That will be a harder part for people to get around yeah. Loading at home is not too hard, but making viable smokeless powder is a lot more difficult (and dangerous) then most people think.
Considering people read faster or slower depending on which font they have regular exposure to, while you do not actually notice it on a conscious level, it does bounce around, and it is one of the reasons some people so inexplicably care about such a seemingly silly thing.
"elegant" is whatever is in style at the time the speaker got into programming. People generally consider something elegant if they can look at it and quickly determine what it does, which generally means it has to look like what they are used to reading because that is how our brain tends to deal with reading and patterns. You might be surprised at how much someone's comprehension speed changes if, say, you take a developer who has primarily worked in camelcase and have them read underscore separated code for instance.
Which, without details and context, we do not know which this is. I have met plenty of developers who fail to think about maintainability and plenty who prioritize idealogical artifacts over purpose. I have also known plenty of developers who consider anything they can not scan easily (meaning, the exact style they learned) to be 'sloppy', so from this limited context we do not even know how much is actual (reasonable or not) sloppyness vs aesthetic differences.
If we are going to use mobile phones as a counter example, then Google should start marketing the glasses to teenage girls. That is what pulled cell phones out of the 'niche, geek, and executive' market and into the mainstream.
Actually, the leave is often sited as one of the justifications for why it is naturally for women to be paid less, after all men do not have those big gaps and thus it is only 'natural' that they would advance more and be more valuable to the company.
Yeah, but these are machines designed to defraud players. They actually have a setting in them for 'what percentage of profit should the house get' and over time give out that amount.
The problem is 'doing it right'. Looking for patterns associated with good programmers is exactly what human interviewers are trying to do. From reading the piece it sounds like the author has taken a set of qualities that they think are important to a programmer (most of which sounded very social in nature) and built a search around that. It is little more then klout for engineerings, which means it is an even poorer fit then the domains klout is actually used elsewhere.
All it is really does is exchange one bais for another. It wraps up whatever the metric writer thinks makes 'good' programmers according to their own world view, then puts it in a little black box they hope people will by and trust.
I also wonder what kind of bais might get built in.. I know a lot of programmers who, for instance, feel women simply are not suited to programming and will generally be inferior or will just spend all their time sexing up their male coworkers to get them to do their work for them.. I could easily see assumptions like that seeping in to the metrics.
Great.... so now Klout has moved from sales and marketing to engineering. From reading the piece, that sounds like all this really is, a test of how socially connected and active the programmer is. Introvert and professional who have non-programming hobbies need not apply. I imagine non-OSS and non-web people would also struggle with this since those are domains that tend to be well represented in visible projects, while people in the app and embedded fields tend to not be able to show off their code like that.
One does not even need to resort to 'send a message' or excessive prosecution. While I have no idea what laws are active in Finland, generally tampering with evidence is a pretty serious offense.... and even though they try to act like a government, the MPAA can not claim 'state secrets' in order to hide on of their informants.
The problem is, when we talk about 'networks' what we are really talking about is individual executives who are thinking about their next career move. Being good at a niche isn't sexy, it doesn't get you wows at your next interview... everyone is hoping to prove that they can reach the one demographic that 'matters' because that is the key to social acceptance in the higher executive community and opens up opportunities for advancement. Having a highly successful program or network that serves a less prominent demographic well is a career dead end, so the people who are good at what they do (or are trying to emulate those who advance) avoid it.
Meh, before iPads it was something else. Looking back over the decades, students who seek out reading have always been few and far between, and it is not unusual for them to be stigmatized or even punished for it. We are not a nation that values education or reading and never have been, our heros and role models are generally people who get rich through hard work and force of personalty, with extra points if they did it with a minimal education. iPads might be one of the current toys, but the problem is much more pervasive and deeply rooted in our culture.
Well, it depends on how micro it is. If they legislate specific books then we have a problem, but if they put together a document saying 'hey educational board, this stuff is important, increase the percentage of it in your course designs' then that is not a bad thing.
Many schools do have a certain amount of both sci-fi and fantasy as part of the curriculum, but it is inconstant. Many of the people who set the educational standards still consider both genres to be 'lesser' and 'frivolous' so they tend to not include them in english classes.
When I was in school (35) we had a few sci-fi pieces, but they were mostly short stories, and were probably at a ratio of 1:10 to the rest of the reading. Such works were just not considered 'real' littiture by the people who set the standards and were usually slipped in by english teachers who felt there was something worth discussing in the book.
That all depends on the cost of lift vs the cost of environmental support. Planetary operations mean cheap structures, you can spread out, free air, as much organics as you can harvest, no (or low) water processing cost, etc. You also have all your resources within a few thousand miles of each other... use up an iron deposit? Another one is not far away. Asteroids are pretty diffuse. There is also the quality of life element, workers (either low cost cattle or high priced operators) might not like being cooped up and are more willing to work when there is lots of open space.
And of course there is the question of how expensive life costs are. If you do not care about the place long term you can always use atomic rockets, and who knows what other tech might be involved. Countergrav, or even just a skyhook (if you have a ship already, why not?) might reduce the cost of lift enough to make it nice and cheap. Esp since chasing rocks around in space also costs fuel.
