Someone mentioned OpenSSL above. You'd think that would be exactly the thing you're writing about, but still, you get people writing things like s2n instead of just using it. I'm not even sure how openness/closedness comes into it since both have source available.
Replying as AC because I've already mod'ed on this article.
OpenSSL is possibly the worst written of the widely used open source projects on the planet. The implementation itself is the real problem and a few years ago (whenever heartbleed was a thing), there was real momentum to replace OpenSSL with a better implementation. s2n is simply one of those efforts. This isn't an issue of rewriting something just to rewrite it, OpenSSL itself has serious design flaws in the code itself which makes finding and fixing security issues with it very difficult. Its written in an ancient dialect of C that wasn't widely used after the early 90's and uses
unchecked function pointers all over the place. There are over 4000 gotos in the OpenSSL code itself.
I agree you shouldn't rewrite working things, but there are very good reasons why OpenSSL shouldn't be everyone's workhorse security library/tool.
Go take a walk through the Tenderloin and tell me that those people's problem is crappy cable upload speeds.
I love San Francisco, but I'm pretty sure there are much better ways for the city to spend its money. Fixing the roads, solving the homeless/drug addict problem or creating affordable housing come to mind immediately. Every dollar spent on this fiber project is a dollar that did not go to one of the above.
You must not have lived in SF for very long. The Tenderloin today is much more safe than it used to be. 10-15 years ago to walk across the Tenderloin you had to know where the "track" (where the street walkers work, there were 2, one for females and one for everyone else) was to avoid that and additionally had to know the state of little Saigon's gangs to know if there was a turf war going on at the time. Today on those same streets you walk past expensive bars and restaurants.
If you are whining about the state of SF today, then you are clearly one of the folks changing the city and not necessarily for the better. Half the cities nightclubs have closed and almost all the artists have been forced to move out. Many of those homeless you don't like, likely used to have housing in the TL and were forced out to make way for you and those that moved to SF when you did. Basically, you are turning SF into Manhattan which is fine but we already had a Manhattan and now we no longer have an SF. Cities have always changed and SF is no different, but this time around most of the interesting things that made the city different for decades are all being removed at once. What do you think that's going to do to the area long term? Somehow I doubt it will be all gravy but as long as you are getting yours right?
The problem seems more complex then that.
For nearly a decade Tesla was mostly an R&D shop who did low volume production. This created a well defined culture. Now they are moving to a higher production environment, the culture is changing, and there are people there who do not know how to adapt to such changes.
Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it. Once a company (or organization of any kind) gets past 100-150 folks, the types of changes you talk about occur. But Tesla has been much larger than that for years.
I actually think this is a case of importing a culture from another business (manufacturing) as Tesla starts the move to a large scale manufacturing operation. Tesla is located in the heart of SV so the locals (most of the rank and file) are very very liberal. But the manufacturing expertise is coming from other parts of the country, from a industry with a very different culture. The comments in the article strike me as comments you might hear from a typical factory worker, not what you would hear in a software company in SV. Perhaps that's what is happening here. Mass importing of manufacturing experience from another industry from other places and dumping that culture into the heart of SV is a recipe for lawsuits. Throw in the fact that multiple large business and union interests want to see Tesla fail and are willing to fund lawsuits to that end and none of this is really that surprising.
You want a pull, image-based deployment strategy? Docker.
You are doing it wrong then. Docker is for partitioning physical hardware without having to pay the I/O overhead of virtualization (which is about 75%). Image based deployment is dumb but if you want to do it, Packer is better as you don't waste so much time moving image diffs over the network that way. The issue with image-based deployment is the need for a central registry to make it all work and that makes testing a PITA. Its a classic case of operations wagging the company. The most poorly managed companies I've worked at often made that mistake for some weird reason. Seems like celebrating the cheerleaders after a big win by the football team.
to simply make the cigarettes out of biodegradable materials ? Dissolves / decays when exposed to sunlight or water for X amount of time.
