And now that we [evolved] these relatively fantastic brains... most people don't bother to try.
If they have to "try", then they are going against the natural wiring of their brains. If you have to depend on mass discipline for people to be logical, you will probably fail. We are not a logical species. Our systems of organization have to take this into account.
And even more fantastic example of this was the 2008 presidential election.
I thought the 2004 election was such a display. One of the most powerfully emotional debate moments I've ever seen was when W made the case that "I don't care what some people think about the Iraq war, I believe it's the right thing to do in my heart, and that it will eventually bear fruit." (paraphrased)
While I disagreed with the war, he seemed very genuine in the way he stated it. In the ugly world of tit-for-tat DC politics, genuineness stands out.
Of course, one can be genuinely flat wrong. But it was a powerful emotional appeal.
To put it another way, we evolved from chimp-like apes and are still merely apes. Just because we can talk and use symbols to communicate doesn't make us non-ape-like. We still collectively follow the shiny red ball at the expense of logic (or a shiny orange ball of fur).
I see at work almost half of what's done is waste due to lack of planning and office politics. The "leaders" are posturing buffoons who are mostly clueless about the subject matter and easily steered by bullshit-artists. None of the yes-men/yes-women dare offend the leader's fragile ego by introducing reality into the conversation. If and when another alpha-male wannabe comes along to challenge them, it turns into a nasty king-of-the-hill war that drags everything into it.
I now try to think of work as a jungle safari instead of a place of economic productivity. The first is more fitting and less stressful: you are then not surprised when a poo-flinging fight breaks out, because after all, humans are nothing but animals. I've never seen anybody yell at a chimp, "Why don't you just be rational!?"
probably significantly less complicated than the languages that are around today
COBOL has been around long enough to be a victim of featuritus. I has a lot of built-in operations and short-cuts that are great if you know them, but could trip up a newbie.
But the hard part of a typical COBOL job is probably learning your way around many thousands of lines of existing programs. I've always found writing code simpler than reading code written by somebody else, especially if it's poorly structured, documented, commented, etc.
The language and syntax the business logic is written in is secondary to that issue. Readable code can be written in any language, but so can crazy pasta.
If you make it possible to attach methods to objects at the lowest levels, then you usually don't need to pass lambdas.
Take a GUI push button, why can't one simply define an OnClick method for a given button in Java? That shouldn't be asking to much. Simply blur the distinction between class and object, or make it a class-definer option. Java simply has a limited OOP model.
Can someone present a use-case in typical work coding where lambdas are a must, or at least a huge code savings?
Stretching your brain is a good thing, but the work environment cannot assume a ready supply of enlightened developers to maintain high brow code. Some learning is best on your own time.
Okay, I'll agree there are human medical reasons to be interested in tardigrades. But in the context of space contamination, that's not really a factor.
I meant Clippy & clones, not necessarily MS-branded Clippy. It's kind of like Jacuzzi and Kleenex where the brand becomes a generic word, as in "You Clippified your interface". Maybe Clippy is not quite there yet, though.
It's fake news that my jokes are bad. I make the best jokes and everybody knows it. Rasmussen polls confirm it! And I have the most mod points, which shows I know humor. You are a low-energy slashdotter with no mod points. Good people tell me you hacked your way into here after Commander Taco tossed your loser ass out for such low ratings. You're not even a real user and your body language shows it.
Clippy just won't die. When you try to kill a zombie, you just make it zombier.
Clippy: "Mr. President, it looks like you are trying to blame another politician for your snafu. Would you like some help? I can offer you Conspiracy Generator 3.0 at a discount today..."
There's a trade-off. More casual or what may be called "scripting" languages in general are designed to limp rather than halt or die, while type-heavy languages (usually compiled) tend to die (halt execution) rather than limp.
Which is "better" depends. Maybe the rocket would still have done it's job without the bounds checking, but perhaps it might also have careened into a city rather than self-destruct or stop and fall into the ocean.
When dealing with life, money, and laws; a halt is usually preferred over letting the system force some default "guess" and try to continue on, which may cause more problems than outright stopping. If a paycheck printing system encounters something like a numeric overflow or null pointer, you probably want it to stop rather than issue paychecks that may be flat out wrong, such as paying the janitor 2 million dollars.
