers such luddites? We try to fix other people's problems with technology, but insist that our jobs should be carried out using 1970s technology.
Meanwhile, you can just have the indentation signify blocks which is how every human alive understands it anyhow and which require no special editor support and no weird manual fixes by the person editing it.
Humans may not vary much, but computer screens do. Consider that the whole point of things like HTML is to abstract out formatting in order to allow the same content to be rendered on various devices, including print.
I really think it's time we started getting smarter with our coding environments. Customisable display doesn't just mean indentation levels. Maybe you want to see an argument list in one line: result = functioncall (size=1, number=2, somethingelse=3)
but maybe I want to see it tabulated, with the arguments lined up on individual lines, and both the parameter names and values lined up in two columns. Or maybe just the arguments on different lines, but within setting up columns.
These sorts of differences exist today as "programming style", even in Python (indentation is meaningless in continuation lines in Python). But because the style (rendering) is an integral part of the source code, the programmer is forced to adapt to the chosen style of the team, project or company they work with. This is inefficient and distracts the programmer from the main goal: writing the code.
I'm more efficient when the information is laid out in the way that I find clearest.
But even that may change with time and with what job I'm doing. Maybe I want to be able to "unfold" a single line into a tabulated form for closer examination, or "fold" a tabulated form into a single line to get the "bigger picture" of the code.
But what I shouldn't have to think about is how anyone else is going to see the source code.
doesn't sounds all that unique. Lots of languages let you muck with memory allocation. For example C++
But C++ doesn't have a garbage collector, and more generally most languages have [i]either[/i] implicit garbage collection [i]or[/i] explicit memory management -- Nim has both, allowing you to ignore memory management completely until you're ready to optimise -- that's a very useful thing. I'm no expert on languages, so I don't know which of the more advanced multi-paradigm languages have similar options -- but it's something that's still missing from mainstream languages.
The fact is you should be indenting consistently anyway, so braces and semicolons are superfluous, and ugly.
How is Python's colon any less superfluous? Every block is preceded by a colon, and there is no situation where anything else can go in place of the colon. As far as I can see, the colon is 100% redundant within the syntax. (Excluding list syntax, naturally.)
As I say every time this debate comes up: every code editor I use carries out parenthesis matching. There is no reason that indentation levels couldn't be automatically displayed based on the parenthesis data and rendered to screen based on the user's preferences. If people still want to be able to read the code in a plain text editor, then have the editor save a set number of spaces per indentation level. (2 maybe? 4?)
Show me some code that shows how Nim can do things better. It's more convincing than a list of bullet points anyway.
Wrong question. The single most interesting idea I've seen in Nim isn't something you can see in a piece of code: it's how it aids the programmer in optimising code late. It's only the memory management system, but the idea is that you prototype your code with a garbage collector switched on, and once the code is working, and assuming you need the performance gain, you code up your own memory management routines tailored to your code.
It's an idea that seems logical, but is frustratingly uncommon, and is not normally an in-built feature of the language, but rather just a part of the dev workflow (for example: use a generic sort algorithm from a library during prototyping, then analyse the data you're working with in large-scale tests and select or code a more efficient implementation for your situation). The weakness in doing this manually is that it first means tying your codebase to a library, with its various quirks, and then potentially rewriting vast chunks of code to get it to work with a different library (and then there's the risk of cascading changes).
I think Nim's approach is a small step in the right direction, taking us towards logic first, optimisation later.
Not all of us of course. Mainly those who unreservedly supported either of the two major candidates. I don't know the breakdown among those who supported the other candidates or like me didn't support any.
At the risk of starting a fight, isn't it closed-minded to forget that there are other countries out there, and that your presidential race wasn't a global election...?
Or in short, we're all becoming more closed-minded and insular; trying to invent a tight, uniform group identity and to put up hard borders (build walls?) between our chosen "tribes". This is that good old-fashioned "nationalism" that messed up the world so badly in the mid-20th century.