OK, lets assume that Trump is in it purely for his own benefit. What agenda do you think he is going to push that is going to benefit him? He doesn't need money - he could pull out of the race right now and pay the bills with the change he lost in his couch. So what exactly do you think he's trying to do to benefit himself that he isn't already capable of acquiring on his own?
I honestly think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying here. Let's be real - there are a ton of things wrong with the country and we've seen decades of people lie through their teeth about fixing it. As batshit insane as some of the stuff Trump says, there's a lot of things that he says which are not only plausible, but resonate with a large portion of the population because they've traditionally been taboo topics for politicians at election time. Instead of sidestepping these issues, he's taking them head on even though they make him look like a bad person.
It's sorta like masturbation - everyone does it but NOBODY admits it, and most if asked will actively deny it.
Only a clueless tubesteak would make this kind of argument. Obviously infrastructure takes time to build, but that doesn't change the fact that if it's not there now it's not useful to anyone.
I expect you won't be a problem for too long though, because anyone this dumb will find a way to accidentally strangle themselves with their own shoelaces.
....but that's exactly what people are doing here when they tell you to avoid dependencies as though it's something you need to be doing all the time - they're making a stupid binary statement about something that is not binary at all. As programmers we need to stop trying to pass the things we say off as set-in-stone rules.
I already understand very well what you all are talking about. The point of my statements is to say that you can't make such a stark statement as though it is true in every case. It makes you look like you're parroting something someone else said and took it as a simple inviolate rule that you're either 100% following or entirely wrong about.
>Have you notice that electrical infrastructure is ubiquitous... it is literally everywhere and it is trivial to install a plug to charge a car. (Unlike oil infrastructure which relies on "gas stations" fed by tanker trucks.)
Sure, it is everywhere. However the places to charge are not. It's like having hundreds of gas tankers around and no gas station. There are space limitations to consider as well - it takes a few minutes to fill a gas car. It takes substantially longer to charge a car, meaning you need a lot more charging stations than you do pumps. I need to be assured that not only will I be able to charge, but that there will be a spot available to charge at which isn't going to be occupied for the next several hours. Given how rare those spots are around here, it's not uncommon to see the same EV parked in a charging spot all day long while someone is at work.
>Do you drive more than 75 miles a day? Most people don't and they can just plug in at home. If you need to take a long-range trip, it's easy and cheap to rent a car. Or... you could wait. Next year, Tesla, Nissan and Chevrolet will introduce longer range cars which are affordable.
It's not a question of what I do daily, it's a question of having the freedom to go further when I need or want to. It is not economically viable for me to buy another vehicle just for the range trips, even if they are less frequent than short-range city driving. As for "just plugging in at home" you still need infrastructure at home for that which is another added cost. it also does not help people who do not own their own houses, or live in apartment buildings.
>Next year, Tesla, Nissan and Chevrolet will introduce longer range cars which are affordable.
They've been saying this for years now. I'll believe it when I see it.
1) electricity can do it, but the infrastructure to charge is simply not there in many places. With multi-hour charge times in some cases, it wouldn't take much to get stuck somewhere waiting for hours for a person to be done charging their car.
2) range. it's still not even remotely as good in affordable consumer models. I don't want something that's going to leave me high and dry after 75 miles, and I don't want to have to own a second vehicle for long-range trips.
3) No, I wouldn't because the electric vehicle that currently fits my criteria is still an $80,000+ vehicle. Nobody seems interested in producing something practical for regular people yet.
It's easy to be morally lofty when you're already obscenely rich. Most of us don't have that luxury. I'll continue to pump dead dinosaurs in to my car until someone comes up with an alternative that:
1) has the proper infrastructure to support it everywhere
2) gives me all the same advantages as oil
and
3) isn't either severely gimped or priced like a luxury item
When should I avoid them? In what situations? There are times where the problems to be solved are so complex that not using a library could set you back years. In some cases it may kill a project entirely because the domain specific knowledge required to build the library might not be something you already have. I mean, where do I draw the line? Should I not use established database formats? Maybe I should build my own TCP stack?
The WHOLE IDEA of FOSS relies on interdependency of things written by a multitude of people. You may as well just throw Linux and all the rest out while you're at it as well.
That was the way it was when most didn't know or care about it. It didn't have a large enough audience to monetize it, so nobody bothered. Many of us who grew up in the BBS era not only predicted the rise of the internet, but also its ultimate fate as the world's largest shopping mall.
