In 1900 there were less than 20 white rhinos left due to poaching for their horns. In 2010 there were 20,000. This success was accomplished by privatizing the white rhinos.
Today, the black rhinos face the exact same threat, and we don't know what to do?!? Is this a racist thing (lol) ?
In case you are wondering why this worked: If I own the last 20 white rhinos, they are worth a fortune. I have a tremendous economic incentive to protect them from poaching and reproduce them. Eventually as their population grows, I might be able to sell some for profit and the new owners would also have the incentive to protect and reproduce theirs. As supply grows, the value of an individual rhino drops and eventually it might be economical to sell them to hunters. If there are too many rhinos the free market would hunt them, and if there are too few the free market would protect them, keeping a stable and sustainable population. This is why any animal we can own (chickens, pigs, cows, horses, dogs, etc...) are not in any danger of extinction.
The fact it's allowed to be sold in pharmacies (at least, in my country) is a scary thing.
You find it scary that they sell overpriced water in pharmacies?!?
As you yourself put it, the solution to this "problem" is simple: Read up on what homeopathy is.
By the FDA's own logic: homeopathy is not even drugs, so why the hell do they claim jurisdiction over it? Should they also start regulating witchcraft? how about preach healers? seems like a massive overreach to me for the FDA to start protecting us from water.
I grew up under the metric system, then came to the US and got used to the Imperial system.
I would say the metric system is superior for most uses, but it is definitely not worth the time and money required to do the switch. Consider all the tools, software, books, manuals, recipes, etc... that all of a sudden become obsolete. Consider all the man hours required to change items in just 1 Walmart store, all the factories that need to be adjusted so their products work with metric tools. All those resources could have been used instead in building new things. And this huge "investment" so that people can divide by 10? It makes absolutely no sense to do this.
Moreover, why is it the government's responsibility to make everyone switch? People should switch when it makes sense to do so. Also it does not have to be an all or nothing deal, different goods can be measured in different units (this is already happening), and market forces are enough to push one way or the other if it makes sense.
I used emacs for years, and I invested weeks configuring it to work exactly the way I wanted. My.emacs was beautiful and people often copied it for themselves.
Then I tried eclipse, and realized it already worked the way I wanted out of the box. Never looked back.
It is not about how configurable the editor is. It is about writing code. If your editor helps you do that: great, if not, just try something else, don't get religious on it.
Your problem is you aren't rich enough to own your own roads and cities too.
Neither is the government. Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for this? they don't have any money. They first confiscate it from you and me, whether we want it or not. Either by straight out taxing it, borrowing it in your name, or printing money which just dilutes the value of your savings. It also makes it impossible for the private sector to enter the road market.
The fact is that the private sector not only could take over making roads, but it would do a much better job at it. It would avoid building bridges to nowhere, and invest more heavily in areas with higher traffic. In fact, the first roads were entirely private. Murray Rothbard wrote a very nice book explaining how this could work (chapter 11).
In other words, you are saying they can tell me how to give a ride because they are already forcing me to pay them to build the roads. "Land of the free" indeed.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.
In the so called "land of the free", I should be able to get a ride from anyone I please as well as give a ride to anyone I please and charge for it if I want to. What is wrong here is not violating the laws, it is the laws themselves that restrict this voluntary mutually agreed upon exchange. If insurance is a big deal, then I as an uber user would only chose to ride with people that have insurance.
Protecting taxis is awful. By that logic we should have made refrigerators illegal since they threatened ice factory workers.
If you don't like the Uber and Lyft services, then you simply don't use them. But we have no right to forbid other people from using it or place restrictions upon them.
... the system makes it easy to do the right thing and very hard to do the wrong thing, not just technically correct.
This is an obvious thing to strive for, and something most developers aim for regardless of legal or ethical frameworks. But hindsight is 20/20, I bet that in your example, it did not even occur to the developer that the message could be misleading. Any software is going to have stuff like that, and you just have to do usability testing from time to time to find these usability bugs (I would call this a bug, but you can call it whatever you like).
