The problem with object.x=4 is that it not overridable, the therefore interferes with both the encapsulation and the specialization concepts within the OO world.
For starters, as noted, it's strictly a language issue - there's no reason why property-style access cannot be made customizable, and it is in C# (just to pick something that's relatively close to Java).
Furthermore, there's no particular reason why you'd really want object.x=4 to be overridable in general. In a language that is designed well, there's simply no observable difference in that operation (and other treatment of 'x') regardless of whether it's a simple field or a code-backed property. Even C# gets it wrong (can't use properties as 'out' or 'ref' arguments of a function, for example), but other languages do it right. In that case, you always start with a field, and you change it to property accessors if and when you actually need it.
Rand Paul is a grandstander in the Barack Obama mold. He is sound and fury signifies fuck-all but lip-service to a dimwitted ideology that I wonder if he even believes. It's almost as if some consultant told him that the only demographic where he has a chance is bitcoin dudebros and so he has these little events to check off the box.
The only problem with this story is that pandering to "bitcoin dudebros" is widely known to not be a way to electoral success, and if Paul is really just a shrewd grifter that you paint him, he knows that, as well. So what exactly does he stand to gain from participating in the electoral campaign on a platform that practically guarantees a loss?
I doubt this is really super optimized for size. More likely, it's really just a very, very basic OS with the absolute bare minimum of functionality. Think glorified bootloader for a single process with a bunch of libraries for basic stuff like simple filesystem and TCP/IP networking. Getting all that into 10K is not particularly difficult, and the code is likely pretty straightforward C.
C++ is one of the toughest languages for tools to handle - it's crazy complicated even just to parse right. And in case of rename refactoring in particular (and anything else that might implicitly include that), it might not even be possible to do it right. Consider something like this:
Now suppose you're asking the editor to rename foo::x to foo::y. Should it also update t.x in baz, since it's referencing foo::x in one of the instantiations? But if it does so, then the other instantiation, the one that takes bar, will stop working. Should it rename bar::x as well? But it's not really related to foo::x in any meaningful way, they just happen to be referenced by the same template.
You know, when that story aired on Fox News, some people have actually went and asked the owners of those closing restaurants whether it's due to the minimum wage. And they have only found one place where that was a factor - and even that one has, ironically, not been in the original report.
At the same time, several new restaurants have opened, or are still planning to open, in the same timeframe.
What you're saying, basically, is that Republicans need to become Libertarians to remain competitive.
Which, I think, is largely true. But so long as the evangelical social conservative block is strong, it won't happen. It will take several hard losses, starting with 2016, for the rest of the party to revolt. Even then, I think it may actually manifest as a formal party split rather than an inside takeover, depending on how much socons manage to tarnish the GOP brand by then.
The conventional wisdom is wrong. Well, not quite, but the obvious interpretation isn't accurate.
When they did some polls recently on specific issues that are liberal or conservative, what they found is that people may swing a lot in their earlier years, but once their views solidify, they stay largely the same even as they grow older. In other words, someone who was pro-choice and supported same-sex marriage in 1995, when they were 20, will still support them in 2005 when they are 30, and in 2015 when they are 40.
The reason why people were usually perceived as becoming more conservative, is because the definition of "conservative" changes as society changes. As society trends progressive on the large scale of things (obviously there are upswings and downswings, I'm talking about decades here), what's progressive today becomes centrist tomorrow and conservative next day.
When both parties also chase the societal middle ground, as they normally do in politics, the net effect is that liberal party voters become conservative party voters over time. But when one of the parties decides to draw the line and proclaim that it won't make a single step beyond it, the net effect is that it will drain voters over time, even as the support from the remaining voters grows stronger. This is exactly the position in which GOP has found itself now, and a direct consequence of them betting on the social conservative evangelical vote back in 80s. The millennials who are split 65/36 in favor of Dems today will retain that split even as they grow older, so long as GOP platform remains the same.
Tell that to people of Austin, whose city is gerrymandered by splitting it into several pieces, and attaching a large chunk of the countryside to each, such that every resulting district has a Republican majority, even though the city itself is a Democratic stronghold.
Yes, Democrats do gerrymander too, but Republicans do so way more. Which is really obvious when you compare the popular vote by state, to the number of representatives in the House for each party elected from that state.
I have bad news for you: those social conservatives who are "trying to hijack it", they've actually succeeded a few years ago. Simply because there are far more of them than there are of the original libertarian tea partiers.
And the rest of the world honestly doesn't care about your infighting. If there are two groups that claim to be Tea Party, but one is significantly larger (and louder) than the other, then that larger group owns the brand for marketing purposes.