"I have the best job-creating chaos! Nobody knows chaos better than me. I'm a Yuuuuge fan of chaos. Beautiful plentiful chaos. There will be so much job-creating chaos that people will be screaming, Don, stop the jobs, stop the jobs, too many. Make America Chaotic Again!"
Cassini actually flew through the higher parts of Enceladus's water jets to sample them. It's possible residual life on the probe could have been blown off and drifted down to the moon's surface. Thus, if we later find earth-like life on that moon, we cannot rule out probe-related contamination. It was deemed highly unlikely, but ya never know.
If the jets spew dust-sized particles also, and a spore ends up attaching itself to one, it could gain some radiation protection, and if it relatively quickly falls back to the moon's surface, there is tad chance of survival. It takes only one.
Future probes to Enceladus and Europa may do even more water jet visits to better sample the water vapor. Cassini wasn't purpose-built for plume sniffing, but future probes may be to get more accurate measurements.
I wonder why they only mentioned Tardigrades ("water bears")? There's plenty of bacteria that's even more durable in space, and there's probably far more of their spores on the probe than Tardigrades.
Tardigrades get attention because they are durable multi-cellular animals rather than single cells, and thus a bit "more like us". But single-celled organisms like bacteria still hold the durability records because they have fewer parts to "break" from radiation and temperature extremes.
It would be a hoot, though, if human explorers visit Saturn in the future to find giant scary water bears, like manatees with teeth. "Damn you, Cassini!"
WTF are these guys in their nice, air-conditioned office buildings doing that's so daring?
I challenged the boss's bonehead idea and thus might get fired. Like Cassini, I'll also have to say goodbye to my rings and be plunged into the scenery.
What does the machine language for these things look like? Does anybody know of a bare-bones example to illustrate how it does a simple sample neural net? Is it only for the offset shifting kind of NN's common for language AI, or other kinds also?
But even if your list "works", it doesn't scale to mass numbers of workers laid from factories. There's not enough openings for them all even if they all worked 80 hours a week and drank lots of caffeine.
Slashdot Mirror
If they have to "try", then they are going against the natural wiring of their brains. If you have to depend on mass discipline for people to be logical, you will probably fail. We are not a logical species. Our systems of organization have to take this into account.
I thought the 2004 election was such a display. One of the most powerfully emotional debate moments I've ever seen was when W made the case that "I don't care what some people think about the Iraq war, I believe it's the right thing to do in my heart, and that it will eventually bear fruit." (paraphrased)
While I disagreed with the war, he seemed very genuine in the way he stated it. In the ugly world of tit-for-tat DC politics, genuineness stands out.
Of course, one can be genuinely flat wrong. But it was a powerful emotional appeal.
To put it another way, we evolved from chimp-like apes and are still merely apes. Just because we can talk and use symbols to communicate doesn't make us non-ape-like. We still collectively follow the shiny red ball at the expense of logic (or a shiny orange ball of fur).
I see at work almost half of what's done is waste due to lack of planning and office politics. The "leaders" are posturing buffoons who are mostly clueless about the subject matter and easily steered by bullshit-artists. None of the yes-men/yes-women dare offend the leader's fragile ego by introducing reality into the conversation. If and when another alpha-male wannabe comes along to challenge them, it turns into a nasty king-of-the-hill war that drags everything into it.
I now try to think of work as a jungle safari instead of a place of economic productivity. The first is more fitting and less stressful: you are then not surprised when a poo-flinging fight breaks out, because after all, humans are nothing but animals. I've never seen anybody yell at a chimp, "Why don't you just be rational!?"
COBOL has been around long enough to be a victim of featuritus. I has a lot of built-in operations and short-cuts that are great if you know them, but could trip up a newbie.
But the hard part of a typical COBOL job is probably learning your way around many thousands of lines of existing programs. I've always found writing code simpler than reading code written by somebody else, especially if it's poorly structured, documented, commented, etc.
The language and syntax the business logic is written in is secondary to that issue. Readable code can be written in any language, but so can crazy pasta.
If you make it possible to attach methods to objects at the lowest levels, then you usually don't need to pass lambdas.
Take a GUI push button, why can't one simply define an OnClick method for a given button in Java? That shouldn't be asking to much. Simply blur the distinction between class and object, or make it a class-definer option. Java simply has a limited OOP model.
Can someone present a use-case in typical work coding where lambdas are a must, or at least a huge code savings?
Congratulations Microsoft, you re-invented DOS.