There is a slippery slope in the "take some responsibility" language. Does it mean that the developer is bound to fix bugs (usability bugs or otherwise) for ever even if he is not paid for it? Does it mean that the developer is legally liable for any damage the bug might have caused and can be sued? What if the developer released free software with a defect and it causes damage to someone? What exactly does "take responsibility" mean to you?
The solution to this is simple: put it in the contract. In your example, the developer and hospital owners should have engaged in a voluntary agreement before the work started and clearly state what each party had to do in the case of a bug like this. Typically, the hospital would have agreed to pay him some money for ongoing maintenance, and in exchange he would commit to resolve these kinds of issues within some reasonable time. The extent of his responsibility would be defined by the agreement (contract) and nothing else. If the hospital decided to go cheap and don't pay for maintenance (or for example got a free license), then the developer would have no responsibility whatsoever over the problem, and it would be nothing more than a personal preference whether he chooses to resolve it.
In 1900 there were only 20 white rhinos left; in 2010, there were 20,000.
So what happened? we privatized them. In fact take any animal that can be bought: chickens, horses, cows, etc..., and none of them are in any danger of extinction.
Why this works? Well, suppose I owned those 20 white rhinos. Simple supply and demand would make them worth a fortune. I would have a very strong incentive to try to get 21, so I would make everything I could to make them reproduce. Eventually I would have enough rhinos that I will start selling some for profit and continue reproducing them. The people that buy them would also have a strong incentive to reproduce them. As supply continues to increase, the value of an individual rhino will fall. At that point, the animal is safe from extinction, and it may become more profitable to sell them to hunters for example.
Simple market forces would make us breed them when there are too little, and hunt them when there are two many, keeping a sustainable population.
One part of the problem is NOT going to go away however - they have to pay to maintain the lines. Right now, that cost if covered by your electric bills. As the amount of electricity you draw from their generators goes down, they're going to reach the point of needing to charge you a flat fee just for the connection to the power lines, plus the usual fees for actually using their electricity.
If government did it, it would be extremely inefficient like all government services. We would all pay for power lines even if we don't use them via taxes (unfair), plus it would be run by political interests rather than economical ones.
Yes, it needs to be economical for someone to build and maintain a powerline, otherwise nobody would do it.
But this has an easy solution: Suppose you own the power lines, all you have to do is sell electricity at one price, and buy it back at a cheaper price call it the "bid" and "ask". The difference would be used to cover power line maintenance and new constructions. You would simply spend less in producing electricity and let users produce it for you. You are essentially getting paid to move electricity from one house to another.
What happens if too many people have solar and you have a surplus of electricity? you would lower the cost of the electricity. The cheaper your electricity is, the less people will install solar panels. You can keep the system balanced with no surpluses or shortages simply by adjusting the prices of electricity.
It's the same every time. They acknowledge that the previous browser wasn't standards-compliant after all, and promise the one they are now working on is.
And it payed off no? as a professional web developer I very pleased with how much better IE10 is over IE6 in terms of standards compliance. If anything, they have been accelerating the rate of adoption of standards.
Because we as free individual should make that choice for ourselves. We do not need a nanny to tell us that smoking is bad and put us in jail for doing something that does not hurt other people. It did not work for alcohol in the 30's, it is not working for Marijuana today, and it is sure not going to work for tobacco.
I would argue for adding an extra decimal point: W.X.Y.Z
We did at some point, but users were not able to remember the full version number. People already have trouble sometimes remembering 3 numbers. They start telling you things like "I have the latest version", which they often don't, or confusing 10.0.1 with 10.1.0. 4 numbers makes the situation much worse.
Why is this important? because when someone sends you a bug report, you want to know exactly what version they are using. You may or may not have fixed the bug already, so having accurate version numbers matter.
I'll be damned, I did not know this was a thing, I just came up with something that was logical, and served to communicate with user the nature of the release.
And you are right, this is not semver. I don't do backward incompatible changes, so the major number would never change thus the major number as specified in semver is useless for me. Nice to see it is pretty close though.
