All valid points. Python's backend is not very powerful, unlike its elegant front-end (the language and APIs).
Make a typo in the variable name and catch this bug 2 months later in the production deployment. Thank you very much, but no unit tests from the whole world will cover this.
The typo problem is present in most scripting languages. Isn't Lua, which is similar to Python, used in many production games?
In particular, the role of a project manager is specifically to push timelines, but in Scrum the role of the Scrum master is to guide the process - timelines are owned by the product owner.
Don't you think daily meetings are an indirect way to push deadlines? The whole purpose of these daily scrum meetings is to ask, "What did you do yesterday?", thereby forcing the developer to something achievable "yesterday."
"The ride-sharing concept is great; who wouldn't want an alternative like this?" Williams asked. "Thereâ(TM)s great benefit to this, especially in metropolitan areas, but nobody wants to be gouged eight or 10 times the normal fare."
You still want to argue it's not gouging?
This is what the parent post said:
The whole point of "surge" pricing is to ensure that people that *really need* something can still get it
Wrong. The whole point of surge pricing is to only offer taxis to those who can afford it, screw the non-rich folks. That's gouging.
Okay, I'll bite. HOW can Uber "easily increase supply of drivers during high demand"?
One way would be to offer a bonus or reduce their cut of the fare from 25% to 20 or 15% during high demand times. Since more people are traveling during high demand times, the cost of travel (i.e. "waiting for passenger" time + traveling cost between two fares) is low. While their per passenger profit is reduced, they make it up in volume.
I'm going to have to assume you think that Uber has the legal authority to require, for instance, that I (or you, for that matter) work for them during high demand times, whether you want to or not.
I'm pretty sure Uber has some say in whether a driver gets a fare or not. It would be easy to give drivers "licenses" that only work within the high demand times. This way, if the driver wants to make money, he can only make it driving 7 am to 10 am. An evening class driver would only be able to get fares from 4pm to 6pm and so on.
This is all common sense, but for a company that until recently refused to acknowledge it was a taxi company, surge pricing is just a common business trick to pocket huge profits by gouging desperate customers.
The whole point of "surge" pricing is to ensure that people that *really need* something can still get it
Yeah, no. The purpose of surge pricing is to gouge customers who want the service desperately (and are therefore willing to pay more). Since uber is not like a traditional cab company with a fixed number of drivers, they can easily increase supply of drivers during high demand times to ensure proper supply. But they don't do that.
Go google what experienced uber drivers do when surge pricing hits an area... they leave and find a another one without surge. That's because, according to them, they get fewer fares during surge.
If it lives for 25 years with minimal cost, is this really a bad strategy?
It is. Other managers follow the same strategy and that's why COBOL still exists. Then you have to hire scarce COBOL programmers at a higher price building an inferior system. Good for them it bites them in the ass 10, 15, 20 years later when the costs blow up.
They could've contracted maintenance of their software/hardware to some company and kept costs down while controlling how often the system was updated.
It's management's fault to not modernize the OS and hardware. They want to save design costs not updating software/hardware, and they get away with it for 25 years or so, but then if something critical fails, this happens... the whole system is shutdown.
It's infinite greed. The capitalists are pocketing all the profits from technological innovations. The workers get the same cost-of-living wages + bonus based on skill scarcity/education.
A simple example: Amazon uses cheap, massive warehouses instead of small, expensive bookstores in downtown. Amazon replaces tens of thousands of salespeople with a website that costs millions of times less. Yet your BN brick-n-mortar bookstore sells a book at the same price as amazon.com. Don't you think Amazon is making a huge profit from automation (website) and cheap real estate here? And the profit disappears... amazon hasn't even paid taxes since they've been operating at a loss for 15 years.
They aren't deprecating XUL because FF would stop working without one of its main platform-independent components. They are actually deprecating XUL extensions which means no old-themed UI. My guess is they want to completely ruin FF by forcing all laptop/dekstop users to use the new chrome-like tablet-based UI. Goodbye 10% market share, hello 0.1% market share.
Also if some question is even slightly controversial or in any way subjective, it is locked down by a gang of annoying Nazi mods. Don't these guys have anything better to do?
