Wait, so background checks and insurance are incompatible with the future? I am not sure that is a good direction to be going just to save a few bucks in a race to the bottom.
*nod* and consumers/customers are generally not willing to pay for software that is well audited. Years ago we did case studies on the 'best' software in the world. Per line it was extremely expensive and the development process was more structured than developers trained in the modern market would accept, but wow was it stable and about as bug free as you can get.
Does anyone actually use modern FORTRAN though? I only ever see the '77 variant and the rare job postings I looked into indicated that was the version they were hoping to find people for.
Eris forbid consumers take any blame or responsibility for things. Sure we complain if prices go up or our 401k does not grow as quickly, but hey, it is all the corporations faults!
People who could not get those 120k/year jobs but still want to work on something interesting?
The higher the pay, typically, the more engaging the work. But there are far more programmers working on dull stuff for 60k/year that could probably use the hobby lets their brains turn to mush.
Though keeping with that analogy, cars might all be pretty much the same, but hand someone a motorcycle or a big rig and the learning curve makes it so knowing the rules of the road is barely even a start. And people handed a boat are really confused.
This becomes an even bigger deal if you are talking about jumping entire language families. Moving within things like C, Java, C++, Python, etc, most of the thought patterns associated with how you solve problems goes with you. Throw that same programmer into a FORTRAN, LISP, or eris forbid Prologue, and there will be a larger learning curve than just the syntax and limitations.
I see ads for COBOL now and then, but I am East Coast where a lot of that infrastructure is sitting. While not every day kinds of ads, when I was job hunting I would see at least a couple per week. About the same as FORTRAN.
While not 'slaughter', there is precedent for the energy industry in PA making life uncomfortable enough that residents leave and thus the price of land drops. The nicer the area to live, the more it costs to extract, but the sloppier your extraction the worse of an area it is to live and thus is cheaper, so the companies have an incentive to, if not be outright malicious, at least be sloppy since consequences favor them.
It is highly dependent on the region and how deep the well is. The point here is that wells which were appropriate for the area are now showing signs of chemicals that would not be there otherwise.
Well, that is the philosophical divide in the US. Are people responsible for the effects their actions have on others, or are they responsible for only the effect their actions have on themselves? That is the bridge people have trouble crossing when talking about responsibility between conservatives/libertarians and liberals. One believes your fate is in your own hands, you are singularly responsible for yourself, while the other believes that we bear responsibility for our actions on others. Oddly enough one tends to benefit the strong and the majority group, while the other takes from it.
One can not just blame the company here since 'low prices above all else' is the consumer model and we reward the company that produces the cheapest materials. Since most of the people benefiting from this do not live around the wells, and the company is not liable to for property or health damage (and thus not increasing the price), most customers will get behind the company against the residents.
The thing is, even with that 'planetary amounts of energy' is there is still no way to convert that energy into the effect. Think of it like calculating how much energy it would take to put a baseball in orbit. We can figure out the energy change in doing so independent of how that energy would actually be created and applied. In the case of the baseball we have known mechanisms, like chemical rockets. But in the case of the warp drive, they can work out how much energy something would take, but not how that manipulation could actually happen. Unless someone comes up with a mechanism to convert energy into gravity, it really is just a 'consequences of interesting but impossible thing' thought experiment.
In the same way that relativity was an edge case of newtonian physics. Things started to break down under certain extreme conditions, but the older models still held true across the vast majority of cases.
You are also making a lot of assumptions about what this 'means'. Right now all we have is 'energy goes in, thrust comes out'. For all we know it could just be knocking electrons out of the metal casing and those are the thrust. Still interesting and requires some refinements, but does not break down all known physics.
If only it worked that way. I have worked with programmers who drive others away, crow, in my exit interview at my last company I specifically referenced another programmers for why I was leaving, and I was not even alone in this! But he was a '10x programmer' and was 'too valuable' to fire. Last I heard he was moving up the ladder because he has 'proven himself as a lead'. I can also recall a manager I had who, within the first month of him being brought in had 20% of his developers quit, referencing him as WHY they were quitting. But he was a superstar, and last I checked he is now the CEO of the company, with 95% of the staff gone (and down to 1 or 2 developers), and he is credited with keeping the company afloat.