I'm not a smoker so dunno how plausible it would be, but beats having animals picking up our trash.
Well done on that sarcasm. But lately there have been ads running claiming that butts last for some long amount of time which is clearly not true (otherwise this would be a real problem instead of some hatefest clickbait). So many people are seriously under the impression that they are not biodegradable for some weird reason.
I have never been afraid of technology. But people and societies are often not ready for the extra power that technology grants them. There are two ways to look at this: 1) engineers should know that people can't handle this kind of power or 2) people are responsible for their own actions. Obviously we engineers would prefer the second one even if both are partially true.
With the Logan's Run level of turnover in engineering, engineers are rarely in a position to control the technology they create. And what managers and executives want to do with technology ranges from banal to terrifying. I fear we are creating yet another viscous cycle where what's good for a small group (those in control of said tech) causes a series of changes that are a net negative for society.
Several times in my career, I left jobs or refused to create technology I knew couldn't possibly be used for socially responsible purposes (or even questionable ones). But there is always some younger, engineer with either less ethics or who is not in a position to have ethics that will create these types of things. Luckily in my case, nobody else they had could create that tech but I know that I only stopped one thing in one instance, meanwhile 1000s of others $EVILTECH were created by other engineers at the same time.
That being said, how technology is used is ultimately a reflection of society at large. If the technology causes an ugly outcome, its just reflecting an ugly part of society.
I wanted to upvote a comment. Can't easily see how to do it.
You don't get to just because you want too. Moderation points are given out randomly to those with higher karma. Its been this way since the mid 90's so likely most of your life. If you see dropdown boxes next to comments, you have moderation points to use. There is even meta-meta-moderation (reviewing the moderation points others assigned). Its been an effective system for reducing the effects of trolling and raising the best comments to the top since before upvote was a word. And/. has had none of the issues that Reddit has had as a result. But maybe you like mob like behavior in your comments?
The real problem is that most problems are really hard to fully specify. As soon as you start to code it, you begin to realize how hard.
The problem is not that the problem is hard, it's that the user doesn't understand why their specification is woefully incomplete. Like if you asked them how to walk they'd probably say "Well put one foot in front of the other, duuuh" but tell a robot to do that it'll fall with a big thud. Then they'll say "Well you got to keep your balance, duuuh". And you'd tell the robot to do that and it won't get anywhere because it started to lift one foot, realized it was out of balance and put it back down again. And then they'll says "Well you have to be out of balance long enough to take a step just don't keel over, duuuh" and so on.
This, a 1000 times this. I've even seen former engineers do the hand-wavy thing. It seems to be human nature and its why most software is hard.
LOL! Started writing a real response then saw it was you again. Ever getting tired of being not only wrong but hilariously so?
Really I like low-level optimization but you are just mashing some words together obviously not understanding what they mean. E.g. why would anybody not doing low-level stuff do memory management tasks instead of doing their work? "..., doing good privilege-separation..." is just words. Side channels... Irrelevant IF ONE ISN'T DOING SECURE STUFF!
Even for low level coding or building a framework for higher levels your rant is completely irrelevant. Anybody with any experience would see that. And a programmer can be skilled and productive not having any idea of any of those areas.
Last memory management stuff I did was a version of the realtime TLSF allocator written in x86-64 assembly. You?
The problem is that upper management doesn't understand that status reports have a non-zero, non-trivial cost. When a project gets into trouble, the number of status reports and meetings increase, which surprise surprise, slows down progress. Also, software development is non-linear for at least part of any non trivial project. Refusing to accept that fact has caused problems for decades. Sometimes as a developer, it feels like management is working against us. Does any of that sound like a useful part of running the business?
Bitcoin mining has been done by custom chips for at least the last 5 years. The economics of mining are that you convert electricity into currency at some rate that is efficient (ie the value of the electricity < value of the coins mined). CPU mining of bitcoin is at least 100x less efficient than the custom chips used by miners. For other currencies (ie Litecoin like currencies), its either custom chips or graphics cards (I think the graphics cards have been squeezed out of there too) which are at least 10x less efficient.