Almost any question about "is x better than y?" is closed. Threads should be closed only if there is some kind of abuse.
No, they should not be used as usernames! We don't want facebook-like big brother stuff where every moron uses their real names for usernames just to discuss trivial stuff with his buddies.
Should 20 companies be able to get 32,000 visas? Shouldn't there be a max of how many visas a single company can apply, like say, 500 max? That's the loophole that allows large outsourcing companies to DOS other H-1B applications.
There's a quota of 85,000 visas/year while there are 233,000 visa applications filed in just 7 days at the start of the process. Even if the rules were made fair, there's only a slim chance the french guy could've gotten an H-1B visa.
There is as much abandoned OSS as abandoned closed commercial software.
Really? "as much"? Wasn't there a/. story two days ago about an OSS dev not interested in supporting his own app unless he got paid?
There's got to be waay more OSS abandonware than closed source because the proprietary people get paid for their work and therefore work hard to make sure the money keeps flowing in. Whereas the OSS guy quits after he's satisfied scratching his itch and there's nothing new left to explore/clone.
It appears to me that the most intensive work is still done by human, chopping and weighing all the ingredients
Chopping is easy once you learn how to do it. You can also use a food processor to do lot of chopping, so it's already automated.
Cooking a different recipe or even a small number of recipes is way more difficult for the non-cook layman. That's the problem this robot is trying to solve -- how to get a gourmet (software/hardware) cook into your house.
What will you while your robot is cooking your dinner?
I think this robot is targeted towards people who can't cook.
But aren't they all designed in Japan and aren't some parts of those cars like transmission or engine manufactured in Japan? The car assembly is done in the US to save tariffs.
Unused bandwidth is lost, it doesn't accumulate, so caps (instead of throttling) don't make much sense. If ISPs wanted to offer a limited service, rationing bandwidth like it's a scare resource, then they should be advertising their $0.10 per-gigabyte service plan... But they don't want to do that, because almost everybody would pay less every month.
Yup, not reimbursing customers for unused bandwidth is theft. "Oh, you used half your 100 GB quota but we're going to charge you same as the guy who used all 100 GB." Either go back to unlimited data or charge a fixed amount per GB.
The current form of charging is hypocritical because they charge you full amount for partially used service.
Nice justification for 24x7 spying on 700 million people. Couldn't they have just rented 10 cars and driven around all the cities to find the ghost cities in a month or so?
You're really pretentious and full of assumptions.
What's pretentious about wanting software that works. It's folks who pretend they care about access to source code that are pretentious because they neither read nor change the source. Open source been around for decades but we have not seen the hundreds or even dozens of variations of a given software that was promised by OSS evangelists. Heck, I would like to see a Linux tree that is free of systemd. So far, most distros are adopting systemd.
Why does it matter if someone he doesn't know or cares about has access to some sourcecode he wrote?
He said, "I don't have special obligations to people I don't know." That implies he doesn't care for these strangers. Then why is he giving out free software to these people? BTW, fixing bugs that you created in the first place, is in no way a "special obligation.' If you disagree, you should stop releasing software since you're a shoddy developer.
Why assume someone will support software when they didn't write "I am going to support this software" on their webpage?
Because every other individual or organization that releases software, supports their code? The exceptions are lazy programmers or shysters who you want to charge you $$$ for simple fixes (as is in this case).
I don't see the responsibility here, at all.
I suppose the end-user's grandmother is supposed to fix the code then if the original developer won't fix bugs. Programmers are supposed to spend 50%-70% of their time adding minor features or fixing bugs. That's the maintenance phase once version 1.0 is released. If you don't have the time to do that, find someone who will maintain the code or don't release the code at all.
If you bothered reading the licensing of software you used, they usually have sections like:
Those sections usually address previously unknown bugs in the software that cause the end-user harm/damage. It would be brain-dead stupid and negligent to release software to customers when you know severe showstopper bugs exist in your software and yet you refuse to fix it until some extortion money has been extracted from the hapless user.