"x" changes if there are some major features or change how the software works. "y" changes if there are some new features. "z" changes if there are only bug fixes.
Keeps it simple, easy to remember, and users reacted very well to it since they can immediately tell how big of a release it is.
But I have to take issue of Linus tone in which he downplays "graphics" as being a rather unimportant subset of computing tasks. It's not "graphics". It's "GRAPHICS". That's not a small outlier of a task. Wait until we're all wearing ninth generation Oculus headsets... the trajectory of parallel processing requirements for graphics is already becoming clear -- and it's stratospheric. The issue is this: Our desktop processing requirements are actually slowing and as Linus points out, are probably ill-suited for increased parallelism. But our graphics requirements may be nearly infinite.
I agree, he dismisses graphics as something a few people do. WTF? in mobile, all the top grossing apps are games. The number 1 thing games do is graphics. If anything, I would argue that graphics is the single most important type of workload in mobile. Gaming (and therefore graphics) might not be quite as big in desktop, but it is still very far from being the niche he pretends it is.
That said, I think he is right that the fast single threaded big CPU's are not going anywhere. The trend for mobile and desktop has been to do graphics and general processing in separate hardware (GPU + CPU), I don't see a reason in sight to change that. Even if they were to be combined in a single chip, it would still be different part of the chip doing the tasks.
The "open office" is just cost-reduction masquerading as some sort of innovation.
It's the march towards ever less expenses to allow more profit to funnel to the few.
And the many embrace it. The few have managed to get the many to embrace their own destruction.
It is not as simple as say less space -> more profit. While corporate real state is indeed a cost, it is typically insignificant compared to the opportunity cost in lost productivity, and training costs every time a worker leaves.
As a business you would have to weight:
potential productivity loss due to interruptions unhappy employees leaving friction between workers ( I hate listening to my coworker's loud chewing) lack of privacy may irritate people lack of personal space may make it hard to "bond" with the job.
vs
potential productivity gains due to improved communication lack of privacy keep people focused on work reduced real state costs
I believe this is best worked out on a case by case basis, the different factors have different weight based on the job and the individuals. If a company _only_ looks at real state cost, it just puts itself at a competitive disadvantage.
More likely it's managements desire to see the workers, every single minute of the work day. It's a symbol of America's unwillingness to trust the workers.
I got moved to an open office last year (boss cannot see us though). There are things I like and things I dislike about it.
I like that the communication is very fluid. We embraced agile and my team is leading with it. The open office environment goes well with agile, and we are very much working together. This is not about management watching over us, but about communication.
BUT...
I absolutely hate listening to people eat, chewing loudly with their mouth open or slurping their coffee. It may sound petty, especially depending on your culture, but putting up with it day after day for months really gets under my skin and it makes me hate an otherwise likable person. There is not even an easy way to tell him to stop.
I hate the constant interruption. I do software development, it takes 20-30 minutes to get into flow and really be at the top of my game. If I know I will be interrupted in 30 mins, I tend to avoid complex tasks, because by the time I got it going, I will have to stop.
I don't have enough space for my stuff.
For these reasons, I have requested to be put back in a cube.
If you can't dazzle them with your intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit.
1) They have complete lack of image validation 2) Docker prints "Image validated" as part of the pull.
This is just flat out embarrassing, If I was the "lead security engineer" of that, I would actually worry about job stability. There is not a whole lot he could say that would save face. And yet, the response is truly terrible. He essentially says "yeap, we knew about it, shipped it anyway, and talked about fixing it"
It does not take a PR genius to figure out a good response. For example: "Thank you for pointing it out, we will have a patch soon" or respond with an actual patch. This is not rocket science, validating a signature properly only takes a few lines of shell script or C code, and has been solved a long time ago by most other package managers.
Perhaps requirements have increased. Your users in your enterprise might demand mobile support and whatnot, but at the same time, the tools are getting better and better.