Money is the real problem. It's great to have this idea of a free and open architecture that everyone can equally use but the reality is that the internet represents tens of billions in infrastructure and operating costs. Once you start involving money like that someone is going to want to control it. Until we have an internet that is completely wireless and not reliant on large infrastructure you will never have this world you wish for.
..is that Apple execs thinks we should have to upgrade perfectly working hardware every year. I put a new video card in my intel i7 920 and it still performs pretty damn good for all the tasks I use it for. This is just more proof of how far out of touch Apple is with the real world.
Fortunately the pencil is sold by many vendors, is open source, inexpensive, legally hackable, and works on many mediums. Engineers, doctors, lawyers, and scientists from many disciplines freely endorse the pencil! Just be aware that the pencil has been PURPOSEFULLY engineered to have a finite lifespan, and the graphite is not user replaceable! The pencil also has no upgrade options, and requires supplementary equipment to work (the sharpener) which the user is never made aware of on the pencil box!
I kid, I kid. I get that this might be a compelling feature, but there comes a point where you need to ask yourself is it so important that I need to deal with Apple? Is nobody doing something similar? If I was really serious about needing something like this I'd probably get a tablet designed specifically for artists.
I don't know why people keep subjecting themselves to the Apple tax.
"Dependencies are unavoidable, true, but it's a good practice to vet libraries before you include them and make sure they're worth the risk."
But that's not what is being said. What is being said is "dependencies are bad, you shouldn't have them" which is just ridiculous ideological bullshit. If nobody used dependencies half the software today wouldn't exist in any stable form because people would still be testing and debugging their newly-invented wheels.
What a crock of shit. Do this and you increase your development time 1000-fold. It's stupidity to think that just because someone uses a dependency that they're incapable of understanding it and it blows my mind that this absolute garbage has been voted up. No sane developer would tell you this.
Staying outside of the financial system has no actual benefit. Your sock drawer or mattress can't get interest. Even the 1% use financial institutions because if your money is not in the system, it's not working for you.
Slashdot Mirror
He's already secured that. He was a household name even before the presidency.
What connections? What connections does a man who commands a net worth of 4 billion dollars actually need that he can't get on his own?
OK, lets assume that Trump is in it purely for his own benefit. What agenda do you think he is going to push that is going to benefit him? He doesn't need money - he could pull out of the race right now and pay the bills with the change he lost in his couch. So what exactly do you think he's trying to do to benefit himself that he isn't already capable of acquiring on his own?
I honestly think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying here. Let's be real - there are a ton of things wrong with the country and we've seen decades of people lie through their teeth about fixing it. As batshit insane as some of the stuff Trump says, there's a lot of things that he says which are not only plausible, but resonate with a large portion of the population because they've traditionally been taboo topics for politicians at election time. Instead of sidestepping these issues, he's taking them head on even though they make him look like a bad person.
It's sorta like masturbation - everyone does it but NOBODY admits it, and most if asked will actively deny it.
Only a clueless tubesteak would make this kind of argument. Obviously infrastructure takes time to build, but that doesn't change the fact that if it's not there now it's not useful to anyone.
I expect you won't be a problem for too long though, because anyone this dumb will find a way to accidentally strangle themselves with their own shoelaces.
And yet google did something similar with cleverbot http://www.cleverbot.com/ and the results were quite different.
....but that's exactly what people are doing here when they tell you to avoid dependencies as though it's something you need to be doing all the time - they're making a stupid binary statement about something that is not binary at all. As programmers we need to stop trying to pass the things we say off as set-in-stone rules.
I already understand very well what you all are talking about. The point of my statements is to say that you can't make such a stark statement as though it is true in every case. It makes you look like you're parroting something someone else said and took it as a simple inviolate rule that you're either 100% following or entirely wrong about.
>Have you notice that electrical infrastructure is ubiquitous... it is literally everywhere and it is trivial to install a plug to charge a car. (Unlike oil infrastructure which relies on "gas stations" fed by tanker trucks.)
Sure, it is everywhere. However the places to charge are not. It's like having hundreds of gas tankers around and no gas station. There are space limitations to consider as well - it takes a few minutes to fill a gas car. It takes substantially longer to charge a car, meaning you need a lot more charging stations than you do pumps. I need to be assured that not only will I be able to charge, but that there will be a spot available to charge at which isn't going to be occupied for the next several hours. Given how rare those spots are around here, it's not uncommon to see the same EV parked in a charging spot all day long while someone is at work.
>Do you drive more than 75 miles a day? Most people don't and they can just plug in at home. If you need to take a long-range trip, it's easy and cheap to rent a car. Or... you could wait. Next year, Tesla, Nissan and Chevrolet will introduce longer range cars which are affordable.