Stretching your brain is a good thing, but the work environment cannot assume a ready supply of enlightened developers to maintain high brow code. Some learning is best on your own time.
You only need lambdas in Java because it has a weak oop model. Lamdas are hype. Fix oop and their need practilly evaporates.
They were just trying to make ends into meat.
While Enceladus is certainly enticing, a boat-probe to a Titan lake tickles my "cool" bone. (Yes, I think I actually have one.)
Okay, I'll agree there are human medical reasons to be interested in tardigrades. But in the context of space contamination, that's not really a factor.
I meant Clippy & clones, not necessarily MS-branded Clippy. It's kind of like Jacuzzi and Kleenex where the brand becomes a generic word, as in "You Clippified your interface". Maybe Clippy is not quite there yet, though.
If you lie, steal, cheat, manipulate; and STILL cannot turn a profit, then you truly suck at business.
It's fake news that my jokes are bad. I make the best jokes and everybody knows it. Rasmussen polls confirm it! And I have the most mod points, which shows I know humor. You are a low-energy slashdotter with no mod points. Good people tell me you hacked your way into here after Commander Taco tossed your loser ass out for such low ratings. You're not even a real user and your body language shows it.
Clippy just won't die. When you try to kill a zombie, you just make it zombier.
Clippy: "Mr. President, it looks like you are trying to blame another politician for your snafu. Would you like some help? I can offer you Conspiracy Generator 3.0 at a discount today..."
There's a trade-off. More casual or what may be called "scripting" languages in general are designed to limp rather than halt or die, while type-heavy languages (usually compiled) tend to die (halt execution) rather than limp.
Which is "better" depends. Maybe the rocket would still have done it's job without the bounds checking, but perhaps it might also have careened into a city rather than self-destruct or stop and fall into the ocean.
When dealing with life, money, and laws; a halt is usually preferred over letting the system force some default "guess" and try to continue on, which may cause more problems than outright stopping. If a paycheck printing system encounters something like a numeric overflow or null pointer, you probably want it to stop rather than issue paychecks that may be flat out wrong, such as paying the janitor 2 million dollars.
"I have the best job-creating chaos! Nobody knows chaos better than me. I'm a Yuuuuge fan of chaos. Beautiful plentiful chaos. There will be so much job-creating chaos that people will be screaming, Don, stop the jobs, stop the jobs, too many. Make America Chaotic Again!"
Cassini actually flew through the higher parts of Enceladus's water jets to sample them. It's possible residual life on the probe could have been blown off and drifted down to the moon's surface. Thus, if we later find earth-like life on that moon, we cannot rule out probe-related contamination. It was deemed highly unlikely, but ya never know.
If the jets spew dust-sized particles also, and a spore ends up attaching itself to one, it could gain some radiation protection, and if it relatively quickly falls back to the moon's surface, there is tad chance of survival. It takes only one.
Future probes to Enceladus and Europa may do even more water jet visits to better sample the water vapor. Cassini wasn't purpose-built for plume sniffing, but future probes may be to get more accurate measurements.
The directive the trek captains always made excuses around?
"But I have to protect our crew-mate Riker from growing 2 giant green dicks after screwing a Tenticon!"
I wonder why they only mentioned Tardigrades ("water bears")? There's plenty of bacteria that's even more durable in space, and there's probably far more of their spores on the probe than Tardigrades.
Tardigrades get attention because they are durable multi-cellular animals rather than single cells, and thus a bit "more like us". But single-celled organisms like bacteria still hold the durability records because they have fewer parts to "break" from radiation and temperature extremes.
It would be a hoot, though, if human explorers visit Saturn in the future to find giant scary water bears, like manatees with teeth. "Damn you, Cassini!"
(Obligotory meme reference)
You mean wants to be. There's a reason they are not.
I challenged the boss's bonehead idea and thus might get fired. Like Cassini, I'll also have to say goodbye to my rings and be plunged into the scenery.
What does the machine language for these things look like? Does anybody know of a bare-bones example to illustrate how it does a simple sample neural net? Is it only for the offset shifting kind of NN's common for language AI, or other kinds also?
How is that a step up? Bribee versus briber; both are slime
I was talking general, not necessarily IT.
But even if your list "works", it doesn't scale to mass numbers of workers laid from factories. There's not enough openings for them all even if they all worked 80 hours a week and drank lots of caffeine.