For example: you need a server? well, it used to take months to get your server in the datacenter up and functional. Now, it is a matter of instantiating a new VM in your private cloud.
The impact is even more dramatic for small companies. Want to make a web application? create an account in azure or amazon or any other cloud provider, and just deploy your app in a few minutes. Email, storage, databases, backups, version control systems, project planning tools, ecommerce sites, you can set any of that stuff up in a few minutes with a few clicks, often for free.
If anything IT, particularly for small businesses, has been simplified to where it is a cheap commodity and just a few clicks away.
The gridlock has been so bad that the American public has voted to fix it. Yay!
I will gladly take gridlock over the out of control goverments we have had in the last 13 years or so.
If Obama was incapable of passing a single law for the rest of his term, I would be very happy. I wish there was this gridlock when Bush was president pushing for bailouts.
"Hey, I got this great invention, it will improve our transportation 10x, but it will require highly toxic and flammable chemicals to be stored in underground tanks every other block in highly populated areas. It will also cause around 1.3 million deaths per year worldwide, and become the #9 leading cause of death".
So I don't hold my breath for current politicians to approve self driving cars, even if 1 person gets killed by a self driving car, politicians will scream "think of the children!" and ban this right away, it will not matter if the fatality rate is even lower than manually driven cars.
So people should starve to death and let the human population shrink to the number of employed people required, eventually to zero? Or are you OK with paying welfare as long as it is sub-livable?
No. I am ok with having charities, which are much better at helping the needed than governments.
The "eventually zero" bit does not make sense, in a free market, the economy grows as people become more productive, accumulate capital, and improve technology, not shrink. Perhaps you refer to automation taking jobs? As we need less and less labor to produce food, clothing and other necessities, our labor will simply shift to more leisure related jobs. We will spend more on movies, tourism, sports, etc. Instead of working 5 days a week 8 hours each, as productivity improves, we will require smaller shifts, like 2 days 5 hours each. Consider that it used to be 12 hours per day 6 days a week.
Jobs is not a scarce resource, labor is. We will never have enough labor for all the jobs we would like to do, so we must allocate labor to the most productive ones. This is what a free market does best. Only bad laws (like minimum wage) prevent people from finding jobs.
This mindset is what we have to get over. Why do people have to earn a living if there is no need for their work? Just out of curiosity, would you be OK with them digging holes and then filling them up again all day to "earn" money?
No. The only way to earn something is to either produce it yourself, or producing something that you can exchange for it. In other words, you have to produce something of value. Digging a hole and filling it back up does not help anyone at all, therefore, society should not reward you for it.
And if you can make good money for yourself while sustaining others who society does not need work from - and you yourself don't need to work - why is it wrong for some of your pay to go towards supporting others? Again there is no productive work for them to do. You're not being forced to work, either literally, or practically as today. Are you just too selfish?
If I voluntarily want to donate to another person, (I do a lot of charity), then I am willingly forfeiting enjoyment of my earnings to help another. When my earnings are taken by force to give to another, it is not charity, it is slavery, and it is morally wrong.
I can't wait for the day nearly all menial labor jobs are eliminated and everyone is given a basic income (something low but still enough above the living wage). That way if you want to earn more money, you can still pursue more advanced positions, while poverty and lack of healthcare will cease to exist (at least, for those who can manage their money). This is after all, the paradise futurists have pined for for many years.
While a priory it sounds pretty, it would be an economic disaster and morally wrong. A number of people would simply decide to live off this basic income, and don't bother getting a job or producing anything. This would mean that the productive part of society would be forced by law to maintain these people. This is the moral equivalent of slavery, where you force someone to work for someone else against their will.
People need to _earn_ a living, no one is entitled to someone else's earnings just because they breathe.
Slashdot Mirror
In 1900 there were less than 20 white rhinos left due to poaching for their horns. In 2010 there were 20,000. This success was accomplished by privatizing the white rhinos.
Today, the black rhinos face the exact same threat, and we don't know what to do?!? Is this a racist thing (lol) ?
