Best suggestion so far, *if* one is already well-versed in at least those first three or four.
Even if an idea for an app is initially only conceivable as something for one's own use, if it's useful, others will want to use it and you may want to keep your options open for sharing it. And what's more cross-platform, or more accessible, than coding to (upcoming but inevitable) web standards in a browser environment.
Libertarians believe we should err on the side of freedom. I don't think I could ever be convinced that we should ever start rounding people up like cattle. If a pandemic got really bad, close govt. offices and ask everyone to stay home. Less effective, but more respectful. And to a libertarian, the goal is not efficacy, but liberty.
To a libertarian, the goal is individual freedom, not the survival of the species. This is secondary, by philosophy. Or the earth. Or the govt. Or society. Or any other Leftist's notion of what should come first. All your "small price" to pays add up, and can add up to a death by a thousand cuts.
Likewise given a choice between watching millions starve to death circa 2030 due to overpopulation and not enough food to go-round, or imposing a one baby policy, I'm choosing the second as more humane.
Libertarians don't believe that it's your choice to make for everyone else. Nor to say what the choices are for others. Personal opinions about what might be more humane/less cold-hearted notwithstanding. You may only impose things on yourself.
You may, however, try to persuade others to voluntarily go along with what you think is important.
You confuse libertarianism with Progressivism (an amazing feat, really, since they're basically exact opposites). Libertarians are for maximal liberty and therefore minimal external legal coerced authority over the individual. Since govt. exists to protect our rights, having to pay for the defense and policing of the govt. and the territory governed is an acceptable loss of liberty. Requiring physical involvement in it is not.
And govt. does not exist to ensure an adequate food supply vis-a-vis the population. Libertarianism is the next town over from anarchy, but on the other side of the world from Leftism and the expanded planning and control of society "for the greater good".
From a post of yours further above, I don't think we can "just as easily decide that enough is too much" any longer in this country, because maybe about two thirds of us are actually cool with more govt. control of things. I'd say about half of those have been duped, but the other half are the dupers. And about half of the latter group are prolly actively trying to implode the system, considering it too immoral to salvage even for transformation.
But isn't using an ORM still mean SQL in your C# code, and then what about shops that like stored procedures for the SQL because they're compiled and the code doesn't need to be sent to the DBMS each time for executing?
And unfortunately as more computing power becomes cheaper, so will more consumption of it that had previously been unneeded. If organized crime can affordably rent half a data center, an organization might need several dedicated servers just to offset that. The escalation of this silly war includes increasing demands on the electrical grid.
One of the commenters on that blog proposed just that, and in all seriousness. It seems like that's what it may come to -- make your password hashing function require enough cost that it doesn't put you out of business, but for the multiple of that cost required to crack them to be way too much for hackers to afford.
The problem is that in general, disclaiming use of any "personally identifiable information" is cover and a ruse. What consolation is it if major web sites know almost everything about me except my name? I don't want to be identified, but that doesn't mean I don't mind being catalogued out the wazoo. My personal characteristics are part of my identity, afterall.
A nerdy analogy: A database table has columns for every possible personal characteristic of human beings, except their name or SSN or other fairly uniquely identifying single-valued field. Well, the whole damn row is a fairly unique, composite key. Pinpointing me. So it's a distinction without a difference.
Java is also not cross-platform. It *is* a platform. If you only know how to code to the Java platform, then you only know how to code to the Java platform, and not Win32 or.NET or any others. Java is cross-OS.
But everyone does that. Everyone hopes for a positive outcome, and everyone realizes that such an outcome does not always happen. It sounds like where you cast someone as a negative person might be in disagreeing with their assessment of the odds of something, and how much disappointment you perceive in them in comparison to your perceived likelihood of the desired outcome having happened.
But then you can't have it both ways. For example, if someone overstates the odds of a good thing happening, then they'll naturally overblow the disappointment if it doesn't happen, because they thought the odds were better than they really were. But then you can't call that person negative, because it was being too positive that got them there in the first place.
It seems like you've set up your mindset to where no one acting and living reasonably can win, that you always have an out for casting them as a negative person, if they don't behave like you. I call that being a negative person.
Someone who is biting your head off for being modestly critical isn't a genuinely positive person.
Okay then:
I know people who want to be "realistic" and chose to imaging unhappy results for everything in life.
Those people aren't genuinely realistic people. (See how that works?)
The point is that each type sees the other type of person as being far from what they claim about themself. I know "positive" people as those who are deeply negative, know they have a problem, and try to (over-)compensate, and do it poorly. So to me, there are only realists and negativists. Just as to you there may generally be only positive people and negative people. It seems like one of us has to be completely full of it.