The result of which is that they user's are only "contributing" 1/10th to 1/100th of their extra expenses to the site. So this scheme is 1/10th to 1/100th as efficient as users just paying the site directly. I don't see how this would work for a business but I can easily see how some malicious actor would be very attracted to this.
And that is why stories like this are going to continue. If you insist that writing some Python is something that requires a BS you're going to get outsourced and replaced.
I could teach a high school dropout to do 50% of my job. Even if all it started out as was filling functions with a standard documentation format and moved from there.
Every single other profession has 'lower level' employees that do a large portion of the grunt work. You think healthcare is expensive in the US now? Imagine how much it would cost if you insisted it took 12 years of education to put in an IV.
You are why we have so many security issues today. Over time either the market won't care (in which case you are right) or the market will decide it doesn't want insecure crapware that regularly causes PR problems and damages the corporate brand. Somehow you might be right, but you are betting much more on this than you realize and if it breaks against you, I won't shed a tear but it will be bloody and ugly.
Personally I dislike the current trends of types after arg names, the only argument I've heard is that it makes parsing easier. Isn't the whole point of a high level language is that the compiler does the work? Why are millions of developers dealing with crappy syntax to make it a bit easier on the handful of people writing a parser.
Because its gotten to the point that languages are fashion statements and whatever compiler writers say gets taking as absolute truth by some in the programming world. There is a language that I won't mention (I've spoken at their conferences on multiple occasions) where I've seen the compiler team outright lie to their programmer community on multiple technical issues because they are desperate to keep growing their language. Making up optimizations they claim their compiler does but doesn't. Lying about the horrible efficiency of their run-time library. Making claims about the types of semantics their Futures can implement that simply are not true. The lead dev on the compiler finally got fed up and quit while giving a talk at one of their conferences because he got tired of being on the hook for bugs in features that simply did not work. And this is one of the better "modern" languages, one that makes Python look like the braindamaged NodeJS clone that it really is.
C++ is pretty strongly typed. It's only static type analysis though, but no weaker than Pascal or Ada.
This is why I avoid discussions about programming languages. C++ is absolutely NOT strongly typed. It does however have a weak variant of static type checking. That's not necessarily a bad thing but the simple fact that C++ has 5 different types of casting operators (C style cast, static, dynamic, const and reinterpret) should have clued you into to the fact that C++'s typing system isn't strongly typed. Cast operators are a really good indicator as to the mathematical strength of a language's type system. If you have no cast operators, then its (almost always) a strongly typed type system. If you do, then it can't be strongly typed (unless there is some way to trace an instance's type history that allows the compiler to ensure things about the instance at compile time) but the type system can still be stronger than a prototype chaining language like JS. Java, Scala and Kotlin would all fall into this category (as would most general purpose programming languages people use in real word settings). Some of those languages can have static type checking which helps but how often have you seen a ReflectionException in Java because that's the consequence of Java choosing dynamic type checking instead of static. The benefit of this trade-off is reflection and runtime classloading.
I have observed that language discussions usually misuse and incorrectly understand CS terms more than any other part programming. I think its that devs tend to defend the languages they use at all costs. Also the terms themselves are very complex and hard to understand and people misuse them more often than they use them correctly (eg strongly typed) in my experience.
As an example, suppose I have a log file of the format:
URL - bytes - epoch - username
If I want to produce some summary statistics from that particular log file, to use in my year-end presentation, a weakly typed language will let me whip up a simple script very quickly.
On the other hand, if I'm deploying production software to the web, where it will encounter unknown user input in different character sets thousands of times per day, I'd want to take a few more minutes of development time to have more robust software. That's when strong typing is good.
You are why we have so many security issues as an industry.
How are a CS major and understanding big O efficiency related? A smart person will quickly grasp this concept. End of story.
If you NEED a CS major to get such a simple concept, I really don't want you writing code.