In case you are wondering why this worked: If I own the last 20 white rhinos, they are worth a fortune. I have a tremendous economic incentive to protect them from poaching and reproduce them. Eventually as their population grows, I might be able to sell some for profit and the new owners would also have the incentive to protect and reproduce theirs. As supply grows, the value of an individual rhino drops and eventually it might be economical to sell them to hunters. If there are too many rhinos the free market would hunt them, and if there are too few the free market would protect them, keeping a stable and sustainable population. This is why any animal we can own (chickens, pigs, cows, horses, dogs, etc...) are not in any danger of extinction.
The fact it's allowed to be sold in pharmacies (at least, in my country) is a scary thing.
You find it scary that they sell overpriced water in pharmacies?!?
As you yourself put it, the solution to this "problem" is simple: Read up on what homeopathy is.
By the FDA's own logic: homeopathy is not even drugs, so why the hell do they claim jurisdiction over it? Should they also start regulating witchcraft? how about preach healers? seems like a massive overreach to me for the FDA to start protecting us from water.
I grew up under the metric system, then came to the US and got used to the Imperial system.
I would say the metric system is superior for most uses, but it is definitely not worth the time and money required to do the switch. Consider all the tools, software, books, manuals, recipes, etc... that all of a sudden become obsolete. Consider all the man hours required to change items in just 1 Walmart store, all the factories that need to be adjusted so their products work with metric tools. All those resources could have been used instead in building new things. And this huge "investment" so that people can divide by 10? It makes absolutely no sense to do this.
Moreover, why is it the government's responsibility to make everyone switch? People should switch when it makes sense to do so. Also it does not have to be an all or nothing deal, different goods can be measured in different units (this is already happening), and market forces are enough to push one way or the other if it makes sense.
I used emacs for years, and I invested weeks configuring it to work exactly the way I wanted. My .emacs was beautiful and people often copied it for themselves.
Then I tried eclipse, and realized it already worked the way I wanted out of the box. Never looked back.
It is not about how configurable the editor is. It is about writing code. If your editor helps you do that: great, if not, just try something else, don't get religious on it.
Your problem is you aren't rich enough to own your own roads and cities too.
Neither is the government. Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for this? they don't have any money. They first confiscate it from you and me, whether we want it or not. Either by straight out taxing it, borrowing it in your name, or printing money which just dilutes the value of your savings. It also makes it impossible for the private sector to enter the road market.
The fact is that the private sector not only could take over making roads, but it would do a much better job at it. It would avoid building bridges to nowhere, and invest more heavily in areas with higher traffic. In fact, the first roads were entirely private. Murray Rothbard wrote a very nice book explaining how this could work (chapter 11).
In other words, you are saying they can tell me how to give a ride because they are already forcing me to pay them to build the roads. "Land of the free" indeed.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.
In the so called "land of the free", I should be able to get a ride from anyone I please as well as give a ride to anyone I please and charge for it if I want to. What is wrong here is not violating the laws, it is the laws themselves that restrict this voluntary mutually agreed upon exchange.
If insurance is a big deal, then I as an uber user would only chose to ride with people that have insurance.
Protecting taxis is awful. By that logic we should have made refrigerators illegal since they threatened ice factory workers.
If you don't like the Uber and Lyft services, then you simply don't use them. But we have no right to forbid other people from using it or place restrictions upon them.
... the system makes it easy to do the right thing and very hard to do the wrong thing, not just technically correct.
This is an obvious thing to strive for, and something most developers aim for regardless of legal or ethical frameworks.
But hindsight is 20/20, I bet that in your example, it did not even occur to the developer that the message could be misleading. Any software is going to have stuff like that, and you just have to do usability testing from time to time to find these usability bugs (I would call this a bug, but you can call it whatever you like).
There is a slippery slope in the "take some responsibility" language. Does it mean that the developer is bound to fix bugs (usability bugs or otherwise) for ever even if he is not paid for it? Does it mean that the developer is legally liable for any damage the bug might have caused and can be sued? What if the developer released free software with a defect and it causes damage to someone? What exactly does "take responsibility" mean to you?