It is actually a known problem in game design, often players do not know what they want, and when they get too much say in the game design you end up with 'i-win' buttons and players quickly getting bored.
You would have to see the wages drop across the whole economy, not just one segment.
This cuts to the heart of a lot of the problems with talking about economic effects of any particular change, the system is more complicated. Right now the only reason that outsourcing is profitable is because some companies do it while others do not, so they decrease their wages while hoping other companies keep their's high... so essentially you have the economic equivalent of the sheep buffer... it is mostly stable as long as most employers are not doing it, but the few who are get significant economic benefits. But as more and more do it, things get less stable since the burden of keeping a strong middle class falls on fewer and fewer industries. Same with the visa workers, it is profitable as long as not many companies or industries are doing it, but if it gets too pervasive your sales start dropping too.
The problem is 'quality' is subjective. Rating are a reflection on what a whole bunch of people consider good quality, which may or may not match up with what other people think is or isn't.
Sadly, I think the exact opposite would happen. "let the mob vote", when enough of the mob notices the process, tends to result in very bland things.. it is design by comity taken to an even greater extreme.... larger number of people with even less domain knowledge.
Though when I think about it, we take it for a given (not without some modeling behind it, but still) that there is a good even distribution of raw materials in the galaxy, but I guess it is possible that is not the case. It is already known that our star system developed in another part of the galaxy and drifted to our current 'between arms' position... I guess I could kinda see something like the area our star formed had unusually large amounts of iron and the area we are in now is unusually low on it.... then we get aliens coming and getting all eye buggy that our core is made of iron and it is so cheap we waste it on things like thumbtacks.
To build off that, there is also a pervasive idea that science will simply continue on and that there will always been increases and improvements, when it is possible that we will hit some physical limits that there is no getting past. We could reach a point where, at least on the lower (math, physics, chemistry) there simply is nothing left to figure out and no new capabilities/technologies will ever come out of those domains again.
Even if it doesn't take all that much resources (i.e. someone discovers some kind of short-cut drive that is cheap to operate), chances are most systems are going to have pretty much the same raw materials.
Though such a move would probably be rooted in political or social priorities rather then strict economical ones, getting away from rules or consequences for instance. There is also the question, of course, of how common are habitable planets... I imagine any creature that makes it to space has enough of a mental need to spread out that they might like the fact there is a whole planet that is not registered anywhere in their list of deeds and thus is legally unowned.
Slashdot Mirror
That will be a harder part for people to get around yeah. Loading at home is not too hard, but making viable smokeless powder is a lot more difficult (and dangerous) then most people think.
Considering people read faster or slower depending on which font they have regular exposure to, while you do not actually notice it on a conscious level, it does bounce around, and it is one of the reasons some people so inexplicably care about such a seemingly silly thing.
"elegant" is whatever is in style at the time the speaker got into programming. People generally consider something elegant if they can look at it and quickly determine what it does, which generally means it has to look like what they are used to reading because that is how our brain tends to deal with reading and patterns. You might be surprised at how much someone's comprehension speed changes if, say, you take a developer who has primarily worked in camelcase and have them read underscore separated code for instance.
Which, without details and context, we do not know which this is. I have met plenty of developers who fail to think about maintainability and plenty who prioritize idealogical artifacts over purpose. I have also known plenty of developers who consider anything they can not scan easily (meaning, the exact style they learned) to be 'sloppy', so from this limited context we do not even know how much is actual (reasonable or not) sloppyness vs aesthetic differences.
If we are going to use mobile phones as a counter example, then Google should start marketing the glasses to teenage girls. That is what pulled cell phones out of the 'niche, geek, and executive' market and into the mainstream.
Actually, the leave is often sited as one of the justifications for why it is naturally for women to be paid less, after all men do not have those big gaps and thus it is only 'natural' that they would advance more and be more valuable to the company.
Yeah, but these are machines designed to defraud players. They actually have a setting in them for 'what percentage of profit should the house get' and over time give out that amount.
The problem is 'doing it right'. Looking for patterns associated with good programmers is exactly what human interviewers are trying to do. From reading the piece it sounds like the author has taken a set of qualities that they think are important to a programmer (most of which sounded very social in nature) and built a search around that. It is little more then klout for engineerings, which means it is an even poorer fit then the domains klout is actually used elsewhere.
All it is really does is exchange one bais for another. It wraps up whatever the metric writer thinks makes 'good' programmers according to their own world view, then puts it in a little black box they hope people will by and trust.
I also wonder what kind of bais might get built in.. I know a lot of programmers who, for instance, feel women simply are not suited to programming and will generally be inferior or will just spend all their time sexing up their male coworkers to get them to do their work for them.. I could easily see assumptions like that seeping in to the metrics.
Great.... so now Klout has moved from sales and marketing to engineering. From reading the piece, that sounds like all this really is, a test of how socially connected and active the programmer is. Introvert and professional who have non-programming hobbies need not apply. I imagine non-OSS and non-web people would also struggle with this since those are domains that tend to be well represented in visible projects, while people in the app and embedded fields tend to not be able to show off their code like that.
