I mean, we're posting on a site that seems to handle anonymity just fine.
You say that but in practise anonymous comments are censored through obscurity on Slashdot - low-scoring posts are pushed off the first 50, and sit beneath the majority default browse level, coupled with almost nobody wishing to mod up an anonymous comment since there is no personal benefit in doing so.
There's also a level of semi anonymity. My real name isn't actually mooingyak (I bet that made you gasp).
The median value is actually a bad one to go by for NYC. The housing is either fantastically expensive, or else it's rent controlled. The result of that is NYC households tend towards the extremes. Plus that chart has a population that is larger than many states (not to mention a fair number of nations) broken into a mere 5 lines. It gives no depth or sense of neighborhood.
Lastly, I wasn't arguing that $100k puts you at poverty level or living paycheck to paycheck. It is absolutely a middle class income in the region. What I did argue was that it doesn't make you rich or upper middle class like it might in other places. Someone in that range is driving an ordinary, unremarkable car or else they're making lots of sacrifices in other areas. They don't belong to country clubs and their kids don't ride ponies all day long.
Your household is in the top 1.5% of income earners in the USA. Way, way, past "middle class". Given the very low cost of living in the US, you should be in a _very_ comfortable lifestyle, especially if you've been earning like that for more than a couple of years.
If you were both living off your wife's wage - still nearly twice the median - you'd probably just be on the upper end of "middle class".
Depends on where you are. NYC and its suburbs can be damn expensive places to live. $100k for a family is definitely not near the upper end of middle class in some places.
Can you recommend any works for earlier periods? I'm a casual historian (history buff? not sure of the best way to put that. hobbyist? you get the idea) myself and currently looking into pre-Ptolemaic Egypt. I have a (as yet unread) copy of Nicolas Grimal's A History of Ancient Egypt, but I'm not sure where to go next.
but you know what, the things they ask in interviews are memorization questions. recite this or that algorithm and write it on the board. tell me - how does this show anything about experience?
When I interview, I typically ask candidates to solve a somewhat open-ended problem. There IS a specific solution I prefer, but I'm okay with others. I'm more interested in the candidate's ability to justify their choice, as well as to tell me what else they thought of and why they didn't use that. Memorization style questions are IMHO (and yours it seems) almost useless.
BTW, broad generalization, but less experienced guys tend to focus heavily on optimization. More experienced guys consider it and factor it in, but are thinking more towards how they'll have to change it in the future.
I don't know if that's quite the same. Telling someone where the body is buried is an admission that you actually know where it's buried, aside from the information itself.
If you invoke the Fifth in a criminal case, discussion STOPS. On the spot and there is NO further questioning allowed.
My understanding (IANAL) is somewhat different than that. It applies to a specific question, rather than questions in general. Generally witnesses are advised to plead the 5th to ALL questions, otherwise the simple pattern of what you are or are not willing to answer is as revealing as the answers themselves.
Mark Fuhrman's testimony from the OJ Simpson case.
It got even worse when we started branching out to non-apparel retailers. Management had zero interest in maintaining multiple schemas, since a new schema would mean we couldn't leverage all of our existing (apparel specific) reports.
...how the heck do you write performant code that works against both databases?
Erm... writing _two_ code baselines that provide the same high level interface, perhaps. It's not as if that same problem hasn't been dealt with several times before (compiling to different architectures, for example).
Sometimes. I once dealt with a database called UNIFY which had a piss-poor query planner. It tended to overwhelmingly favor certain types of indexes (which were built implicitly for you whenever you had a foreign key relationship) over any other kind. We had a frequently used query against a sku database on style, color, and size. There were indexes on any combination of those fields, but color was also a foreign key to the color table. Which meant that it ALWAYS used the color index. Problems rose up when the conditions were something like color = black, style = blah, size = medium. There were maybe 30 skus for any given style. There were around 650k skus with color = black. There were a number of ways we could solve this, but what ended up working out for us was to only query against style/size and then run the output through a filter that kicked out all the rows with the wrong color.
While you can still abstract something like that, it gets to be a bitchy problem and makes the overall work much more complicated.
I wasn't suggesting tax dollars cover it, but more that creating art because you love to and getting paid for it aren't necessarily exclusive concepts.