What a load of complete BS... Did you attend some evening school where they teach you how to be evil and write confusing, convoluted lies that gives the illusion that a thief in fact was innocent and the victim of thief was in fact the thief. Or are you a lawyer, by chance?
Well two cores are not supposed to share things like integer and floating point units. So those two cores could be considered as one core by the court, and rightly so.
Anyone know if each so-called core has separate L1, L2 caches or not? TFA is very light on details.
The Corp got more value out of it than they PAID for it...
THEY PAID NOTHING
Do you understand what free software means? It means the buyer pays $0 to the seller of the software. Don't act surprised, indignant and jealous when you get paid exactly $0 for your software that you priced at $0.
However, it's still software and all software has bugs. These bugs need to be fixed by the developer who put them in there. You can't release software and say "I won't fix the bugs in a timely fashion unless you pay me $10,000 for 2 days work." That's some kind of extortion or racketeering and the software is no longer free.
Sources are useless to the general consumer, they don't understand it, can't modify it. You're thinking, just because I'm a programmer, everyone else in the world is a programmer and capable of making changes to my code. It's not that easy, even if the end-user is a programmer.
End users want software... that works... they don't care about source code. That's why in a restaurant, they give you the meal, not a recipe so you can go in the kitchen and cook it yourself.
I don't have special obligations to people I don't know.
Well, why did you release it to people you don't know or care about? Keep it on your local machine if you have no intention of helping others. Or at least have the decency to state that you won't support your software on the download page so people won't bother downloading it in the first place.
Releasing source code does not confer any responsibilities on me. You can say it does all you like.
Saying it doesn't confer any responsibilities on you is pure BS and lies. You wrote it, so you understand it the most, and therefore you're responsible for any changes. Are you implying you are not responsible for the bugs you put into the software, intentional or not? Now that's hilarious.
The core problem isn't that OSS is incomparable with "business", it is only incomparable with the business of "selling software".
This guy is releasing free software but he acts like he's a hybrid free/paid type developer. Some of his statements:
Not once has a company said to me:
"This bug is costing us $X per day. Can we pay you $Y to focus on it and get a fix out as soon as possible?"
I've also never demanded this. It would be nice, but it never happens.
This type of thinking is that of paid software developers, not free software developers. Of course, they're not going to pay you $Y to fix it... it's free! Why should someone be required to pay for something that's free? This guy has an implicit expectation that he should be paid for any extra service, even though bug-fixing is a normal and natural part of software development, nothing something special and extra. Just release commercial software and be done with it instead of playing these passive aggressive games, or state up-front that you charge $1000 to fix any urgent issue.
No, people can release the source code because they feel like it.
WTF does that even mean, "because they felt like it?" Software is created to be used and broken software is useless. What's the point of releasing useless stuff?
Corps and even non-commercial users care about what the program does. They don't care about the source code.
Just because a project is released, doesn't mean you have to use it.
Conversely, you need to communicate how much time you're capable of spending fixing bugs, so your users have an idea how dependable your software is for their tasks... anywhere from 0 hours (you're on your own) to 10 hours/week.
Slashdot Mirror
All valid points. Python's backend is not very powerful, unlike its elegant front-end (the language and APIs).
The typo problem is present in most scripting languages. Isn't Lua, which is similar to Python, used in many production games?
Don't you think daily meetings are an indirect way to push deadlines? The whole purpose of these daily scrum meetings is to ask, "What did you do yesterday?", thereby forcing the developer to something achievable "yesterday."
I explained it right after I made the statement.
There's a bill to ban surge pricing in New York.
"The ride-sharing concept is great; who wouldn't want an alternative like this?" Williams asked. "Thereâ(TM)s great benefit to this, especially in metropolitan areas, but nobody wants to be gouged eight or 10 times the normal fare."
You still want to argue it's not gouging?
This is what the parent post said:
Wrong. The whole point of surge pricing is to only offer taxis to those who can afford it, screw the non-rich folks. That's gouging.
One way would be to offer a bonus or reduce their cut of the fare from 25% to 20 or 15% during high demand times. Since more people are traveling during high demand times, the cost of travel (i.e. "waiting for passenger" time + traveling cost between two fares) is low. While their per passenger profit is reduced, they make it up in volume.