You might think so, but in my experience this is simply not true. I've met many many many people who write code that purport to understand these topics (who can answer simple interview questions about this as well) but then write code that clearly indicates that they don't. CS majors with experience is the best filter I've found for understanding this topic and even that's a bit weak depending on the school. My hypothesis is that there is a certain number of iterations you need to do before you understand most topics and being self taught somehow doesn't ensure those number of repetitions. I do know however that the most efficient large pieces of code I've ever seen were all written by people with CS degrees and experience.
The US needs to make China aware that this state sponsored economic terrorism will no longer be tolerated. I vote that every time there is a theft of US technology, we VOID $10 billion (minimum) of US treasuries held by China. Make it $50 billion if it is a military contractor.
You do realize that this would likely destroy the US's ability to raise capital (sell t-bonds) internationally. Not sure your plan would work as you envision.
Meanwhile Kurzweil has changed his prediction of "when computers will have human-level intelligence" from 2020 to 2029. I guess believing it was going to happen in the next 26 and a half months was cutting it a little too close. I have been reading about his predictions about AI for a couple of decades now and have yet to see any explanation of how he imagines this is going to happen - other than his expectations about hardware capabilities, and that there is still an unspecified "software issue" that needs to be solved. Indeed.
Please please please never associate Kurzweil (who is basically a media personality) with real AI researchers. Nothing Kurzweil has ever said about AI is more informed than speculation.
This isn't her secondary degree tho. She's got a BS and masters in music. That is what she studied.
Also if she is self taught, post that in LinkedIn, along with some projects you've worked on that helped you along the way. Yet, all we get is crickets.
Given the absurd lack of security at Equifax that has come to light in recent days, I don't care what color is her skin or what's between her legs. The CSO was grossly incompetent and she and anyone involved in hiring her should be fired immediately with cause. Its likely the entire security team needs to be replaced and a large amount of the IT infrastructure. It might be easier to just bankrupt them as I have my doubts that an organization that is so clearly rotten from the top down could ever fix itself.
The irony being that CCS combo has pretty much won the charging battle at this point. Only Tesla and Nissan use something else, meanwhile BMW, VW, Audi, Chevrolet, Mercedes, and Ford all use CCS combo for DC charging.
My Volt (Chevy) uses J1772. The CCS combo chargers are mostly used in what I call the "barely legal" EVs. Basically hybrids with bigger battery packs so they can be called EVs and sold in California to cover a legal requirement which means they don't have to give $$ to Telsa to sell cars in California. I don't tend to see them in the more popular EVs that are designed for actual use/impact (Volts and EVs with 300+ mi range).
So, how do I profit from the bubble poppage this time instead of getting screwed like last time?
Do you think stock "puts" are sufficient? Any tips on what companies are good put targets, or is that wandering too far off topic? Just trying to help slashdotters live long and prosper.
Puts are options which means you are asking about security/equity options. You want a short instead of a put as you won't be able to time the crash yourself. Of course, you pay (a very small amount of) interest to keep the short position open but it doesn't expire like a Put does. Constructing the same position with puts would require much higher premiums as you would have to continually re-buy puts as they expire.
Sure, but what's the alternative? People buying shit at random and hoping for the best?
Sure, its essentially what we have now anyway. And it would encourage people to get better at researching products which will over time improve engineering and product quality.
If other roles had such a direct metric that was equally hard to game, I think you'd see more economic incentives being tied to those metrics. For example, I might expect that factories have some kind of incentive based on the number of units a worker can produce that pass QA. It's a pretty good metric of performance that's hard to game.
Its easy to game. Most systems are. In this case, its about promising the impossible and giving away freebies on the backend to make up for it. I've worked at many places where many specific customers went from being profitable to unprofitable due to sales people trying to increase sales but not giving a shit if the entire sale ended up being cash flow positive to the entire company. I've seen it more places than I haven't see it.
