Hey, Trump is hardly a conservative either, as Cruz is happy to point out. He's a flip-floppy centrist.
His main supporters are either people who feel burned by "free" trade and leaky borders, or those who want a Putin-like authoritarian.
He generally polls about 10 to 15 percentage points behind Hillary. It's unlikely to change significantly before the final election: both have been in the limelight a good while.
The only realistic chance I see him of winning is if the email mess finally snags H once and for all, per investigation. Trump polls roughly the same as Sanders in a head-to-head survey.
Although, something tells me Trump would continue to put his foot in his mouth such that he'll trash every demographic eventually, sinking his chances. Sanders is more disciplined that way. All Sanders has to do is run soundbite ads of all the wacky things Trump says, and there are plenty.
Well, typically about half of marketing is accurate and/or useful information, the other half is spin.
And I'm not talking just about consumer marketing, but also marketing to organizations and professional or large-scale investors. This is probably where USA "shines" the best.
I remember calling company after company in the mid-1990's trying to sell them web sites. They would often tell me "our customers will never be on the Internet" and I had to convince them that the investment would give them...
In the mid 90's they were right: the only people on the web were youngsters with no money to spend. I tried entrepreneurial projects myself then. For most product categories, it was premature.
He didn't trigger the Great Recession. Financial deregulation is the major cause. We can see this because countries who kept their regulations in place didn't have mortgage crashes.
Although bubbles in general are perhaps inevitable in capitalism, being they've been happening for 400-odd years and nobody has figured out how to stop them. We may learn to prevent a given TYPE of bubble, but we invent new types.
It may be possible to create a composite metric that combines lots of factors, but the press and public usually don't take to these because they are too hard to verify and/or understand.
Average humans prefer imperfect but easy-to-understand/verify statistics over complicated ones that may be more useful.
The Gini coefficient for measuring wealth inequality, for example is a pretty good metric for inequality, but the public rejects it for "the 1%" metrics, such as the top 1% have % share of all US wealth.
Forcing humans to be logical is mostly a lost cause, or incremental project at best.
When a MBA degree became desirable than an engineering degree, Americans became more interested in imaginary wealth than creating and improving things
What you don't get is that America's comparative advantage is bullshit, AKA "marketing".
Science and math are the same in Timbuktu as here, so science and math brains are a cheap commodity on the world market. We cannot compete here on those.
All the bullshit financial and tech fads and bubbles start in USA for a reason.
About the only time funds from other countries flow into the USA is when we trick them into the next bubble. They keep falling for it, perhaps as a kind of Ponzi scheme where they want to profit on it before the bottom falls out. Thus, they may know better, but are hoping to sell to even bigger suckers.
But, the 3rd world hasn't figured out how to bullshit to the developed world yet, leaving that specialty to us still. If and when they figure it out, then we may lose our last comparative advantage and become a 3rd-world country.
As the 3rd world climbs up to the next rung on the following ladder, we have to skip ahead to the next level, and make that our comparative advantage.
By default, rm will ask you to confirm you want to delete every single file, one at a time, before it's removed.
That's not practical when working with lots of files. The default should probably be summary statistics and/or review options, and then a confirmation. If the default is rarely useful, then people get into the habit of not using the default, which defeats the very purpose of a default. My description of the complaint could use better wording, I do admit.
Putting some kind of "sanity limit" on a command is also a useful idea. For example, the hypothetical "rm -s5000" could mean stop if the command affects more than 5000 files and/or folders. This is not the same as stopping after 5000, but cancelling the entire command if it will impact more than 5000 if continued.
A variation would be to prompt if more than the stated limit. If you run it in batch mode, then a prompt request would typically stop the batch process and/or wait for user confirmation. This is probably closer to what we really want.
Well, if you want a fuller picture, you need more metrics. There are a bunch of published "Ux" metrics where x is an integer, that measure different aspects of employment.