Except you your logic, you would sign the other 95% and make more money.
One of my (sort of but not explicitly stated) assumptions was that I'd have no better luck than the big boys at picking who will flop and who will hit it big.
artists: the time has come to stop depending on 'art' to make a living. do it because you love it
Here's the problem with that. Let's say I'm an artist, and I make good quality music/art/books/whatever, and I do it because I love it, and people want more of it. If I do it in my spare time while working another job to make a living, that's less time I have available to create art. I currently have a number of hobbies that get neglected because I just don't have the time for them. We should pay artists enough for them to live on (and maybe a little more if they're that good) so that they can spend all their time creating art instead of sneaking it in when they have a moment.
If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them?
Lets say 95% of people are smart enough not to sign one. If you work for a record company, it means you only sign up people who fall in that 5% category. The pool of people who could actually make money for them will always be large enough that they can afford to ignore the rest.
And it gets worse. Let's say I started a record company today, and I genuinely want to do right by my artists. If I don't employ the same money squeezing tactics that the existing labels do, then my margins suffer and the only way to succeed is to have a much higher success/flop ratio with the acts I sign than everyone else. And that's not trivial to pull off.
I'm 100% against legalization, you are an exception - in realities most drug users can not support their habit independently. So there are only two choices - violent crime or some sort of state drug welfare like in EU.
This will probably get lost in the hoard of comments, but... why are you against legalization?
I'm completely for it. I don't smoke. I wouldn't mind the occasional smoke, but I'm not aching for it or anything. If it became legal tomorrow I wouldn't run to the store to get some.
My reasons are:
1. Illegality at a federal level is unconstitutional. It took an amendment to ban alcohol. Where is the amendment to ban marijuana? What makes it different? It's illegal because mumble mumble INTERSTATE COMMERCE mumble mumble.
2. It puts power into the hands of gangs. It's a hopeless fight right now. Marijuana is something that a large number of people want. It being illegal doesn't stop them from getting it, but it does put money into the hands of people who are willing to use violent means to control their supply. Have you heard of Al Capone? We made him powerful by banning alcohol. People still wanted it, and ended up paying people like him to get it instead of legitimate businesses. All of that money is then untraced and untaxed. So we make it illegal, people get it anyway, and we end up wasting piles of money on law enforcement and prisons.
3. It's prejudging what a person can handle. There are people who can't handle alcohol. Sometimes they get drunk and do stupid things. Sometimes they get drunk, get behind the wheel and kill a family of four in the process. And yet there are hoards of people who can deal with it just fine. I enjoy beer on a regular basis. I don't drive drunk, and I have no trouble stopping or staying away from it for days/weeks/months/etc if circumstances require it. I know many people with similar abilities to control their consumption. Furthermore, despite your assertion, marijuana users who are out of control bingers are few and far between. Most of them handle their pot like I handle my alcohol.
4. Studies have shown that legalization actually decreases consumption. Which means that when you line up arguments about the evil things marijuana usage causes, you're actually making pro-legalization arguments even if you don't realize it.
You know, when I see a 700 million dollar settlement over a garbage patent that was later overturned, and I think about how that would have affected me as a small software developer, what I do *not* think is "all hype and no bite." What I think is "I could lose my house." And so I work for a corporation
You can start your own corporation. You have to keep your personal assets and corporate assets distinct from one another and some other fun accounting headaces, but it serves as the exact protection it sounds like you want.
Games teach people to try and accomplish a task different ways until they accomplish it. The means planning, developing agency, and not being disenfranchised with the culture.
in short, helps developed focused motivation. That is the key to being successful.
The study AFAIK is about the effects of violent games specifically, rather than just video games in general. What you've said applies to almost any kind of video game worth playing.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, we're posting on a site that seems to handle anonymity just fine.
You say that but in practise anonymous comments are censored through obscurity on Slashdot - low-scoring posts are pushed off the first 50, and sit beneath the majority default browse level, coupled with almost nobody wishing to mod up an anonymous comment since there is no personal benefit in doing so.
There's also a level of semi anonymity. My real name isn't actually mooingyak (I bet that made you gasp).
What's a Bothnian?