Basic rule, if you don't know how to game a system, you probably just don't know enough about that system yet. All systems that manage humans have fraud and gaming in them, its more a question as to what the rate of gaming the system is. And for salespeople, in my experience its a very high rate of gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone mentioned OpenSSL above. You'd think that would be exactly the thing you're writing about, but still, you get people writing things like s2n instead of just using it. I'm not even sure how openness/closedness comes into it since both have source available.
Replying as AC because I've already mod'ed on this article.
OpenSSL is possibly the worst written of the widely used open source projects on the planet. The implementation itself is the real problem and a few years ago (whenever heartbleed was a thing), there was real momentum to replace OpenSSL with a better implementation. s2n is simply one of those efforts. This isn't an issue of rewriting something just to rewrite it, OpenSSL itself has serious design flaws in the code itself which makes finding and fixing security issues with it very difficult. Its written in an ancient dialect of C that wasn't widely used after the early 90's and uses unchecked function pointers all over the place. There are over 4000 gotos in the OpenSSL code itself.
I agree you shouldn't rewrite working things, but there are very good reasons why OpenSSL shouldn't be everyone's workhorse security library/tool.
Oops, replied to the wrong comment so the quote is wrong. Apologies to the GP. I stand by the rest of the comment though.
Go take a walk through the Tenderloin and tell me that those people's problem is crappy cable upload speeds.
I love San Francisco, but I'm pretty sure there are much better ways for the city to spend its money. Fixing the roads, solving the homeless/drug addict problem or creating affordable housing come to mind immediately. Every dollar spent on this fiber project is a dollar that did not go to one of the above.
You must not have lived in SF for very long. The Tenderloin today is much more safe than it used to be. 10-15 years ago to walk across the Tenderloin you had to know where the "track" (where the street walkers work, there were 2, one for females and one for everyone else) was to avoid that and additionally had to know the state of little Saigon's gangs to know if there was a turf war going on at the time. Today on those same streets you walk past expensive bars and restaurants.
If you are whining about the state of SF today, then you are clearly one of the folks changing the city and not necessarily for the better. Half the cities nightclubs have closed and almost all the artists have been forced to move out. Many of those homeless you don't like, likely used to have housing in the TL and were forced out to make way for you and those that moved to SF when you did. Basically, you are turning SF into Manhattan which is fine but we already had a Manhattan and now we no longer have an SF. Cities have always changed and SF is no different, but this time around most of the interesting things that made the city different for decades are all being removed at once. What do you think that's going to do to the area long term? Somehow I doubt it will be all gravy but as long as you are getting yours right?
The problem seems more complex then that. For nearly a decade Tesla was mostly an R&D shop who did low volume production. This created a well defined culture. Now they are moving to a higher production environment, the culture is changing, and there are people there who do not know how to adapt to such changes.
Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it. Once a company (or organization of any kind) gets past 100-150 folks, the types of changes you talk about occur. But Tesla has been much larger than that for years.
I actually think this is a case of importing a culture from another business (manufacturing) as Tesla starts the move to a large scale manufacturing operation. Tesla is located in the heart of SV so the locals (most of the rank and file) are very very liberal. But the manufacturing expertise is coming from other parts of the country, from a industry with a very different culture. The comments in the article strike me as comments you might hear from a typical factory worker, not what you would hear in a software company in SV. Perhaps that's what is happening here. Mass importing of manufacturing experience from another industry from other places and dumping that culture into the heart of SV is a recipe for lawsuits. Throw in the fact that multiple large business and union interests want to see Tesla fail and are willing to fund lawsuits to that end and none of this is really that surprising.
You want a pull, image-based deployment strategy? Docker.
You are doing it wrong then. Docker is for partitioning physical hardware without having to pay the I/O overhead of virtualization (which is about 75%). Image based deployment is dumb but if you want to do it, Packer is better as you don't waste so much time moving image diffs over the network that way. The issue with image-based deployment is the need for a central registry to make it all work and that makes testing a PITA. Its a classic case of operations wagging the company. The most poorly managed companies I've worked at often made that mistake for some weird reason. Seems like celebrating the cheerleaders after a big win by the football team.
to simply make the cigarettes out of biodegradable materials ? Dissolves / decays when exposed to sunlight or water for X amount of time.