It's kind of like sports stats. For example, points per game in basketball is a commonly-used metric to gauge offensive players, but shooting percentage and assists also matter, along with myriads of other metrics. But, they get less attention than points per game.
The press likes simpler metrics because viewers/readers have short attention spans. Those damned humans.
That's a good suggestion, but if the actual target quantity is far larger than expected, then buffering the (pending) changes can bring the system to a crawl. Not as bad as an erroneous delete, but still unpleasant.
I might run a count first, then run it again using TOP N, LIMIT, or rownum n to sample some records before I do the final query. Steps vary per RDBMS vendor.
Unemployment statistics are a contentious topic because there are many "in betweens" to "unemployed". For example, a retired person may take up a job if it pays well and is convenient in terms of work/home balance, but otherwise are not spending much effort seeking. Does that make them "unemployed"? A prototypical "housewife" (house-spouse=PC?) may be in the same boat.
Because of these gray areas, it's been generally agreed as a de facto standard to ONLY count those "actively seeking" unemployment. This is usually measured by a combination of random surveys, and unemployment applications, which typically ask one to list companies contacted. (Since they don't need to fill out such forms when benefits run out, the random surveys are used to fill in the gaps.)
Sometimes political trolls will say, "unemployment is actually [really high percent] instead of the 5% official number; you are being lied to!". When probed, it will usually be found that they are using a statistic that includes one of gray area categories, like those mentioned above.
The same trolls will then often switch metrics again when their favorite politician or party is in power to make them look better.
Because what's usually used is merely a de facto standard, the trolls are not technically lying; just being manipulative. Most political "lies" are actually manipulation of words and misleading statistical games rather than being outright wrong.
"To err is human. To really fuck things up, you need a computer."
I prefer that any bulk or query-based "delete" command ask for confirmation along with basic feedback. Example pseudo-code:
> delete *:*.*
You are about to delete 832 folders and 28,435 files. Your choices are:
1 - Proceed with deletion
2 - List path details about the above folders and files
3 - Cancel deletion Your Choice: __
(end of example)
It may be slower and/or more resource intensive, but that's better than mass boo-boo's.
An optional command parameter could switch off verification, but verification should be the default. This is something Unix/Linux gets backward in my opinion: the default should be confirmation mode, not the other way around. In other words, a command switch should be required to switch off confirmation rather than requiring a command switch to turn confirmation on.
Typical SQL doesn't have a confirmation mode, so I usually do a verification query on the WHERE clause before running the actual:
-- check SELECT count(*) FROM myTable WHERE x > 7 AND foo='BAR'
-- actual, keeping same where-clause DELETE FROM myTable WHERE x > 7 AND foo='BAR'
I also often inspect at least some of the actual rows, not just the count. Thus, as a rule of thumb, do random spot-checks of actual data, and a total count before final command execution.
CUI and GUI exist side-by side on modern operating systems. I use both when it suits my purpose.
OS, yes, but not applications. Most "regular" users spend roughly 90% of their time in applications, NOT the OS, and most applications don't have a CUI.
Don't make me hunt on the page for your artiste's haute couture back button that looks like a dancing flower.
Some people put aesthetics over functionality when judging a page or application. It may increase sales of whatever products. Just because YOU value functionality and consistency over aesthetics does not mean everyone else will also. You are not their target market.
You gotta design/code for humans, not Vulcans, if you want to be accepted by and paid by the humans.
I've heard FAR more people ask that web apps behave more like desktop GUI's than the other way around. That should tell you something.
As I pointed out nearby, CUI's are more "rational" than GUI's (and/or web pages) in terms of potential productivity, but we catered to common human preference and make GUI's anyhow instead of CUI.
Thus, if we follow "what the humans want" for GUI versus CUI, then we perhaps should also follow what the humans want for GUI versus Web.
[ how much information do you think [server] needs from the device] Probably just preferred screen/display size, and whether you are using a mouse or finger.