I'm pretty sure Uber has some say in whether a driver gets a fare or not. It would be easy to give drivers "licenses" that only work within the high demand times. This way, if the driver wants to make money, he can only make it driving 7 am to 10 am. An evening class driver would only be able to get fares from 4pm to 6pm and so on.
This is all common sense, but for a company that until recently refused to acknowledge it was a taxi company, surge pricing is just a common business trick to pocket huge profits by gouging desperate customers.
Yeah, no. The purpose of surge pricing is to gouge customers who want the service desperately (and are therefore willing to pay more). Since uber is not like a traditional cab company with a fixed number of drivers, they can easily increase supply of drivers during high demand times to ensure proper supply. But they don't do that.
Go google what experienced uber drivers do when surge pricing hits an area... they leave and find a another one without surge. That's because, according to them, they get fewer fares during surge.
It is. Other managers follow the same strategy and that's why COBOL still exists. Then you have to hire scarce COBOL programmers at a higher price building an inferior system. Good for them it bites them in the ass 10, 15, 20 years later when the costs blow up.
They could've contracted maintenance of their software/hardware to some company and kept costs down while controlling how often the system was updated.
It's management's fault to not modernize the OS and hardware. They want to save design costs not updating software/hardware, and they get away with it for 25 years or so, but then if something critical fails, this happens... the whole system is shutdown.
It's infinite greed. The capitalists are pocketing all the profits from technological innovations. The workers get the same cost-of-living wages + bonus based on skill scarcity/education.
A simple example: Amazon uses cheap, massive warehouses instead of small, expensive bookstores in downtown. Amazon replaces tens of thousands of salespeople with a website that costs millions of times less. Yet your BN brick-n-mortar bookstore sells a book at the same price as amazon.com. Don't you think Amazon is making a huge profit from automation (website) and cheap real estate here? And the profit disappears ... amazon hasn't even paid taxes since they've been operating at a loss for 15 years.
They aren't deprecating XUL because FF would stop working without one of its main platform-independent components. They are actually deprecating XUL extensions which means no old-themed UI. My guess is they want to completely ruin FF by forcing all laptop/dekstop users to use the new chrome-like tablet-based UI. Goodbye 10% market share, hello 0.1% market share.
Also if some question is even slightly controversial or in any way subjective, it is locked down by a gang of annoying Nazi mods. Don't these guys have anything better to do?
Almost any question about "is x better than y?" is closed. Threads should be closed only if there is some kind of abuse.
No, they should not be used as usernames! We don't want facebook-like big brother stuff where every moron uses their real names for usernames just to discuss trivial stuff with his buddies.
Should 20 companies be able to get 32,000 visas? Shouldn't there be a max of how many visas a single company can apply, like say, 500 max? That's the loophole that allows large outsourcing companies to DOS other H-1B applications.
There's a quota of 85,000 visas/year while there are 233,000 visa applications filed in just 7 days at the start of the process. Even if the rules were made fair, there's only a slim chance the french guy could've gotten an H-1B visa.
Really? "as much"? Wasn't there a /. story two days ago about an OSS dev not interested in supporting his own app unless he got paid?
There's got to be waay more OSS abandonware than closed source because the proprietary people get paid for their work and therefore work hard to make sure the money keeps flowing in. Whereas the OSS guy quits after he's satisfied scratching his itch and there's nothing new left to explore/clone.
Never heard of it. But it looks like they don't design the Corolla or the Camry.
Chopping is easy once you learn how to do it. You can also use a food processor to do lot of chopping, so it's already automated.
Cooking a different recipe or even a small number of recipes is way more difficult for the non-cook layman. That's the problem this robot is trying to solve -- how to get a gourmet (software/hardware) cook into your house.
I think this robot is targeted towards people who can't cook.
But aren't they all designed in Japan and aren't some parts of those cars like transmission or engine manufactured in Japan? The car assembly is done in the US to save tariffs.
Yup, not reimbursing customers for unused bandwidth is theft. "Oh, you used half your 100 GB quota but we're going to charge you same as the guy who used all 100 GB." Either go back to unlimited data or charge a fixed amount per GB.