Go read any of the numerous Tea Party affiliated or branded Facebook groups. 99% of the crap there is about how Obama is a Muslim who allows illegals in so that ISIS can use that to infiltrate US and establish Sharia here. Economic issues are barely a blip on the radar.
Even assuming you're correct, there's still a big difference: in US, those coalitions are largely static, and historical trends now show that each such "coalition" is more and more tightly knit and more separated from the other one. Indeed, in the most recent House elections, we have actually for the first time came to an arrangement in the House where the most conservative Democrat is to the left of the most liberal Republican.
In Europe, OTOH, coalitions are dynamic, and only require pragmatic bargaining, not fundamental agreement on a large (and constantly growing) list of issues. Something like the UK's recent coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is utterly impossible in the US system.
So in fact, the European system is more flexible. Sure, it may be hard to organize a new party, but there's already plenty of parties covering many more distinct viewpoints, and organizing a coalition of those parties is far easier.
It actually doesn't. I can't dig out the link, but there have been some other studies that have shown that, contrary to popular opinion, people don't actually become more conservative as they age. Their beliefs basically calcify at some age and remain largely the same; they can be perceived as more conservative over time, though, because society as a whole trends progressive. But if you pinpoint specific issues, it is very clear: someone who was a same-sex marriage supporter at 20, for example, is still one at 30 and 40. It's just that it's a hot button "wedge issue" today, but it will be "duh, of course" thing in 20 years, just like segregation etc.
I don't think that's entirely correct. Social libertarianism is definitely a strong trend (pro-choice, pro-drug legalization etc). But on economics, there's still a very large spectrum of opinions.
That's pretty much what TFA is saying, too. Basically, Republicans are losing the fight for the younger generation because they focus too much on social conservative issues that are important for their current (aging) core electorate, but are very effective at pushing away the millennials. But if they reframe the debate in economic terms, they can actually compete versus Democrats.
Ultimately, I think what will happen is that GOP will be driven into the ground by religious conservatives, and after a string of massive losses (likely starting in 2016... I don't think we'll see a GOP president for several election cycles), a saner faction of the party will split off and replace GOP as the new second party in the existing system, with an overall libertarian bent.
In this particular case, I wouldn't trust Paul to make the right decisions, necessarily, but I would trust him to refrain from pushing them in most cases (more so than any other presidential candidate).
As I recall, air travel is safest in terms of fatalities per mile traveled. If you switch that to hours traveled, it's still safer than cars, but not the safest in general. If you switch it to fatalities per trip, it's actually more dangerous than cars. And commercial pilots basically just fly back & forth repeatedly, so they rack up that trip count pretty fast.
Pro-Slavers were very, very, happy to be opposed to "States rights" back when they were proposing (and passing) Fugitive Slaves laws that imposed huge immoral burdens on the Free States. As soon as it looked like the anti-slaves might win power at a Federal level, suddenly they back-pedalled.
The most amusing part is that when those same guys got their own country to run for a short while, the first thing they did was write a bunch of protectionist language regarding slavery into their federal constitution. States rights my ass.
Who cares? The government is in the business of ensuring that its constituents get a reasonable level of service, not in the business of enabling some private companies' business model. If municipal broadband is good enough that most customers flock to it (regardless of any "unfair advantage" it might have), what's the problem? OTOH, if it's fundamentally broken, so long as it's not a protected monopoly, private entities can still compete by offering a better service - just like UPS and FedEx do vs USPS.
I have to disagree. I cannot think of a better word for the state of having advantages over other people by virtue of skin color, gender, etc. When a wealthy man's sons get "legacy admission" to an Ivy League school, it is not because poor black people have been disadvantaged, but because a particular class has been given advantage.
If you only used the word "privilege" to describe those people - the guys who can afford to hire super-expensive tutors etc - then I would agree. But when you talk about "white privilege", you aren't just talking about them. You're also talking about middle class and working class families, all the way down to white trailer trash. Those people don't have any privileges per se. They do have an advantage by virtue of being white, yes, but crucially, that advantage is not privilege. It lies solely in the fact that they're treated as human beings (or at least, more so) than blacks. I don't think it's appropriate to describe normal treatment as "privilege" - it's a right (and I don't want to get into the debate of whether it's a "natural" one or not - it's a subjective categorization that is utterly irrelevant here, in any case).
Do you consider the possibility that the guilt is elicited because of a partial realization of actual guilt?