I propose a standard with these pre-defined categories:
1. High-end work-station (wide or double) 2. Desktop/Laptop 3. Tablet 4. Smart Phone 5. Watch/mini 6. Custom: . . . Screen width in cm: ________ . . . Screen height in cm: ________ . . . Pointer: a) mouse, b) finger, c) pen . . . Meta: [device specific stuff]
Devices would generally ship with this setting matching the type of device it is, such as #4 for the iPhone. But, the user can optionally change it to say #6 and fill in the details. If you have a tablet but have poor eyesight, you can set it to #4 (phone) to get larger fonts etc.
The server can do whatever it wants with that info. It may find the "nearest match" based on what the app has to offer, or do very specific handling.
It's why I bought an Android tablet with a large screen, so I could easily read PDFs.
A server-side formatter could provide a small-device-friendly layout. That's something PDF-related tech doesn't attempt to provide.
Note that one HUGE advantage of a PDF is that anybody with typical "cubicle" education can make them (via Word etc.) If one has to worry about device-specific flow, then a "layout expert" is also needed (such as a web dev), not JUST the content creator. That makes the document at least twice as costly to prepare.
How much do you want the server to reformat
That's up to the server formatter engine. Remember, I'm thinking of adding or replacing a web-based standard in terms of UI communication between client and server. What's on the server is another issue and is not limited by "external" standards (or lack of), which is a good thing.
A starting platform would probably be needed in practice, but the server is NOT limited to the new web formatting standards (since there would be fewer), and that's one of the advantages: layouts and layout engines are NOT married to web and client standards (and non-standards).
Do you see what I'm getting at?
how much information do you think it needs from the device
Probably just preferred screen/display size, and whether you are using a mouse or finger.
Typically there would be a full-screen version and a "pocket" version of each screen or site, but custom resizing is not ruled out: the server can do whatever it wants with the device pref info.
what's the advantage of doing that rather than having the client do it?
Some of the advantages are hinted at above. But the main issue is that if the client handles most of the formatting, then you have bajillion different kinds of devices and versions out there. If the server does it, you have ONE formatting engine.
Would you rather deal with 80 formatting engines or 1 formatting engine?
I get complaints all the time where somebody says, "your page doesn't render right on my Foo Tablet 3.5", even though it tested fine on 5 other devices. That's WASTEFUL AND BAD FACTORING. The wheel is mis-invented hundreds of times per vendor and version combo's. IT'S DUMB.
What does the server do when it doesn't recognize what device I'm on?
Display its default. If the client doesn't send size preferences for whatever reason, a menu can be displayed at the top to select size preferences.
Have you considered the effect this would have on caching?
I don't see that much diff than what's done now. If it's intended to be a dynamic or frequently-changing page, then a meta-tag is given that asks the browser not to cache. If it's a static (slow changing) page, then no such tag is given and it's up to the client to cache.
The only reasons I've seen is to provide application-like interfaces and because some people have stupid bosses
If everybody keeps asking for the same thing over and over: such as WYSIWYG, then perhaps that's a good reason to start listening.
For examle, (good) command-line interfaces are often more efficient and logical than GUI's, but most humans want GUI's, and the market delivered. The planet is occupied by humans, not Vulcans, and we have to deal with that.
Do you want to yell at everybody and tell them to "be logical, dammit!"?
you're proposing to make the web less readable in general
I disagree. There may be trade-offs, but there's also upsides, such as less layouts-gone-wrong bugs and JavaScript errors, because the server does more and is the same version for all devices (for a given web service/app/site), unlike JS and DOM, which each client vendor/version fucks up in different ways.
I'm glad you are at least pondering it. If enough finally get it, change may happen.
Obama - Actually USED the IRS to target political opponents, no issue.
I'll give you $200 if you can provide solid proof. $200, Dude.
Don't pay taxes and IRS will make your life hell.
The tax rules are subject to interpretation, like any written rules, and long disputes over the rules and interpretation are typical. The difference between "them" and us is that they can afford top tax attorneys to drag things out long enough for new IRS staff to come along with a diff interpretation while we can't. If you don't like inequality like that, then tax the rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, Trump is hardly a conservative either, as Cruz is happy to point out. He's a flip-floppy centrist.