The current form of charging is hypocritical because they charge you full amount for partially used service.
Nice justification for 24x7 spying on 700 million people. Couldn't they have just rented 10 cars and driven around all the cities to find the ghost cities in a month or so?
What's pretentious about wanting software that works. It's folks who pretend they care about access to source code that are pretentious because they neither read nor change the source. Open source been around for decades but we have not seen the hundreds or even dozens of variations of a given software that was promised by OSS evangelists. Heck, I would like to see a Linux tree that is free of systemd. So far, most distros are adopting systemd.
He said, "I don't have special obligations to people I don't know." That implies he doesn't care for these strangers. Then why is he giving out free software to these people? BTW, fixing bugs that you created in the first place, is in no way a "special obligation.' If you disagree, you should stop releasing software since you're a shoddy developer.
Because every other individual or organization that releases software, supports their code? The exceptions are lazy programmers or shysters who you want to charge you $$$ for simple fixes (as is in this case).
I suppose the end-user's grandmother is supposed to fix the code then if the original developer won't fix bugs. Programmers are supposed to spend 50%-70% of their time adding minor features or fixing bugs. That's the maintenance phase once version 1.0 is released. If you don't have the time to do that, find someone who will maintain the code or don't release the code at all.
Those sections usually address previously unknown bugs in the software that cause the end-user harm/damage. It would be brain-dead stupid and negligent to release software to customers when you know severe showstopper bugs exist in your software and yet you refuse to fix it until some extortion money has been extracted from the hapless user.
What a load of complete BS... Did you attend some evening school where they teach you how to be evil and write confusing, convoluted lies that gives the illusion that a thief in fact was innocent and the victim of thief was in fact the thief. Or are you a lawyer, by chance?
Well two cores are not supposed to share things like integer and floating point units. So those two cores could be considered as one core by the court, and rightly so.
Anyone know if each so-called core has separate L1, L2 caches or not? TFA is very light on details.
Do you understand what free software means? It means the buyer pays $0 to the seller of the software. Don't act surprised, indignant and jealous when you get paid exactly $0 for your software that you priced at $0.
However, it's still software and all software has bugs. These bugs need to be fixed by the developer who put them in there. You can't release software and say "I won't fix the bugs in a timely fashion unless you pay me $10,000 for 2 days work." That's some kind of extortion or racketeering and the software is no longer free.
Sources are useless to the general consumer, they don't understand it, can't modify it. You're thinking, just because I'm a programmer, everyone else in the world is a programmer and capable of making changes to my code. It's not that easy, even if the end-user is a programmer.
End users want software... that works... they don't care about source code. That's why in a restaurant, they give you the meal, not a recipe so you can go in the kitchen and cook it yourself.
Well, why did you release it to people you don't know or care about? Keep it on your local machine if you have no intention of helping others. Or at least have the decency to state that you won't support your software on the download page so people won't bother downloading it in the first place.
Saying it doesn't confer any responsibilities on you is pure BS and lies. You wrote it, so you understand it the most, and therefore you're responsible for any changes. Are you implying you are not responsible for the bugs you put into the software, intentional or not? Now that's hilarious.
This guy is releasing free software but he acts like he's a hybrid free/paid type developer. Some of his statements:
This type of thinking is that of paid software developers, not free software developers. Of course, they're not going to pay you $Y to fix it... it's free! Why should someone be required to pay for something that's free? This guy has an implicit expectation that he should be paid for any extra service, even though bug-fixing is a normal and natural part of software development, nothing something special and extra. Just release commercial software and be done with it instead of playing these passive aggressive games, or state up-front that you charge $1000 to fix any urgent issue.
WTF does that even mean, "because they felt like it?" Software is created to be used and broken software is useless. What's the point of releasing useless stuff?
Corps and even non-commercial users care about what the program does. They don't care about the source code.
Conversely, you need to communicate how much time you're capable of spending fixing bugs, so your users have an idea how dependable your software is for their tasks... anywhere from 0 hours (you're on your own) to 10 hours/week.