Yes. It's the same type of emotion as beggars often elicit. But beggars aren't trying to explicitly force people to admit that guilt. If they did, I doubt they'd be very successful. Ultimately, people don't like feeling guilty, and they especially don't like it when someone tries to make them feel guilty, regardless of whether it's just or not. So going from that angle is guaranteed to cause a massive pushback, and increase the racial tensions long-term, even if that increase is masked by a decrease in economic disadvantage. It is an approach that guarantees that color-blindness will never happen, even long after the historical wrongs have been righted, because the process of righting those wrongs will be (and is) perceived by many as unjust itself, and they will seek redress in their turn.
I also don't think that guilt is an appropriate emotion to elicit even from a pure fairness perspective. Most "white privileged" people aren't guilty of discrimination, per se (you could argue that they're guilty of unconscious bias, but even in criminal justice, there is generally no guilt if there's no mens rea). What they're rather "guilty" of is the lack of empathy, and the solution is to make people aware of the issues and relate to them - not feel guilty about themselves. Humans are, on average, altruistic creatures, and if you can make them relate to someone's suffering, they will have a strong incentive to help. But telling them that they're guilty of that suffering is not going to get there - if anything, it's far more likely to make them say that suffering isn't there in the first place (as, indeed, you can routinely see being peddled on Fox News and co).
My suggestion, if you want people to actually listen to what you say and care about it, is to drop the word "privilege". It is inaccurate to begin with - what you're describing is denied rights and freedoms and opportunities. A right is not a privilege; a privilege is something that a person is not automatically entitled to by virtue of being a person, but granted by a higher authority. Those denied rights and opportunities, OTOH, are something that every human being is entitled to. That's why their denial is so egregious.
The only reason why I can see the word "privilege" being so popular is because it elicits emotional guilt. And because of that, you will always get pushback from people who don't like to be guilt-tripped.
Nothing that you've written contradicts GP's point. As blacks are routinely discriminated against, this affects their economic status. Therefore, race-blind programs that are designed to improve economically disadvantaged will automatically translate to helping blacks, so long as they're disadvantaged (but have the side benefit of also helping other disadvantaged groups, regardless of what they are or why they're disadvantaged - now and in the future).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with object.x=4 is that it not overridable, the therefore interferes with both the encapsulation and the specialization concepts within the OO world.
For starters, as noted, it's strictly a language issue - there's no reason why property-style access cannot be made customizable, and it is in C# (just to pick something that's relatively close to Java).
Furthermore, there's no particular reason why you'd really want object.x=4 to be overridable in general. In a language that is designed well, there's simply no observable difference in that operation (and other treatment of 'x') regardless of whether it's a simple field or a code-backed property. Even C# gets it wrong (can't use properties as 'out' or 'ref' arguments of a function, for example), but other languages do it right. In that case, you always start with a field, and you change it to property accessors if and when you actually need it.
Rand Paul is a grandstander in the Barack Obama mold. He is sound and fury signifies fuck-all but lip-service to a dimwitted ideology that I wonder if he even believes. It's almost as if some consultant told him that the only demographic where he has a chance is bitcoin dudebros and so he has these little events to check off the box.
The only problem with this story is that pandering to "bitcoin dudebros" is widely known to not be a way to electoral success, and if Paul is really just a shrewd grifter that you paint him, he knows that, as well. So what exactly does he stand to gain from participating in the electoral campaign on a platform that practically guarantees a loss?
I doubt this is really super optimized for size. More likely, it's really just a very, very basic OS with the absolute bare minimum of functionality. Think glorified bootloader for a single process with a bunch of libraries for basic stuff like simple filesystem and TCP/IP networking. Getting all that into 10K is not particularly difficult, and the code is likely pretty straightforward C.
Generally speaking, refactorings are expected to produce error-free code if the input is also error-free.
If the langugage is Java (or even Python to a lesser degree), then I haven't come across anything that even comes close to IntelliJ.
I'm curious which IDEs you have looked at, and which platforms you're developing on.
C++ is one of the toughest languages for tools to handle - it's crazy complicated even just to parse right. And in case of rename refactoring in particular (and anything else that might implicitly include that), it might not even be possible to do it right. Consider something like this:
Now suppose you're asking the editor to rename foo::x to foo::y. Should it also update t.x in baz, since it's referencing foo::x in one of the instantiations? But if it does so, then the other instantiation, the one that takes bar, will stop working. Should it rename bar::x as well? But it's not really related to foo::x in any meaningful way, they just happen to be referenced by the same template.
You know, when that story aired on Fox News, some people have actually went and asked the owners of those closing restaurants whether it's due to the minimum wage. And they have only found one place where that was a factor - and even that one has, ironically, not been in the original report.