I adopted a dog about a decade ago that was completely unsocialized and thought that normal doggie social interaction was snarling and barking and lunging. In the summer times on our regular route that went thru a park there would frequently be numerous dogs (illegally) off leash in the evenings, running and playing with each other. After a couple of years seeing that, and being turned in the opposite direction from other dogs on walks as soon as any anti-social behavior began to erupt, she eventually slowly came around.
If you haven't already, you might try taking them to a fenced-in dog park, but have them on the outside of the fence. And if they're small dogs, maybe the kind of place that has partitioned areas for the different sizes (such that only small dogs can approach the fence that yours are behind, to start out with).
Without heaping doses of experiencing "what normal dogs do", they don't know how to be that. We can only teach them how to be a good pet.
Realistic people are those who cannot just choose to be positive or negative.
And the no fun being around can extend in both directions. It's been so-called "positive people" who have bitten my head off for making even a modestly critical comment about a situation.
What you're referring to is more typically called "mentoring". The usual ways of training programmers:
Bring in an instructor/consultant for on-site training, where your devs report to a conference room every day for a week or so. (And then optionally the expert can stick around for a while after the course to do mentoring.)
Send your devs to one of those night classes for working professionals at the local uni, or thru an online learning program put on by the uni.
Offer an education reimbursement benefit that pays for such classes.
Lease a CBT provider's library and make their courses available for checkout.
Encourage someone to start a discussion group, such as on design patterns, to meet after hours or during one lunch break a week. (You could have lunch brought in that day, for committed members of the group.)
Maintain a small library of technical books that devs can take home for a while. Reimburse the purchase of a book someone wants to read if multiple people would benefit from reading it also.
Those are all the ways I've seen or heard about. Something else that crossed my mind is how about a required reading list? I've seen Slashdotters say that they found a particular book so good that they considered it required reading for their dev team, and bought everyone a copy. I don't see why, say in lieu of required overtime, a company couldn't ask its devs to get thru say one tome a quarter, off a company-chosen reading list. Then for example as the big-wigs saw their market changes and anticipated the desire to next move into which technologies, they could steer their existing labor force (that presumably is competent and already up-to-speed on their business) to adapt to new demands. Saves the costs associated with employee turnover.
(Bad edit at the last second on my above comment: I had it originally as "x - n", where I wanted it understood to be that n would always be at least 1. I.e. all pixels in the bottom-half area bombarded by varying numbers of photons, but all below the detection level of the pixels.)
Slashdot Mirror
Is that something like plausible ostensibility?
Best suggestion so far, *if* one is already well-versed in at least those first three or four.
Even if an idea for an app is initially only conceivable as something for one's own use, if it's useful, others will want to use it and you may want to keep your options open for sharing it. And what's more cross-platform, or more accessible, than coding to (upcoming but inevitable) web standards in a browser environment.
Libertarians believe we should err on the side of freedom. I don't think I could ever be convinced that we should ever start rounding people up like cattle. If a pandemic got really bad, close govt. offices and ask everyone to stay home. Less effective, but more respectful. And to a libertarian, the goal is not efficacy, but liberty.
To a libertarian, the goal is individual freedom, not the survival of the species. This is secondary, by philosophy. Or the earth. Or the govt. Or society. Or any other Leftist's notion of what should come first. All your "small price" to pays add up, and can add up to a death by a thousand cuts.
Likewise given a choice between watching millions starve to death circa 2030 due to overpopulation and not enough food to go-round, or imposing a one baby policy, I'm choosing the second as more humane.
Libertarians don't believe that it's your choice to make for everyone else. Nor to say what the choices are for others. Personal opinions about what might be more humane/less cold-hearted notwithstanding. You may only impose things on yourself.
You may, however, try to persuade others to voluntarily go along with what you think is important.
You confuse libertarianism with Progressivism (an amazing feat, really, since they're basically exact opposites). Libertarians are for maximal liberty and therefore minimal external legal coerced authority over the individual. Since govt. exists to protect our rights, having to pay for the defense and policing of the govt. and the territory governed is an acceptable loss of liberty. Requiring physical involvement in it is not.
And govt. does not exist to ensure an adequate food supply vis-a-vis the population. Libertarianism is the next town over from anarchy, but on the other side of the world from Leftism and the expanded planning and control of society "for the greater good".
...in the nick of time.
From a post of yours further above, I don't think we can "just as easily decide that enough is too much" any longer in this country, because maybe about two thirds of us are actually cool with more govt. control of things. I'd say about half of those have been duped, but the other half are the dupers. And about half of the latter group are prolly actively trying to implode the system, considering it too immoral to salvage even for transformation.