I'm not a smoker so dunno how plausible it would be, but beats having animals picking up our trash.
Well done on that sarcasm. But lately there have been ads running claiming that butts last for some long amount of time which is clearly not true (otherwise this would be a real problem instead of some hatefest clickbait). So many people are seriously under the impression that they are not biodegradable for some weird reason.
With the Logan's Run level of turnover in engineering, engineers are rarely in a position to control the technology they create. And what managers and executives want to do with technology ranges from banal to terrifying. I fear we are creating yet another viscous cycle where what's good for a small group (those in control of said tech) causes a series of changes that are a net negative for society.
Several times in my career, I left jobs or refused to create technology I knew couldn't possibly be used for socially responsible purposes (or even questionable ones). But there is always some younger, engineer with either less ethics or who is not in a position to have ethics that will create these types of things. Luckily in my case, nobody else they had could create that tech but I know that I only stopped one thing in one instance, meanwhile 1000s of others $EVILTECH were created by other engineers at the same time.
That being said, how technology is used is ultimately a reflection of society at large. If the technology causes an ugly outcome, its just reflecting an ugly part of society.
I wanted to upvote a comment. Can't easily see how to do it.
You don't get to just because you want too. Moderation points are given out randomly to those with higher karma. Its been this way since the mid 90's so likely most of your life. If you see dropdown boxes next to comments, you have moderation points to use. There is even meta-meta-moderation (reviewing the moderation points others assigned). Its been an effective system for reducing the effects of trolling and raising the best comments to the top since before upvote was a word. And /. has had none of the issues that Reddit has had as a result. But maybe you like mob like behavior in your comments?
The real problem is that most problems are really hard to fully specify. As soon as you start to code it, you begin to realize how hard.
The problem is not that the problem is hard, it's that the user doesn't understand why their specification is woefully incomplete. Like if you asked them how to walk they'd probably say "Well put one foot in front of the other, duuuh" but tell a robot to do that it'll fall with a big thud. Then they'll say "Well you got to keep your balance, duuuh". And you'd tell the robot to do that and it won't get anywhere because it started to lift one foot, realized it was out of balance and put it back down again. And then they'll says "Well you have to be out of balance long enough to take a step just don't keel over, duuuh" and so on.
This, a 1000 times this. I've even seen former engineers do the hand-wavy thing. It seems to be human nature and its why most software is hard.
LOL! Started writing a real response then saw it was you again. Ever getting tired of being not only wrong but hilariously so?
Really I like low-level optimization but you are just mashing some words together obviously not understanding what they mean. E.g. why would anybody not doing low-level stuff do memory management tasks instead of doing their work? "..., doing good privilege-separation ..." is just words. Side channels... Irrelevant IF ONE ISN'T DOING SECURE STUFF!
Even for low level coding or building a framework for higher levels your rant is completely irrelevant. Anybody with any experience would see that. And a programmer can be skilled and productive not having any idea of any of those areas.
Last memory management stuff I did was a version of the realtime TLSF allocator written in x86-64 assembly. You?
You are why we have security holes.
The problem is that upper management doesn't understand that status reports have a non-zero, non-trivial cost. When a project gets into trouble, the number of status reports and meetings increase, which surprise surprise, slows down progress. Also, software development is non-linear for at least part of any non trivial project. Refusing to accept that fact has caused problems for decades. Sometimes as a developer, it feels like management is working against us. Does any of that sound like a useful part of running the business?
Or maybe no.
Definitely YES, I've rarely come across a more true thing outside of mathematics
The result of which is that they user's are only "contributing" 1/10th to 1/100th of their extra expenses to the site. So this scheme is 1/10th to 1/100th as efficient as users just paying the site directly. I don't see how this would work for a business but I can easily see how some malicious actor would be very attracted to this.