At the same time, several new restaurants have opened, or are still planning to open, in the same timeframe.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...
What you're saying, basically, is that Republicans need to become Libertarians to remain competitive.
Which, I think, is largely true. But so long as the evangelical social conservative block is strong, it won't happen. It will take several hard losses, starting with 2016, for the rest of the party to revolt. Even then, I think it may actually manifest as a formal party split rather than an inside takeover, depending on how much socons manage to tarnish the GOP brand by then.
The conventional wisdom is wrong. Well, not quite, but the obvious interpretation isn't accurate.
When they did some polls recently on specific issues that are liberal or conservative, what they found is that people may swing a lot in their earlier years, but once their views solidify, they stay largely the same even as they grow older. In other words, someone who was pro-choice and supported same-sex marriage in 1995, when they were 20, will still support them in 2005 when they are 30, and in 2015 when they are 40.
The reason why people were usually perceived as becoming more conservative, is because the definition of "conservative" changes as society changes. As society trends progressive on the large scale of things (obviously there are upswings and downswings, I'm talking about decades here), what's progressive today becomes centrist tomorrow and conservative next day.
When both parties also chase the societal middle ground, as they normally do in politics, the net effect is that liberal party voters become conservative party voters over time. But when one of the parties decides to draw the line and proclaim that it won't make a single step beyond it, the net effect is that it will drain voters over time, even as the support from the remaining voters grows stronger. This is exactly the position in which GOP has found itself now, and a direct consequence of them betting on the social conservative evangelical vote back in 80s. The millennials who are split 65/36 in favor of Dems today will retain that split even as they grow older, so long as GOP platform remains the same.
until the relatively-recent evangelical swarm
"Recent"? GOP has been swarmed by evangelicals since Reagan.
Tell that to people of Austin, whose city is gerrymandered by splitting it into several pieces, and attaching a large chunk of the countryside to each, such that every resulting district has a Republican majority, even though the city itself is a Democratic stronghold.
Yes, Democrats do gerrymander too, but Republicans do so way more. Which is really obvious when you compare the popular vote by state, to the number of representatives in the House for each party elected from that state.
I have bad news for you: those social conservatives who are "trying to hijack it", they've actually succeeded a few years ago. Simply because there are far more of them than there are of the original libertarian tea partiers.
And the rest of the world honestly doesn't care about your infighting. If there are two groups that claim to be Tea Party, but one is significantly larger (and louder) than the other, then that larger group owns the brand for marketing purposes.
Go read any of the numerous Tea Party affiliated or branded Facebook groups. 99% of the crap there is about how Obama is a Muslim who allows illegals in so that ISIS can use that to infiltrate US and establish Sharia here. Economic issues are barely a blip on the radar.
Even assuming you're correct, there's still a big difference: in US, those coalitions are largely static, and historical trends now show that each such "coalition" is more and more tightly knit and more separated from the other one. Indeed, in the most recent House elections, we have actually for the first time came to an arrangement in the House where the most conservative Democrat is to the left of the most liberal Republican.
In Europe, OTOH, coalitions are dynamic, and only require pragmatic bargaining, not fundamental agreement on a large (and constantly growing) list of issues. Something like the UK's recent coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is utterly impossible in the US system.
So in fact, the European system is more flexible. Sure, it may be hard to organize a new party, but there's already plenty of parties covering many more distinct viewpoints, and organizing a coalition of those parties is far easier.
It actually doesn't. I can't dig out the link, but there have been some other studies that have shown that, contrary to popular opinion, people don't actually become more conservative as they age. Their beliefs basically calcify at some age and remain largely the same; they can be perceived as more conservative over time, though, because society as a whole trends progressive. But if you pinpoint specific issues, it is very clear: someone who was a same-sex marriage supporter at 20, for example, is still one at 30 and 40. It's just that it's a hot button "wedge issue" today, but it will be "duh, of course" thing in 20 years, just like segregation etc.
I don't think that's entirely correct. Social libertarianism is definitely a strong trend (pro-choice, pro-drug legalization etc). But on economics, there's still a very large spectrum of opinions.
That's pretty much what TFA is saying, too. Basically, Republicans are losing the fight for the younger generation because they focus too much on social conservative issues that are important for their current (aging) core electorate, but are very effective at pushing away the millennials. But if they reframe the debate in economic terms, they can actually compete versus Democrats.
Ultimately, I think what will happen is that GOP will be driven into the ground by religious conservatives, and after a string of massive losses (likely starting in 2016... I don't think we'll see a GOP president for several election cycles), a saner faction of the party will split off and replace GOP as the new second party in the existing system, with an overall libertarian bent.