It's not a question of what I do daily, it's a question of having the freedom to go further when I need or want to. It is not economically viable for me to buy another vehicle just for the range trips, even if they are less frequent than short-range city driving. As for "just plugging in at home" you still need infrastructure at home for that which is another added cost. it also does not help people who do not own their own houses, or live in apartment buildings.
>Next year, Tesla, Nissan and Chevrolet will introduce longer range cars which are affordable.
They've been saying this for years now. I'll believe it when I see it.
1) electricity can do it, but the infrastructure to charge is simply not there in many places. With multi-hour charge times in some cases, it wouldn't take much to get stuck somewhere waiting for hours for a person to be done charging their car.
2) range. it's still not even remotely as good in affordable consumer models. I don't want something that's going to leave me high and dry after 75 miles, and I don't want to have to own a second vehicle for long-range trips.
3) No, I wouldn't because the electric vehicle that currently fits my criteria is still an $80,000+ vehicle. Nobody seems interested in producing something practical for regular people yet.
In other news, Lyft and Uber invest 600 million dollars in rickshaws.
It's easy to be morally lofty when you're already obscenely rich. Most of us don't have that luxury. I'll continue to pump dead dinosaurs in to my car until someone comes up with an alternative that:
1) has the proper infrastructure to support it everywhere
2) gives me all the same advantages as oil
and
3) isn't either severely gimped or priced like a luxury item
When should I avoid them? In what situations? There are times where the problems to be solved are so complex that not using a library could set you back years. In some cases it may kill a project entirely because the domain specific knowledge required to build the library might not be something you already have. I mean, where do I draw the line? Should I not use established database formats? Maybe I should build my own TCP stack?
The WHOLE IDEA of FOSS relies on interdependency of things written by a multitude of people. You may as well just throw Linux and all the rest out while you're at it as well.
It's a desktop computer. Battery life isn't really a concern.
That was the way it was when most didn't know or care about it. It didn't have a large enough audience to monetize it, so nobody bothered. Many of us who grew up in the BBS era not only predicted the rise of the internet, but also its ultimate fate as the world's largest shopping mall.
Money is the real problem. It's great to have this idea of a free and open architecture that everyone can equally use but the reality is that the internet represents tens of billions in infrastructure and operating costs. Once you start involving money like that someone is going to want to control it. Until we have an internet that is completely wireless and not reliant on large infrastructure you will never have this world you wish for.
Does this exchange start with a civilized white-glove-slapping? I'd expect nothing but the highest quality challenges to get issued.
..is that Apple execs thinks we should have to upgrade perfectly working hardware every year. I put a new video card in my intel i7 920 and it still performs pretty damn good for all the tasks I use it for. This is just more proof of how far out of touch Apple is with the real world.
Fortunately the pencil is sold by many vendors, is open source, inexpensive, legally hackable, and works on many mediums. Engineers, doctors, lawyers, and scientists from many disciplines freely endorse the pencil! Just be aware that the pencil has been PURPOSEFULLY engineered to have a finite lifespan, and the graphite is not user replaceable! The pencil also has no upgrade options, and requires supplementary equipment to work (the sharpener) which the user is never made aware of on the pencil box!
I kid, I kid. I get that this might be a compelling feature, but there comes a point where you need to ask yourself is it so important that I need to deal with Apple? Is nobody doing something similar? If I was really serious about needing something like this I'd probably get a tablet designed specifically for artists.
I don't know why people keep subjecting themselves to the Apple tax.
This. Exactly this. Someone needs to allow your score to go to 6 for combating the stupidity around here.
No, it's really nothing like that.
"Dependencies are unavoidable, true, but it's a good practice to vet libraries before you include them and make sure they're worth the risk."
But that's not what is being said. What is being said is "dependencies are bad, you shouldn't have them" which is just ridiculous ideological bullshit. If nobody used dependencies half the software today wouldn't exist in any stable form because people would still be testing and debugging their newly-invented wheels.
What a crock of shit. Do this and you increase your development time 1000-fold. It's stupidity to think that just because someone uses a dependency that they're incapable of understanding it and it blows my mind that this absolute garbage has been voted up. No sane developer would tell you this.
Most would argue it does a superior job at crippling hardware too. IOS turning in to sludge is par for the course.
Staying outside of the financial system has no actual benefit. Your sock drawer or mattress can't get interest. Even the 1% use financial institutions because if your money is not in the system, it's not working for you.
You're absolutely right. Compared to it's competitors it's virtually obsolete right out of the box.