And that is why stories like this are going to continue. If you insist that writing some Python is something that requires a BS you're going to get outsourced and replaced.
I could teach a high school dropout to do 50% of my job. Even if all it started out as was filling functions with a standard documentation format and moved from there.
Every single other profession has 'lower level' employees that do a large portion of the grunt work. You think healthcare is expensive in the US now? Imagine how much it would cost if you insisted it took 12 years of education to put in an IV.
Doctor:Physician's Assistant:Nurse:Orderly :: Engineer:Technologist:Technician:"Wrench Monkey :: CS Major: Programmer: Code Monkey.
You are why we have so many security issues today. Over time either the market won't care (in which case you are right) or the market will decide it doesn't want insecure crapware that regularly causes PR problems and damages the corporate brand. Somehow you might be right, but you are betting much more on this than you realize and if it breaks against you, I won't shed a tear but it will be bloody and ugly.
Personally I dislike the current trends of types after arg names, the only argument I've heard is that it makes parsing easier. Isn't the whole point of a high level language is that the compiler does the work? Why are millions of developers dealing with crappy syntax to make it a bit easier on the handful of people writing a parser.
Because its gotten to the point that languages are fashion statements and whatever compiler writers say gets taking as absolute truth by some in the programming world. There is a language that I won't mention (I've spoken at their conferences on multiple occasions) where I've seen the compiler team outright lie to their programmer community on multiple technical issues because they are desperate to keep growing their language. Making up optimizations they claim their compiler does but doesn't. Lying about the horrible efficiency of their run-time library. Making claims about the types of semantics their Futures can implement that simply are not true. The lead dev on the compiler finally got fed up and quit while giving a talk at one of their conferences because he got tired of being on the hook for bugs in features that simply did not work. And this is one of the better "modern" languages, one that makes Python look like the braindamaged NodeJS clone that it really is.
C++ is pretty strongly typed. It's only static type analysis though, but no weaker than Pascal or Ada.
This is why I avoid discussions about programming languages. C++ is absolutely NOT strongly typed. It does however have a weak variant of static type checking. That's not necessarily a bad thing but the simple fact that C++ has 5 different types of casting operators (C style cast, static, dynamic, const and reinterpret) should have clued you into to the fact that C++'s typing system isn't strongly typed. Cast operators are a really good indicator as to the mathematical strength of a language's type system. If you have no cast operators, then its (almost always) a strongly typed type system. If you do, then it can't be strongly typed (unless there is some way to trace an instance's type history that allows the compiler to ensure things about the instance at compile time) but the type system can still be stronger than a prototype chaining language like JS. Java, Scala and Kotlin would all fall into this category (as would most general purpose programming languages people use in real word settings). Some of those languages can have static type checking which helps but how often have you seen a ReflectionException in Java because that's the consequence of Java choosing dynamic type checking instead of static. The benefit of this trade-off is reflection and runtime classloading.
I have observed that language discussions usually misuse and incorrectly understand CS terms more than any other part programming. I think its that devs tend to defend the languages they use at all costs. Also the terms themselves are very complex and hard to understand and people misuse them more often than they use them correctly (eg strongly typed) in my experience.
As an example, suppose I have a log file of the format:
URL - bytes - epoch - username
If I want to produce some summary statistics from that particular log file, to use in my year-end presentation, a weakly typed language will let me whip up a simple script very quickly.
On the other hand, if I'm deploying production software to the web, where it will encounter unknown user input in different character sets thousands of times per day, I'd want to take a few more minutes of development time to have more robust software. That's when strong typing is good.
You are why we have so many security issues as an industry.
How are a CS major and understanding big O efficiency related? A smart person will quickly grasp this concept. End of story. If you NEED a CS major to get such a simple concept, I really don't want you writing code.