Thomeone from thomewhere in Bothnia, thuch ath Tharajevo.
The median value is actually a bad one to go by for NYC. The housing is either fantastically expensive, or else it's rent controlled. The result of that is NYC households tend towards the extremes. Plus that chart has a population that is larger than many states (not to mention a fair number of nations) broken into a mere 5 lines. It gives no depth or sense of neighborhood.
Lastly, I wasn't arguing that $100k puts you at poverty level or living paycheck to paycheck. It is absolutely a middle class income in the region. What I did argue was that it doesn't make you rich or upper middle class like it might in other places. Someone in that range is driving an ordinary, unremarkable car or else they're making lots of sacrifices in other areas. They don't belong to country clubs and their kids don't ride ponies all day long.
Your household is in the top 1.5% of income earners in the USA. Way, way, past "middle class". Given the very low cost of living in the US, you should be in a _very_ comfortable lifestyle, especially if you've been earning like that for more than a couple of years.
If you were both living off your wife's wage - still nearly twice the median - you'd probably just be on the upper end of "middle class".
Depends on where you are. NYC and its suburbs can be damn expensive places to live. $100k for a family is definitely not near the upper end of middle class in some places.
Thank you. I'll dig in on those and then curse you or laud you to the skies in a few months' time :)
Can you recommend any works for earlier periods? I'm a casual historian (history buff? not sure of the best way to put that. hobbyist? you get the idea) myself and currently looking into pre-Ptolemaic Egypt. I have a (as yet unread) copy of Nicolas Grimal's A History of Ancient Egypt, but I'm not sure where to go next.
Somehow theres always one donut missing between when I pick the order up and when I get home.
Weird. Same thing happens to me with the fried cheese wontons from the Chinese food place. I wonder what causes that.
"leaving in droves," then went off to say there were 24 of them. I thought to myself, "That is one drove, max."
I could see a case for 2 droves here.
Snagged most of my Bujold books there. I remember the sign was still visible in the wreckage afterwards.
Watashi ha jeri-do-natsu desu.
Du bist ein berliner?
but you know what, the things they ask in interviews are memorization questions. recite this or that algorithm and write it on the board. tell me - how does this show anything about experience?
When I interview, I typically ask candidates to solve a somewhat open-ended problem. There IS a specific solution I prefer, but I'm okay with others. I'm more interested in the candidate's ability to justify their choice, as well as to tell me what else they thought of and why they didn't use that. Memorization style questions are IMHO (and yours it seems) almost useless.
BTW, broad generalization, but less experienced guys tend to focus heavily on optimization. More experienced guys consider it and factor it in, but are thinking more towards how they'll have to change it in the future.
I don't know if that's quite the same. Telling someone where the body is buried is an admission that you actually know where it's buried, aside from the information itself.
If you invoke the Fifth in a criminal case, discussion STOPS. On the spot and there is NO further questioning allowed.
My understanding (IANAL) is somewhat different than that. It applies to a specific question, rather than questions in general. Generally witnesses are advised to plead the 5th to ALL questions, otherwise the simple pattern of what you are or are not willing to answer is as revealing as the answers themselves.
Mark Fuhrman's testimony from the OJ Simpson case.
the fifth amendment should shield them if there's anything incriminating on it.
Why? Is this different than if I were forced to turn over incriminating hand written notes?
It got even worse when we started branching out to non-apparel retailers. Management had zero interest in maintaining multiple schemas, since a new schema would mean we couldn't leverage all of our existing (apparel specific) reports.
...how the heck do you write performant code that works against both databases?
Erm... writing _two_ code baselines that provide the same high level interface, perhaps. It's not as if that same problem hasn't been dealt with several times before (compiling to different architectures, for example).
Sometimes. I once dealt with a database called UNIFY which had a piss-poor query planner. It tended to overwhelmingly favor certain types of indexes (which were built implicitly for you whenever you had a foreign key relationship) over any other kind. We had a frequently used query against a sku database on style, color, and size. There were indexes on any combination of those fields, but color was also a foreign key to the color table. Which meant that it ALWAYS used the color index. Problems rose up when the conditions were something like color = black, style = blah, size = medium. There were maybe 30 skus for any given style. There were around 650k skus with color = black. There were a number of ways we could solve this, but what ended up working out for us was to only query against style/size and then run the output through a filter that kicked out all the rows with the wrong color.