The solution to this is simple: put it in the contract. In your example, the developer and hospital owners should have engaged in a voluntary agreement before the work started and clearly state what each party had to do in the case of a bug like this. Typically, the hospital would have agreed to pay him some money for ongoing maintenance, and in exchange he would commit to resolve these kinds of issues within some reasonable time. The extent of his responsibility would be defined by the agreement (contract) and nothing else. If the hospital decided to go cheap and don't pay for maintenance (or for example got a free license), then the developer would have no responsibility whatsoever over the problem, and it would be nothing more than a personal preference whether he chooses to resolve it.
In 1900 there were only 20 white rhinos left; in 2010, there were 20,000.
So what happened? we privatized them.
In fact take any animal that can be bought: chickens, horses, cows, etc..., and none of them are in any danger of extinction.
Why this works? Well, suppose I owned those 20 white rhinos. Simple supply and demand would make them worth a fortune. I would have a very strong incentive to try to get 21, so I would make everything I could to make them reproduce. Eventually I would have enough rhinos that I will start selling some for profit and continue reproducing them. The people that buy them would also have a strong incentive to reproduce them. As supply continues to increase, the value of an individual rhino will fall. At that point, the animal is safe from extinction, and it may become more profitable to sell them to hunters for example.
Simple market forces would make us breed them when there are too little, and hunt them when there are two many, keeping a sustainable population.
One part of the problem is NOT going to go away however - they have to pay to maintain the lines. Right now, that cost if covered by your electric bills. As the amount of electricity you draw from their generators goes down, they're going to reach the point of needing to charge you a flat fee just for the connection to the power lines, plus the usual fees for actually using their electricity.
If government did it, it would be extremely inefficient like all government services. We would all pay for power lines even if we don't use them via taxes (unfair), plus it would be run by political interests rather than economical ones.
Yes, it needs to be economical for someone to build and maintain a powerline, otherwise nobody would do it.
But this has an easy solution: Suppose you own the power lines, all you have to do is sell electricity at one price, and buy it back at a cheaper price call it the "bid" and "ask". The difference would be used to cover power line maintenance and new constructions. You would simply spend less in producing electricity and let users produce it for you. You are essentially getting paid to move electricity from one house to another.
What happens if too many people have solar and you have a surplus of electricity? you would lower the cost of the electricity. The cheaper your electricity is, the less people will install solar panels. You can keep the system balanced with no surpluses or shortages simply by adjusting the prices of electricity.
Would come in handy to see if that piece of jewelry is really gold and the diamond is not just cubic zirconia
Of course, it could be fooled by gold coating, bit it is still better than nothing.
It's the same every time. They acknowledge that the previous browser wasn't standards-compliant after all, and promise the one they are now working on is.
And it payed off no? as a professional web developer I very pleased with how much better IE10 is over IE6 in terms of standards compliance.
If anything, they have been accelerating the rate of adoption of standards.
If it is so bad then why not ban tobacco?
Because we as free individual should make that choice for ourselves. We do not need a nanny to tell us that smoking is bad and put us in jail for doing something that does not hurt other people. It did not work for alcohol in the 30's, it is not working for Marijuana today, and it is sure not going to work for tobacco.
I would argue for adding an extra decimal point: W.X.Y.Z
We did at some point, but users were not able to remember the full version number. People already have trouble sometimes remembering 3 numbers. They start telling you things like "I have the latest version", which they often don't, or confusing 10.0.1 with 10.1.0. 4 numbers makes the situation much worse.
Why is this important? because when someone sends you a bug report, you want to know exactly what version they are using. You may or may not have fixed the bug already, so having accurate version numbers matter.
I'll be damned, I did not know this was a thing, I just came up with something that was logical, and served to communicate with user the nature of the release.
And you are right, this is not semver. I don't do backward incompatible changes, so the major number would never change thus the major number as specified in semver is useless for me. Nice to see it is pretty close though.