His main supporters are either people who feel burned by "free" trade and leaky borders, or those who want a Putin-like authoritarian.
He generally polls about 10 to 15 percentage points behind Hillary. It's unlikely to change significantly before the final election: both have been in the limelight a good while.
The only realistic chance I see him of winning is if the email mess finally snags H once and for all, per investigation. Trump polls roughly the same as Sanders in a head-to-head survey.
Although, something tells me Trump would continue to put his foot in his mouth such that he'll trash every demographic eventually, sinking his chances. Sanders is more disciplined that way. All Sanders has to do is run soundbite ads of all the wacky things Trump says, and there are plenty.
Well, typically about half of marketing is accurate and/or useful information, the other half is spin.
And I'm not talking just about consumer marketing, but also marketing to organizations and professional or large-scale investors. This is probably where USA "shines" the best.
In the mid 90's they were right: the only people on the web were youngsters with no money to spend. I tried entrepreneurial projects myself then. For most product categories, it was premature.
Yes!
He didn't trigger the Great Recession. Financial deregulation is the major cause. We can see this because countries who kept their regulations in place didn't have mortgage crashes.
Although bubbles in general are perhaps inevitable in capitalism, being they've been happening for 400-odd years and nobody has figured out how to stop them. We may learn to prevent a given TYPE of bubble, but we invent new types.
It may be possible to create a composite metric that combines lots of factors, but the press and public usually don't take to these because they are too hard to verify and/or understand.
Average humans prefer imperfect but easy-to-understand/verify statistics over complicated ones that may be more useful.
The Gini coefficient for measuring wealth inequality, for example is a pretty good metric for inequality, but the public rejects it for "the 1%" metrics, such as the top 1% have % share of all US wealth.
Forcing humans to be logical is mostly a lost cause, or incremental project at best.
What you don't get is that America's comparative advantage is bullshit, AKA "marketing".
Science and math are the same in Timbuktu as here, so science and math brains are a cheap commodity on the world market. We cannot compete here on those.
All the bullshit financial and tech fads and bubbles start in USA for a reason.
About the only time funds from other countries flow into the USA is when we trick them into the next bubble. They keep falling for it, perhaps as a kind of Ponzi scheme where they want to profit on it before the bottom falls out. Thus, they may know better, but are hoping to sell to even bigger suckers.
But, the 3rd world hasn't figured out how to bullshit to the developed world yet, leaving that specialty to us still. If and when they figure it out, then we may lose our last comparative advantage and become a 3rd-world country.
As the 3rd world climbs up to the next rung on the following ladder, we have to skip ahead to the next level, and make that our comparative advantage.
1. Mechanical & steam revolution
2. Electrical revolution
3. Electronic revolution (transistors etc.)
4. Digital revolution
5. Bullshit revolution (marketing)
Hug a bullshitter: they keep us alive.
That's not practical when working with lots of files. The default should probably be summary statistics and/or review options, and then a confirmation. If the default is rarely useful, then people get into the habit of not using the default, which defeats the very purpose of a default. My description of the complaint could use better wording, I do admit.
Putting some kind of "sanity limit" on a command is also a useful idea. For example, the hypothetical "rm -s5000" could mean stop if the command affects more than 5000 files and/or folders. This is not the same as stopping after 5000, but cancelling the entire command if it will impact more than 5000 if continued.
A variation would be to prompt if more than the stated limit. If you run it in batch mode, then a prompt request would typically stop the batch process and/or wait for user confirmation. This is probably closer to what we really want.
Well, if you want a fuller picture, you need more metrics. There are a bunch of published "Ux" metrics where x is an integer, that measure different aspects of employment.
It's kind of like sports stats. For example, points per game in basketball is a commonly-used metric to gauge offensive players, but shooting percentage and assists also matter, along with myriads of other metrics. But, they get less attention than points per game.