So yeah, in a conflict between a favored son and 'regular' developers, companies will bend over backwards to find reasons to not drop the problem maker. It is always a failing in the person who makes less money.
Thing is, being a '10x programmer' is more about image than objective ability. Given the strength of the 'brilliant asshole' myth, it is one of the major images one can adopt to help convince people that they are brilliant, and they will often get reenforcement out of it since people buy into it.
You also forget that in many people's eyes, 'normal' programmers not being able to maintain a 'brilliant' one's code is their failing, not the superstar.
More like personality. Being a rock star in programming has nothing to do with output or quality, but of convincing peers and managers that you are good. The greatest trait to have for becoming a rock star is narcissism and the social skills (even if they fashionably broken) to pass that off as competence. Most 'rock stars' I have worked with generally needed drones to clean up their work, but they were great at giving the impression they walked on water to anyone who mattered.
I think it is less a problem with how programming is taught, and more one with how programming is evaluated. Programmers, as a subculture, have serious issues separating stylistic from functional differences, with people looking for things that scan the way they write, with tests for readability and correctness really coming down to 'did the person do it the way I would?'.
Both variants are floating around. I mostly see the 'U' view of things in younger west coast programmers with fat wallets and a superiority complex, thus anyone who thinks like them is a superstar while anyone different 'sucks.
Wrong 'drive'. The space warping one is a completely different project, and to even call it a 'project' would be generous since at the moment it is just a thought experiment and some fun math. It was the result of a bit of 'if we could do this impossible thing, what would the consequences be?'.
No, not really. If it works, it means they have found another edge case where things get a bit stranger. All of the rest of known physics will still be in place.
BTW - cold fusion turned out to be a fraud, despite people clinging to the hope even today.
Since human behavior has not changed all that much over time, medieval history is actually a really good starting place for analyzing modern political structures. It is not unusual to take test cases from hundreds of years ago (where we know the factors and outcomes) and plug them into models to see if they produce the expected results.
Though on the whole it is kinda sad how little respect we have for specialization that does not feed into consumer culture.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so background checks and insurance are incompatible with the future? I am not sure that is a good direction to be going just to save a few bucks in a race to the bottom.
*nod* and consumers/customers are generally not willing to pay for software that is well audited. Years ago we did case studies on the 'best' software in the world. Per line it was extremely expensive and the development process was more structured than developers trained in the modern market would accept, but wow was it stable and about as bug free as you can get.
Does anyone actually use modern FORTRAN though? I only ever see the '77 variant and the rare job postings I looked into indicated that was the version they were hoping to find people for.
Eris forbid consumers take any blame or responsibility for things. Sure we complain if prices go up or our 401k does not grow as quickly, but hey, it is all the corporations faults!
People who could not get those 120k/year jobs but still want to work on something interesting?
The higher the pay, typically, the more engaging the work. But there are far more programmers working on dull stuff for 60k/year that could probably use the hobby lets their brains turn to mush.
Though keeping with that analogy, cars might all be pretty much the same, but hand someone a motorcycle or a big rig and the learning curve makes it so knowing the rules of the road is barely even a start. And people handed a boat are really confused.
This becomes an even bigger deal if you are talking about jumping entire language families. Moving within things like C, Java, C++, Python, etc, most of the thought patterns associated with how you solve problems goes with you. Throw that same programmer into a FORTRAN, LISP, or eris forbid Prologue, and there will be a larger learning curve than just the syntax and limitations.
I see ads for COBOL now and then, but I am East Coast where a lot of that infrastructure is sitting. While not every day kinds of ads, when I was job hunting I would see at least a couple per week. About the same as FORTRAN.
While not 'slaughter', there is precedent for the energy industry in PA making life uncomfortable enough that residents leave and thus the price of land drops. The nicer the area to live, the more it costs to extract, but the sloppier your extraction the worse of an area it is to live and thus is cheaper, so the companies have an incentive to, if not be outright malicious, at least be sloppy since consequences favor them.
It is highly dependent on the region and how deep the well is. The point here is that wells which were appropriate for the area are now showing signs of chemicals that would not be there otherwise.
Poes law strikes, since I can not tell if the poster is joking or not.