In this particular case, I wouldn't trust Paul to make the right decisions, necessarily, but I would trust him to refrain from pushing them in most cases (more so than any other presidential candidate).
And I'm left-wing.
As I recall, air travel is safest in terms of fatalities per mile traveled. If you switch that to hours traveled, it's still safer than cars, but not the safest in general. If you switch it to fatalities per trip, it's actually more dangerous than cars. And commercial pilots basically just fly back & forth repeatedly, so they rack up that trip count pretty fast.
Pro-Slavers were very, very, happy to be opposed to "States rights" back when they were proposing (and passing) Fugitive Slaves laws that imposed huge immoral burdens on the Free States. As soon as it looked like the anti-slaves might win power at a Federal level, suddenly they back-pedalled.
The most amusing part is that when those same guys got their own country to run for a short while, the first thing they did was write a bunch of protectionist language regarding slavery into their federal constitution. States rights my ass.
Who cares? The government is in the business of ensuring that its constituents get a reasonable level of service, not in the business of enabling some private companies' business model. If municipal broadband is good enough that most customers flock to it (regardless of any "unfair advantage" it might have), what's the problem? OTOH, if it's fundamentally broken, so long as it's not a protected monopoly, private entities can still compete by offering a better service - just like UPS and FedEx do vs USPS.
I have to disagree. I cannot think of a better word for the state of having advantages over other people by virtue of skin color, gender, etc. When a wealthy man's sons get "legacy admission" to an Ivy League school, it is not because poor black people have been disadvantaged, but because a particular class has been given advantage.
If you only used the word "privilege" to describe those people - the guys who can afford to hire super-expensive tutors etc - then I would agree. But when you talk about "white privilege", you aren't just talking about them. You're also talking about middle class and working class families, all the way down to white trailer trash. Those people don't have any privileges per se. They do have an advantage by virtue of being white, yes, but crucially, that advantage is not privilege. It lies solely in the fact that they're treated as human beings (or at least, more so) than blacks. I don't think it's appropriate to describe normal treatment as "privilege" - it's a right (and I don't want to get into the debate of whether it's a "natural" one or not - it's a subjective categorization that is utterly irrelevant here, in any case).
Do you consider the possibility that the guilt is elicited because of a partial realization of actual guilt?
Yes. It's the same type of emotion as beggars often elicit. But beggars aren't trying to explicitly force people to admit that guilt. If they did, I doubt they'd be very successful. Ultimately, people don't like feeling guilty, and they especially don't like it when someone tries to make them feel guilty, regardless of whether it's just or not. So going from that angle is guaranteed to cause a massive pushback, and increase the racial tensions long-term, even if that increase is masked by a decrease in economic disadvantage. It is an approach that guarantees that color-blindness will never happen, even long after the historical wrongs have been righted, because the process of righting those wrongs will be (and is) perceived by many as unjust itself, and they will seek redress in their turn.
I also don't think that guilt is an appropriate emotion to elicit even from a pure fairness perspective. Most "white privileged" people aren't guilty of discrimination, per se (you could argue that they're guilty of unconscious bias, but even in criminal justice, there is generally no guilt if there's no mens rea). What they're rather "guilty" of is the lack of empathy, and the solution is to make people aware of the issues and relate to them - not feel guilty about themselves. Humans are, on average, altruistic creatures, and if you can make them relate to someone's suffering, they will have a strong incentive to help. But telling them that they're guilty of that suffering is not going to get there - if anything, it's far more likely to make them say that suffering isn't there in the first place (as, indeed, you can routinely see being peddled on Fox News and co).
It's not just California, there are quite a few states with similar laws on the books now.
I always wondered; do these apply to federal government jobs that happen to be located in that state?
My suggestion, if you want people to actually listen to what you say and care about it, is to drop the word "privilege". It is inaccurate to begin with - what you're describing is denied rights and freedoms and opportunities. A right is not a privilege; a privilege is something that a person is not automatically entitled to by virtue of being a person, but granted by a higher authority. Those denied rights and opportunities, OTOH, are something that every human being is entitled to. That's why their denial is so egregious.
The only reason why I can see the word "privilege" being so popular is because it elicits emotional guilt. And because of that, you will always get pushback from people who don't like to be guilt-tripped.
Nothing that you've written contradicts GP's point. As blacks are routinely discriminated against, this affects their economic status. Therefore, race-blind programs that are designed to improve economically disadvantaged will automatically translate to helping blacks, so long as they're disadvantaged (but have the side benefit of also helping other disadvantaged groups, regardless of what they are or why they're disadvantaged - now and in the future).