You might think so, but in my experience this is simply not true. I've met many many many people who write code that purport to understand these topics (who can answer simple interview questions about this as well) but then write code that clearly indicates that they don't. CS majors with experience is the best filter I've found for understanding this topic and even that's a bit weak depending on the school. My hypothesis is that there is a certain number of iterations you need to do before you understand most topics and being self taught somehow doesn't ensure those number of repetitions. I do know however that the most efficient large pieces of code I've ever seen were all written by people with CS degrees and experience.
The US needs to make China aware that this state sponsored economic terrorism will no longer be tolerated. I vote that every time there is a theft of US technology, we VOID $10 billion (minimum) of US treasuries held by China. Make it $50 billion if it is a military contractor.
You do realize that this would likely destroy the US's ability to raise capital (sell t-bonds) internationally. Not sure your plan would work as you envision.
Meanwhile Kurzweil has changed his prediction of "when computers will have human-level intelligence" from 2020 to 2029. I guess believing it was going to happen in the next 26 and a half months was cutting it a little too close. I have been reading about his predictions about AI for a couple of decades now and have yet to see any explanation of how he imagines this is going to happen - other than his expectations about hardware capabilities, and that there is still an unspecified "software issue" that needs to be solved. Indeed.
Please please please never associate Kurzweil (who is basically a media personality) with real AI researchers. Nothing Kurzweil has ever said about AI is more informed than speculation.
This isn't her secondary degree tho. She's got a BS and masters in music. That is what she studied.
Also if she is self taught, post that in LinkedIn, along with some projects you've worked on that helped you along the way. Yet, all we get is crickets.
Given the absurd lack of security at Equifax that has come to light in recent days, I don't care what color is her skin or what's between her legs. The CSO was grossly incompetent and she and anyone involved in hiring her should be fired immediately with cause. Its likely the entire security team needs to be replaced and a large amount of the IT infrastructure. It might be easier to just bankrupt them as I have my doubts that an organization that is so clearly rotten from the top down could ever fix itself.
The irony being that CCS combo has pretty much won the charging battle at this point. Only Tesla and Nissan use something else, meanwhile BMW, VW, Audi, Chevrolet, Mercedes, and Ford all use CCS combo for DC charging.
My Volt (Chevy) uses J1772. The CCS combo chargers are mostly used in what I call the "barely legal" EVs. Basically hybrids with bigger battery packs so they can be called EVs and sold in California to cover a legal requirement which means they don't have to give $$ to Telsa to sell cars in California. I don't tend to see them in the more popular EVs that are designed for actual use/impact (Volts and EVs with 300+ mi range).
So, how do I profit from the bubble poppage this time instead of getting screwed like last time?
Do you think stock "puts" are sufficient? Any tips on what companies are good put targets, or is that wandering too far off topic? Just trying to help slashdotters live long and prosper.
Puts are options which means you are asking about security/equity options. You want a short instead of a put as you won't be able to time the crash yourself. Of course, you pay (a very small amount of) interest to keep the short position open but it doesn't expire like a Put does. Constructing the same position with puts would require much higher premiums as you would have to continually re-buy puts as they expire.
Sure, but what's the alternative? People buying shit at random and hoping for the best?
Sure, its essentially what we have now anyway. And it would encourage people to get better at researching products which will over time improve engineering and product quality.
If other roles had such a direct metric that was equally hard to game, I think you'd see more economic incentives being tied to those metrics. For example, I might expect that factories have some kind of incentive based on the number of units a worker can produce that pass QA. It's a pretty good metric of performance that's hard to game.
Its easy to game. Most systems are. In this case, its about promising the impossible and giving away freebies on the backend to make up for it. I've worked at many places where many specific customers went from being profitable to unprofitable due to sales people trying to increase sales but not giving a shit if the entire sale ended up being cash flow positive to the entire company. I've seen it more places than I haven't see it.
Basic rule, if you don't know how to game a system, you probably just don't know enough about that system yet. All systems that manage humans have fraud and gaming in them, its more a question as to what the rate of gaming the system is. And for salespeople, in my experience its a very high rate of gaming.