But isn't using an ORM still mean SQL in your C# code, and then what about shops that like stored procedures for the SQL because they're compiled and the code doesn't need to be sent to the DBMS each time for executing?
And unfortunately as more computing power becomes cheaper, so will more consumption of it that had previously been unneeded. If organized crime can affordably rent half a data center, an organization might need several dedicated servers just to offset that. The escalation of this silly war includes increasing demands on the electrical grid.
One of the commenters on that blog proposed just that, and in all seriousness. It seems like that's what it may come to -- make your password hashing function require enough cost that it doesn't put you out of business, but for the multiple of that cost required to crack them to be way too much for hackers to afford.
In Roadhouse, Patrick Swayze serves you!
What does Ozzie have to say about it?
I dunno, but I thought we were talking about Ozzy?
My first thought was is this like .NET's Code Access Security but for Java?
The problem is that in general, disclaiming use of any "personally identifiable information" is cover and a ruse. What consolation is it if major web sites know almost everything about me except my name? I don't want to be identified, but that doesn't mean I don't mind being catalogued out the wazoo. My personal characteristics are part of my identity, afterall.
A nerdy analogy: A database table has columns for every possible personal characteristic of human beings, except their name or SSN or other fairly uniquely identifying single-valued field. Well, the whole damn row is a fairly unique, composite key. Pinpointing me. So it's a distinction without a difference.
Java is also not cross-platform. It *is* a platform. If you only know how to code to the Java platform, then you only know how to code to the Java platform, and not Win32 or .NET or any others. Java is cross-OS.
Vegans should be allowed to have sex with any animal they're willing to kill and eat afterwards! ;)
An Erin Moran?
But everyone does that. Everyone hopes for a positive outcome, and everyone realizes that such an outcome does not always happen. It sounds like where you cast someone as a negative person might be in disagreeing with their assessment of the odds of something, and how much disappointment you perceive in them in comparison to your perceived likelihood of the desired outcome having happened.
But then you can't have it both ways. For example, if someone overstates the odds of a good thing happening, then they'll naturally overblow the disappointment if it doesn't happen, because they thought the odds were better than they really were. But then you can't call that person negative, because it was being too positive that got them there in the first place.
It seems like you've set up your mindset to where no one acting and living reasonably can win, that you always have an out for casting them as a negative person, if they don't behave like you. I call that being a negative person.
Someone who is biting your head off for being modestly critical isn't a genuinely positive person.
Okay then:
I know people who want to be "realistic" and chose to imaging unhappy results for everything in life.
Those people aren't genuinely realistic people. (See how that works?)
The point is that each type sees the other type of person as being far from what they claim about themself. I know "positive" people as those who are deeply negative, know they have a problem, and try to (over-)compensate, and do it poorly. So to me, there are only realists and negativists. Just as to you there may generally be only positive people and negative people. It seems like one of us has to be completely full of it.
I adopted a dog about a decade ago that was completely unsocialized and thought that normal doggie social interaction was snarling and barking and lunging. In the summer times on our regular route that went thru a park there would frequently be numerous dogs (illegally) off leash in the evenings, running and playing with each other. After a couple of years seeing that, and being turned in the opposite direction from other dogs on walks as soon as any anti-social behavior began to erupt, she eventually slowly came around.
If you haven't already, you might try taking them to a fenced-in dog park, but have them on the outside of the fence. And if they're small dogs, maybe the kind of place that has partitioned areas for the different sizes (such that only small dogs can approach the fence that yours are behind, to start out with).
Without heaping doses of experiencing "what normal dogs do", they don't know how to be that. We can only teach them how to be a good pet.
Realistic people are those who cannot just choose to be positive or negative.
And the no fun being around can extend in both directions. It's been so-called "positive people" who have bitten my head off for making even a modestly critical comment about a situation.
I always thought slime molds were just randomly promoted managers.
Huh? You mean like "pointy elbows"/that kind of sharpness?
What you're referring to is more typically called "mentoring". The usual ways of training programmers:
Those are all the ways I've seen or heard about. Something else that crossed my mind is how about a required reading list? I've seen Slashdotters say that they found a particular book so good that they considered it required reading for their dev team, and bought everyone a copy. I don't see why, say in lieu of required overtime, a company couldn't ask its devs to get thru say one tome a quarter, off a company-chosen reading list. Then for example as the big-wigs saw their market changes and anticipated the desire to next move into which technologies, they could steer their existing labor force (that presumably is competent and already up-to-speed on their business) to adapt to new demands. Saves the costs associated with employee turnover.
(Bad edit at the last second on my above comment: I had it originally as "x - n", where I wanted it understood to be that n would always be at least 1. I.e. all pixels in the bottom-half area bombarded by varying numbers of photons, but all below the detection level of the pixels.)