The press likes simpler metrics because viewers/readers have short attention spans. Those damned humans.
So it might literally crap out?
They should put their email on a private server.
That's a good suggestion, but if the actual target quantity is far larger than expected, then buffering the (pending) changes can bring the system to a crawl. Not as bad as an erroneous delete, but still unpleasant.
I might run a count first, then run it again using TOP N, LIMIT, or rownum n to sample some records before I do the final query. Steps vary per RDBMS vendor.
I'n tryimg onc uf thees ch1ps nnow. Is't rael1y co0l!
Clippy: "It looks like you just deleted your entire company. Would you like assistance crying?"
Unemployment statistics are a contentious topic because there are many "in betweens" to "unemployed". For example, a retired person may take up a job if it pays well and is convenient in terms of work/home balance, but otherwise are not spending much effort seeking. Does that make them "unemployed"? A prototypical "housewife" (house-spouse=PC?) may be in the same boat.
Because of these gray areas, it's been generally agreed as a de facto standard to ONLY count those "actively seeking" unemployment. This is usually measured by a combination of random surveys, and unemployment applications, which typically ask one to list companies contacted. (Since they don't need to fill out such forms when benefits run out, the random surveys are used to fill in the gaps.)
Sometimes political trolls will say, "unemployment is actually [really high percent] instead of the 5% official number; you are being lied to!". When probed, it will usually be found that they are using a statistic that includes one of gray area categories, like those mentioned above.
The same trolls will then often switch metrics again when their favorite politician or party is in power to make them look better.
Because what's usually used is merely a de facto standard, the trolls are not technically lying; just being manipulative. Most political "lies" are actually manipulation of words and misleading statistical games rather than being outright wrong.
"To err is human. To really fuck things up, you need a computer."
I prefer that any bulk or query-based "delete" command ask for confirmation along with basic feedback. Example pseudo-code:
> delete *:*.*
You are about to delete 832 folders and 28,435 files.
Your choices are:
1 - Proceed with deletion
2 - List path details about the above folders and files
3 - Cancel deletion
Your Choice: __
(end of example)
It may be slower and/or more resource intensive, but that's better than mass boo-boo's.
An optional command parameter could switch off verification, but verification should be the default. This is something Unix/Linux gets backward in my opinion: the default should be confirmation mode, not the other way around. In other words, a command switch should be required to switch off confirmation rather than requiring a command switch to turn confirmation on.
Typical SQL doesn't have a confirmation mode, so I usually do a verification query on the WHERE clause before running the actual:
-- check
SELECT count(*) FROM myTable
WHERE x > 7 AND foo='BAR'
-- actual, keeping same where-clause
DELETE FROM myTable
WHERE x > 7 AND foo='BAR'
I also often inspect at least some of the actual rows, not just the count. Thus, as a rule of thumb, do random spot-checks of actual data, and a total count before final command execution.
OS, yes, but not applications. Most "regular" users spend roughly 90% of their time in applications, NOT the OS, and most applications don't have a CUI.
Some people put aesthetics over functionality when judging a page or application. It may increase sales of whatever products. Just because YOU value functionality and consistency over aesthetics does not mean everyone else will also. You are not their target market.
You gotta design/code for humans, not Vulcans, if you want to be accepted by and paid by the humans.
One has to read that sentence carefully to avoid seeing the "no verify" angle. It's poorly worded.
The key word is "identified" in "The borrowers identified by the Department won't [have to go thru usual vetting]"
It's essentially alternative vetting.
I've heard FAR more people ask that web apps behave more like desktop GUI's than the other way around. That should tell you something.
As I pointed out nearby, CUI's are more "rational" than GUI's (and/or web pages) in terms of potential productivity, but we catered to common human preference and make GUI's anyhow instead of CUI.
Thus, if we follow "what the humans want" for GUI versus CUI, then we perhaps should also follow what the humans want for GUI versus Web.