So yeah... not impressed.
No, but unless you have an army there is not much you can do about it.
One does not even need to resort to 'send a message' or excessive prosecution. While I have no idea what laws are active in Finland, generally tampering with evidence is a pretty serious offense.... and even though they try to act like a government, the MPAA can not claim 'state secrets' in order to hide on of their informants.
The problem is, when we talk about 'networks' what we are really talking about is individual executives who are thinking about their next career move. Being good at a niche isn't sexy, it doesn't get you wows at your next interview... everyone is hoping to prove that they can reach the one demographic that 'matters' because that is the key to social acceptance in the higher executive community and opens up opportunities for advancement. Having a highly successful program or network that serves a less prominent demographic well is a career dead end, so the people who are good at what they do (or are trying to emulate those who advance) avoid it.
Meh, before iPads it was something else. Looking back over the decades, students who seek out reading have always been few and far between, and it is not unusual for them to be stigmatized or even punished for it. We are not a nation that values education or reading and never have been, our heros and role models are generally people who get rich through hard work and force of personalty, with extra points if they did it with a minimal education. iPads might be one of the current toys, but the problem is much more pervasive and deeply rooted in our culture.
Well, it depends on how micro it is. If they legislate specific books then we have a problem, but if they put together a document saying 'hey educational board, this stuff is important, increase the percentage of it in your course designs' then that is not a bad thing.
Many schools do have a certain amount of both sci-fi and fantasy as part of the curriculum, but it is inconstant. Many of the people who set the educational standards still consider both genres to be 'lesser' and 'frivolous' so they tend to not include them in english classes.
When I was in school (35) we had a few sci-fi pieces, but they were mostly short stories, and were probably at a ratio of 1:10 to the rest of the reading. Such works were just not considered 'real' littiture by the people who set the standards and were usually slipped in by english teachers who felt there was something worth discussing in the book.
That all depends on the cost of lift vs the cost of environmental support. Planetary operations mean cheap structures, you can spread out, free air, as much organics as you can harvest, no (or low) water processing cost, etc. You also have all your resources within a few thousand miles of each other... use up an iron deposit? Another one is not far away. Asteroids are pretty diffuse. There is also the quality of life element, workers (either low cost cattle or high priced operators) might not like being cooped up and are more willing to work when there is lots of open space.
And of course there is the question of how expensive life costs are. If you do not care about the place long term you can always use atomic rockets, and who knows what other tech might be involved. Countergrav, or even just a skyhook (if you have a ship already, why not?) might reduce the cost of lift enough to make it nice and cheap. Esp since chasing rocks around in space also costs fuel.
It is actually a known problem in game design, often players do not know what they want, and when they get too much say in the game design you end up with 'i-win' buttons and players quickly getting bored.
You would have to see the wages drop across the whole economy, not just one segment.
This cuts to the heart of a lot of the problems with talking about economic effects of any particular change, the system is more complicated. Right now the only reason that outsourcing is profitable is because some companies do it while others do not, so they decrease their wages while hoping other companies keep their's high... so essentially you have the economic equivalent of the sheep buffer... it is mostly stable as long as most employers are not doing it, but the few who are get significant economic benefits. But as more and more do it, things get less stable since the burden of keeping a strong middle class falls on fewer and fewer industries. Same with the visa workers, it is profitable as long as not many companies or industries are doing it, but if it gets too pervasive your sales start dropping too.
The problem is 'quality' is subjective. Rating are a reflection on what a whole bunch of people consider good quality, which may or may not match up with what other people think is or isn't.
Sadly, I think the exact opposite would happen. "let the mob vote", when enough of the mob notices the process, tends to result in very bland things.. it is design by comity taken to an even greater extreme.... larger number of people with even less domain knowledge.
Though when I think about it, we take it for a given (not without some modeling behind it, but still) that there is a good even distribution of raw materials in the galaxy, but I guess it is possible that is not the case. It is already known that our star system developed in another part of the galaxy and drifted to our current 'between arms' position... I guess I could kinda see something like the area our star formed had unusually large amounts of iron and the area we are in now is unusually low on it.... then we get aliens coming and getting all eye buggy that our core is made of iron and it is so cheap we waste it on things like thumbtacks.
To build off that, there is also a pervasive idea that science will simply continue on and that there will always been increases and improvements, when it is possible that we will hit some physical limits that there is no getting past. We could reach a point where, at least on the lower (math, physics, chemistry) there simply is nothing left to figure out and no new capabilities/technologies will ever come out of those domains again.
Even if it doesn't take all that much resources (i.e. someone discovers some kind of short-cut drive that is cheap to operate), chances are most systems are going to have pretty much the same raw materials.
Though such a move would probably be rooted in political or social priorities rather then strict economical ones, getting away from rules or consequences for instance. There is also the question, of course, of how common are habitable planets... I imagine any creature that makes it to space has enough of a mental need to spread out that they might like the fact there is a whole planet that is not registered anywhere in their list of deeds and thus is legally unowned.