While you can still abstract something like that, it gets to be a bitchy problem and makes the overall work much more complicated.
I wasn't suggesting tax dollars cover it, but more that creating art because you love to and getting paid for it aren't necessarily exclusive concepts.
Except you your logic, you would sign the other 95% and make more money.
One of my (sort of but not explicitly stated) assumptions was that I'd have no better luck than the big boys at picking who will flop and who will hit it big.
artists: the time has come to stop depending on 'art' to make a living. do it because you love it
Here's the problem with that. Let's say I'm an artist, and I make good quality music/art/books/whatever, and I do it because I love it, and people want more of it. If I do it in my spare time while working another job to make a living, that's less time I have available to create art. I currently have a number of hobbies that get neglected because I just don't have the time for them. We should pay artists enough for them to live on (and maybe a little more if they're that good) so that they can spend all their time creating art instead of sneaking it in when they have a moment.
If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them?
Lets say 95% of people are smart enough not to sign one. If you work for a record company, it means you only sign up people who fall in that 5% category. The pool of people who could actually make money for them will always be large enough that they can afford to ignore the rest.
And it gets worse. Let's say I started a record company today, and I genuinely want to do right by my artists. If I don't employ the same money squeezing tactics that the existing labels do, then my margins suffer and the only way to succeed is to have a much higher success/flop ratio with the acts I sign than everyone else. And that's not trivial to pull off.
mod patent down.
I can understand someone thinking they didn't need to clean up their 404 links.
I'm 100% against legalization, you are an exception - in realities most drug users can not support their habit independently. So there are only two choices - violent crime or some sort of state drug welfare like in EU.
This will probably get lost in the hoard of comments, but... why are you against legalization?
I'm completely for it. I don't smoke. I wouldn't mind the occasional smoke, but I'm not aching for it or anything. If it became legal tomorrow I wouldn't run to the store to get some.
My reasons are:
1. Illegality at a federal level is unconstitutional. It took an amendment to ban alcohol. Where is the amendment to ban marijuana? What makes it different? It's illegal because mumble mumble INTERSTATE COMMERCE mumble mumble.
2. It puts power into the hands of gangs. It's a hopeless fight right now. Marijuana is something that a large number of people want. It being illegal doesn't stop them from getting it, but it does put money into the hands of people who are willing to use violent means to control their supply. Have you heard of Al Capone? We made him powerful by banning alcohol. People still wanted it, and ended up paying people like him to get it instead of legitimate businesses. All of that money is then untraced and untaxed. So we make it illegal, people get it anyway, and we end up wasting piles of money on law enforcement and prisons.
3. It's prejudging what a person can handle. There are people who can't handle alcohol. Sometimes they get drunk and do stupid things. Sometimes they get drunk, get behind the wheel and kill a family of four in the process. And yet there are hoards of people who can deal with it just fine. I enjoy beer on a regular basis. I don't drive drunk, and I have no trouble stopping or staying away from it for days/weeks/months/etc if circumstances require it. I know many people with similar abilities to control their consumption. Furthermore, despite your assertion, marijuana users who are out of control bingers are few and far between. Most of them handle their pot like I handle my alcohol.
4. Studies have shown that legalization actually decreases consumption. Which means that when you line up arguments about the evil things marijuana usage causes, you're actually making pro-legalization arguments even if you don't realize it.
You know, when I see a 700 million dollar settlement over a garbage patent that was later overturned, and I think about how that would have affected me as a small software developer, what I do *not* think is "all hype and no bite." What I think is "I could lose my house." And so I work for a corporation
You can start your own corporation. You have to keep your personal assets and corporate assets distinct from one another and some other fun accounting headaces, but it serves as the exact protection it sounds like you want.
Fewer board people walking the streets?
Games teach people to try and accomplish a task different ways until they accomplish it. The means planning, developing agency, and not being disenfranchised with the culture.
in short, helps developed focused motivation. That is the key to being successful.
The study AFAIK is about the effects of violent games specifically, rather than just video games in general. What you've said applies to almost any kind of video game worth playing.