I've seen H1B horror stories with my own beady little eyes. I don't have to depend on politicians to know the program is FUBAR.
I propose a standard with these pre-defined categories:
1. High-end work-station (wide or double)
2. Desktop/Laptop
3. Tablet
4. Smart Phone
5. Watch/mini
6. Custom:
. . . Screen width in cm: ________
. . . Screen height in cm: ________
. . . Pointer: a) mouse, b) finger, c) pen
. . . Meta: [device specific stuff]
Devices would generally ship with this setting matching the type of device it is, such as #4 for the iPhone. But, the user can optionally change it to say #6 and fill in the details. If you have a tablet but have poor eyesight, you can set it to #4 (phone) to get larger fonts etc.
The server can do whatever it wants with that info. It may find the "nearest match" based on what the app has to offer, or do very specific handling.
A server-side formatter could provide a small-device-friendly layout. That's something PDF-related tech doesn't attempt to provide.
Note that one HUGE advantage of a PDF is that anybody with typical "cubicle" education can make them (via Word etc.) If one has to worry about device-specific flow, then a "layout expert" is also needed (such as a web dev), not JUST the content creator. That makes the document at least twice as costly to prepare.
That's up to the server formatter engine. Remember, I'm thinking of adding or replacing a web-based standard in terms of UI communication between client and server. What's on the server is another issue and is not limited by "external" standards (or lack of), which is a good thing.
A starting platform would probably be needed in practice, but the server is NOT limited to the new web formatting standards (since there would be fewer), and that's one of the advantages: layouts and layout engines are NOT married to web and client standards (and non-standards).
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Probably just preferred screen/display size, and whether you are using a mouse or finger.
Typically there would be a full-screen version and a "pocket" version of each screen or site, but custom resizing is not ruled out: the server can do whatever it wants with the device pref info.
Some of the advantages are hinted at above. But the main issue is that if the client handles most of the formatting, then you have bajillion different kinds of devices and versions out there. If the server does it, you have ONE formatting engine.
Would you rather deal with 80 formatting engines or 1 formatting engine?
I get complaints all the time where somebody says, "your page doesn't render right on my Foo Tablet 3.5", even though it tested fine on 5 other devices. That's WASTEFUL AND BAD FACTORING. The wheel is mis-invented hundreds of times per vendor and version combo's. IT'S DUMB.
Display its default. If the client doesn't send size preferences for whatever reason, a menu can be displayed at the top to select size preferences.
I don't see that much diff than what's done now. If it's intended to be a dynamic or frequently-changing page, then a meta-tag is given that asks the browser not to cache. If it's a static (slow changing) page, then no such tag is given and it's up to the client to cache.
If everybody keeps asking for the same thing over and over: such as WYSIWYG, then perhaps that's a good reason to start listening.
For examle, (good) command-line interfaces are often more efficient and logical than GUI's, but most humans want GUI's, and the market delivered. The planet is occupied by humans, not Vulcans, and we have to deal with that.
Do you want to yell at everybody and tell them to "be logical, dammit!"?
I disagree. There may be trade-offs, but there's also upsides, such as less layouts-gone-wrong bugs and JavaScript errors, because the server does more and is the same version for all devices (for a given web service/app/site), unlike JS and DOM, which each client vendor/version fucks up in different ways.
I'm glad you are at least pondering it. If enough finally get it, change may happen.
I made no value judgement either way there. I only stated the facts of the current situation.
Rich people have better lawyers to find, articulate, and emphasize the vagueness & inconsistency, yes.
Welcome to Inequality.
Translation: more cheap, family-free, exploitable H1B's for Facebook Inc.
How so? Scenario?
I'll give you $200 if you can provide solid proof. $200, Dude.
The tax rules are subject to interpretation, like any written rules, and long disputes over the rules and interpretation are typical. The difference between "them" and us is that they can afford top tax attorneys to drag things out long enough for new IRS staff to come along with a diff interpretation while we can't. If you don't like inequality like that, then tax the rich.