I adopted a convention for my software: x.y.z
"x" changes if there are some major features or change how the software works.
"y" changes if there are some new features.
"z" changes if there are only bug fixes.
Keeps it simple, easy to remember, and users reacted very well to it since they can immediately tell how big of a release it is.
But I have to take issue of Linus tone in which he downplays "graphics" as being a rather unimportant subset of computing tasks. It's not "graphics". It's "GRAPHICS". That's not a small outlier of a task. Wait until we're all wearing ninth generation Oculus headsets... the trajectory of parallel processing requirements for graphics is already becoming clear -- and it's stratospheric. The issue is this: Our desktop processing requirements are actually slowing and as Linus points out, are probably ill-suited for increased parallelism. But our graphics requirements may be nearly infinite.
I agree, he dismisses graphics as something a few people do. WTF? in mobile, all the top grossing apps are games. The number 1 thing games do is graphics. If anything, I would argue that graphics is the single most important type of workload in mobile. Gaming (and therefore graphics) might not be quite as big in desktop, but it is still very far from being the niche he pretends it is.
That said, I think he is right that the fast single threaded big CPU's are not going anywhere. The trend for mobile and desktop has been to do graphics and general processing in separate hardware (GPU + CPU), I don't see a reason in sight to change that. Even if they were to be combined in a single chip, it would still be different part of the chip doing the tasks.
The "open office" is just cost-reduction masquerading as some sort of innovation.
It's the march towards ever less expenses to allow more profit to funnel to the few.
And the many embrace it. The few have managed to get the many to embrace their own destruction.
It is not as simple as say less space -> more profit. While corporate real state is indeed a cost, it is typically insignificant compared to the opportunity cost in lost productivity, and training costs every time a worker leaves.
As a business you would have to weight:
potential productivity loss due to interruptions
unhappy employees leaving
friction between workers ( I hate listening to my coworker's loud chewing)
lack of privacy may irritate people
lack of personal space may make it hard to "bond" with the job.
vs
potential productivity gains due to improved communication
lack of privacy keep people focused on work
reduced real state costs
I believe this is best worked out on a case by case basis, the different factors have different weight based on the job and the individuals. If a company _only_ looks at real state cost, it just puts itself at a competitive disadvantage.
More likely it's managements desire to see the workers, every single minute of the work day. It's a symbol of America's unwillingness to trust the workers.
I got moved to an open office last year (boss cannot see us though). There are things I like and things I dislike about it.
I like that the communication is very fluid. We embraced agile and my team is leading with it. The open office environment goes well with agile, and we are very much working together. This is not about management watching over us, but about communication.
BUT...
I absolutely hate listening to people eat, chewing loudly with their mouth open or slurping their coffee. It may sound petty, especially depending on your culture, but putting up with it day after day for months really gets under my skin and it makes me hate an otherwise likable person. There is not even an easy way to tell him to stop.
I hate the constant interruption. I do software development, it takes 20-30 minutes to get into flow and really be at the top of my game. If I know I will be interrupted in 30 mins, I tend to avoid complex tasks, because by the time I got it going, I will have to stop.
I don't have enough space for my stuff.
For these reasons, I have requested to be put back in a cube.
If you can't dazzle them with your intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit.
1) They have complete lack of image validation
2) Docker prints "Image validated" as part of the pull.
This is just flat out embarrassing, If I was the "lead security engineer" of that, I would actually worry about job stability.
There is not a whole lot he could say that would save face.
And yet, the response is truly terrible. He essentially says "yeap, we knew about it, shipped it anyway, and talked about fixing it"
It does not take a PR genius to figure out a good response. For example: "Thank you for pointing it out, we will have a patch soon" or respond with an actual patch. This is not rocket science, validating a signature properly only takes a few lines of shell script or C code, and has been solved a long time ago by most other package managers.
Perhaps requirements have increased. Your users in your enterprise might demand mobile support and whatnot, but at the same time, the tools are getting better and better.