Well, that is the philosophical divide in the US. Are people responsible for the effects their actions have on others, or are they responsible for only the effect their actions have on themselves? That is the bridge people have trouble crossing when talking about responsibility between conservatives/libertarians and liberals. One believes your fate is in your own hands, you are singularly responsible for yourself, while the other believes that we bear responsibility for our actions on others. Oddly enough one tends to benefit the strong and the majority group, while the other takes from it.
One can not just blame the company here since 'low prices above all else' is the consumer model and we reward the company that produces the cheapest materials. Since most of the people benefiting from this do not live around the wells, and the company is not liable to for property or health damage (and thus not increasing the price), most customers will get behind the company against the residents.
Heh. That is another good way putting it too.
The thing is, even with that 'planetary amounts of energy' is there is still no way to convert that energy into the effect. Think of it like calculating how much energy it would take to put a baseball in orbit. We can figure out the energy change in doing so independent of how that energy would actually be created and applied. In the case of the baseball we have known mechanisms, like chemical rockets. But in the case of the warp drive, they can work out how much energy something would take, but not how that manipulation could actually happen. Unless someone comes up with a mechanism to convert energy into gravity, it really is just a 'consequences of interesting but impossible thing' thought experiment.
In the same way that relativity was an edge case of newtonian physics. Things started to break down under certain extreme conditions, but the older models still held true across the vast majority of cases.
You are also making a lot of assumptions about what this 'means'. Right now all we have is 'energy goes in, thrust comes out'. For all we know it could just be knocking electrons out of the metal casing and those are the thrust. Still interesting and requires some refinements, but does not break down all known physics.
If only it worked that way. I have worked with programmers who drive others away, crow, in my exit interview at my last company I specifically referenced another programmers for why I was leaving, and I was not even alone in this! But he was a '10x programmer' and was 'too valuable' to fire. Last I heard he was moving up the ladder because he has 'proven himself as a lead'. I can also recall a manager I had who, within the first month of him being brought in had 20% of his developers quit, referencing him as WHY they were quitting. But he was a superstar, and last I checked he is now the CEO of the company, with 95% of the staff gone (and down to 1 or 2 developers), and he is credited with keeping the company afloat.
So yeah, in a conflict between a favored son and 'regular' developers, companies will bend over backwards to find reasons to not drop the problem maker. It is always a failing in the person who makes less money.
Thing is, being a '10x programmer' is more about image than objective ability. Given the strength of the 'brilliant asshole' myth, it is one of the major images one can adopt to help convince people that they are brilliant, and they will often get reenforcement out of it since people buy into it.
You also forget that in many people's eyes, 'normal' programmers not being able to maintain a 'brilliant' one's code is their failing, not the superstar.
More like personality. Being a rock star in programming has nothing to do with output or quality, but of convincing peers and managers that you are good. The greatest trait to have for becoming a rock star is narcissism and the social skills (even if they fashionably broken) to pass that off as competence. Most 'rock stars' I have worked with generally needed drones to clean up their work, but they were great at giving the impression they walked on water to anyone who mattered.
I think it is less a problem with how programming is taught, and more one with how programming is evaluated. Programmers, as a subculture, have serious issues separating stylistic from functional differences, with people looking for things that scan the way they write, with tests for readability and correctness really coming down to 'did the person do it the way I would?'.
Both variants are floating around. I mostly see the 'U' view of things in younger west coast programmers with fat wallets and a superiority complex, thus anyone who thinks like them is a superstar while anyone different 'sucks.
Except there is no reason to think it is a 'warp drive'.
Wrong 'drive'. The space warping one is a completely different project, and to even call it a 'project' would be generous since at the moment it is just a thought experiment and some fun math. It was the result of a bit of 'if we could do this impossible thing, what would the consequences be?'.
No, not really. If it works, it means they have found another edge case where things get a bit stranger. All of the rest of known physics will still be in place.
BTW - cold fusion turned out to be a fraud, despite people clinging to the hope even today.
Since human behavior has not changed all that much over time, medieval history is actually a really good starting place for analyzing modern political structures. It is not unusual to take test cases from hundreds of years ago (where we know the factors and outcomes) and plug them into models to see if they produce the expected results.
Though on the whole it is kinda sad how little respect we have for specialization that does not feed into consumer culture.