For example: you need a server? well, it used to take months to get your server in the datacenter up and functional. Now, it is a matter of instantiating a new VM in your private cloud.
The impact is even more dramatic for small companies. Want to make a web application? create an account in azure or amazon or any other cloud provider, and just deploy your app in a few minutes. Email, storage, databases, backups, version control systems, project planning tools, ecommerce sites, you can set any of that stuff up in a few minutes with a few clicks, often for free.
If anything IT, particularly for small businesses, has been simplified to where it is a cheap commodity and just a few clicks away.
The gridlock has been so bad that the American public has voted to fix it. Yay!
I will gladly take gridlock over the out of control goverments we have had in the last 13 years or so.
If Obama was incapable of passing a single law for the rest of his term, I would be very happy. I wish there was this gridlock when Bush was president pushing for bailouts.
Suppose you tell the current politicians:
"Hey, I got this great invention, it will improve our transportation 10x, but it will require highly toxic and flammable chemicals to be stored in underground tanks every other block in highly populated areas. It will also cause around 1.3 million deaths per year worldwide, and become the #9 leading cause of death".
How many current politicians would approve this?
That is right, if it was for the current politicians, the car would not exist. We would all be still riding horses, which are even worse for the environment and have a fatality rate of 1 per 10,000 riders.
So I don't hold my breath for current politicians to approve self driving cars, even if 1 person gets killed by a self driving car, politicians will scream "think of the children!" and ban this right away, it will not matter if the fatality rate is even lower than manually driven cars.
So people should starve to death and let the human population shrink to the number of employed people required, eventually to zero? Or are you OK with paying welfare as long as it is sub-livable?
No. I am ok with having charities, which are much better at helping the needed than governments.
The "eventually zero" bit does not make sense, in a free market, the economy grows as people become more productive, accumulate capital, and improve technology, not shrink.
Perhaps you refer to automation taking jobs? As we need less and less labor to produce food, clothing and other necessities, our labor will simply shift to more leisure related jobs. We will spend more on movies, tourism, sports, etc. Instead of working 5 days a week 8 hours each, as productivity improves, we will require smaller shifts, like 2 days 5 hours each. Consider that it used to be 12 hours per day 6 days a week.
Jobs is not a scarce resource, labor is. We will never have enough labor for all the jobs we would like to do, so we must allocate labor to the most productive ones. This is what a free market does best. Only bad laws (like minimum wage) prevent people from finding jobs.
I am definitely not ok paying welfare _ever_.
This mindset is what we have to get over. Why do people have to earn a living if there is no need for their work? Just out of curiosity, would you be OK with them digging holes and then filling them up again all day to "earn" money?
No. The only way to earn something is to either produce it yourself, or producing something that you can exchange for it. In other words, you have to produce something of value. Digging a hole and filling it back up does not help anyone at all, therefore, society should not reward you for it.
And if you can make good money for yourself while sustaining others who society does not need work from - and you yourself don't need to work - why is it wrong for some of your pay to go towards supporting others? Again there is no productive work for them to do. You're not being forced to work, either literally, or practically as today. Are you just too selfish?
If I voluntarily want to donate to another person, (I do a lot of charity), then I am willingly forfeiting enjoyment of my earnings to help another. When my earnings are taken by force to give to another, it is not charity, it is slavery, and it is morally wrong.
I can't wait for the day nearly all menial labor jobs are eliminated and everyone is given a basic income (something low but still enough above the living wage). That way if you want to earn more money, you can still pursue more advanced positions, while poverty and lack of healthcare will cease to exist (at least, for those who can manage their money). This is after all, the paradise futurists have pined for for many years.
While a priory it sounds pretty, it would be an economic disaster and morally wrong. A number of people would simply decide to live off this basic income, and don't bother getting a job or producing anything. This would mean that the productive part of society would be forced by law to maintain these people. This is the moral equivalent of slavery, where you force someone to work for someone else against their will.
People need to _earn_ a living, no one is entitled to someone else's earnings just because they breathe.