The never ending job of a programmer is to get the code to do his work for him, somehow there is still more work to be done - always.
Often times because office politics makes it hard to say "no" to questionable features and requests, especially from those with power. Perhaps managers will be more likely to listen to a bot if it proves to be relatively objective, or at least free from typical human bias. Or what if the bot reports suspected waste and ignored suggestions to upper management? There may be legitimate reasons to bypass bot-given suggestions, but having an "auto-snoop" could make it harder to hide BS and waste.
Yes, it's a bit Orwellian, but we can't assume The Future of work is all rainbows and ponies. As I mentioned elsewhere, the technology used to snoop and mine consumer behavior will likely improve over time and perhaps be repurposed for employee, programmer, and code monitoring.
The PROBLEM is the edge cases, which these pre-cast solutions miss. Like, I have JSON coming in from a form. I can mechanically loop through it and load them into maps for preparation to load into a database. But some fields need to be concatenated, like dollars and cents fields. Gotta detect for them, as a pair, and take them out of the loop, and handle them differently.
I didn't recommend pre-cast solutions in an off-the-shelf sense. If your shop uses a lot of monetary fields that are split like this, then standard shop libraries or a central data dictionary with "segment tracking" can be made to automate the gluing and ungluing the parts as needed. And, maybe you don't really need split monetary fields; it's just an org habit that can be broken. Using pattern detection, a good bot may be able to show monetary field alternatives used by other shops and show estimated labor savings from them by comparing time and code spent dealing with them. Bots track and sift consumer habits; similar tech can sift programmer habits and code patterns (hopefully anonymized to avoid security risk).
I bet they hired some clueless shlub who wrote the manual based on observing actual practices instead of checking with a security expert. Seen it happen.
Boss: "Fred, I'm reassigning you to write the manual for the new voting system."
Fred: "But I don't know anything about voting systems."
Boss: "Just observe the testers in action, and write down what they do."
[Re: dark morning school walkers] School hours should just be later, period. Studies have shown students learn better when they've had a full night's sleep.
True, but parents often have to drop their kids off while heading to work. Later school hours would make such difficult. (Buses seem to be going away for some reason.)
when the world doesn't need ditch diggers? Pretty obvious that it's time to figure that out.
Or programmers.
I do a lot of CRUD-centric applications (tracking, work-flow, reporting, management info systems). With a good stack I'm quite productive and spend more time on analysis than diddling with code. With bad stacks I spend way too much time diddlying with code, and more stacks seem to be like that these days, partly because the choice of JavaScript widgets available makes PHB's crave ever fancier eye-candy that makes for ever more fragile/leaky systems that need ever more people to fix.
If automation either takes over the grunt work or creates more logical standards with fewer parts, a good many programmers will be let go since fewer are needed for the same position. The analyst/coder hybrid will disappear or shrink, leaving just analysts. 2 analyst/coder hybrids can then be replaced by 1 analyst.
Admit it, there's a lot of redundancy, BS, & bloat in most our stacks/techniques that can be factored out yet still do the necessary job. AI may have less incentive to add or keep unnecessary bloat; bots aren't biased for job security like we are.
Sorry, but humans unconsciously make selections/recommendations that make themselves more "needed". It's seen in the medical field also. I cannot predict what future AI will look like, but there's a decent chance it won't have this same bias, and thus factor itself better. Genetic algorithms may "evolve" stacks to fit company conventions tightly based on existing applications, for example. Fewer humans would then be needed to program with it. Our current stack manager stuck us with bloating microservices even though we don't need them because he thought it was "cool". AI probably won't. He should be fired by bots.
Field info (DB schema) is often replicated all over typical stacks, for example. DRY Principle says I should only have to state field info in ONE place, not ten. There are tools that duplicate the field info into the parts of the stack, but duplication only simplifies creation of code, not maintenance.
(I've kicked around ways to factor such, but most code tools are too file-centric or too hierarchical. Files are obsolete, I believe. Better code repositories would look more like RDBMS's so that we can use set theory on field info, UI layout, and event code instead of hierarchies. Set theory is more powerful than hierarchies and OOP inheritance. The future will eventually take us there, I believe. We are doing it wrong; stuck in the "tree past" out of habit. The Sets are coming. AI may discover this fact and our existing tools will dumped into landfill to be ridiculed the way we ridicule vinyl records and the ET cartridges. Field info/changes can then be entered into one place, and Boom! done. Go home and have sex and don't come back to work: a Set bot is in your chair now.)
The real problem is that a politician is rewarded far more for short-term benefits than long-term benefits. Thus, there's an incentive to spend on goodies (services & tax cuts) now and let later generations of politicians deal with the fallout. It also has happened with pensions, not just gov't debt.
We need a different way to ensure fiscal discipline.
If you have 3 headquarters, it's not really "headquarters". Just call them "major business centers" or something else big-but-nebulus (which sounds like an alt-rock band).
The research investigated the impact of air pollution from busy main roads, where diesel trucks are common, in the crucial first year of life. They found that by age 10, children suffering high early exposure were almost 1kg heavier on average than those with low exposure. The scientists took a series of other factors into account, including gender, ethnicity and parental education, and think it is unlikely that variations in diet could explain the strong link found.
It appears they didn't actually check diet. Another thing, the closer you live to "convenient" roads and shops, the less exercise you may be likely to get. People in Japan and most of Europe seem much trimmer than Americans because they use public transportation more. With public transportation, you still have to walk the first and last mile (roughly) to get to and from the mode of transportation. They walk more, including children.
GOP didn't used to be anti-Keynesian; they were ambiguous on the topic. Their recent criticism of it seems to be political in nature, not inherent doctrine*.
To me, Keynesian economics is basic common sense: save up during the good times so you have some spending room during bad times, such as for stimuluses. Everyone should do that with their money (unless you have a fatal disease). I welcome logical arguments against it.
* A few libertarian-leaning Republicans will say that ALL stimuluses are bad because the gov't should be as small as possible, and stimuluses give gov't too much power. But this assumes that slumps always fix themselves, which I don't believe is the case: pessimism can expand in an ever-increasing downward spiral such that no business hires and no consumer spends more than absolute necessary. But it is true we'd have to fork Earth to test this in enough scenarios to be sure what really happens; however, God/Mother-Nature won't let us fork, leaving personal interpretations of a few cases as our only guide. Professional economists have highly varied opinions on the causes and solutions for the Great Depression and other slumps. My interpretation of the data is that stimuluses do help, at least to some degree.
If you want a bit more sun after work, you should just go to work a bit earlier.
It's usually not done for evenings, but in the mornings so kids walking to school are safer. However, perhaps the school hours should change per season instead of all the clocks.
Logic, set theory, factoring patterns/relationships to remove repetition, and statistics should be among the basics. Specific languages often get one mired down in syntax and symbols. Save that for later.
America must be doing awesome if THAT is the problem the president keeps himself busy with.
"Busy"? He probably signed it on the golf course after being persuaded by a lobbyist/golf-buddy who just happened to have the form ready in his plaid pocket.
From a data design viewpoint, I say don't force something into type Boolean that may not be Boolean, and don't force anything into a single column that may be multiple columns.
For forensic reasons, a person's "plumbing" may be one thing, but the person may prefer (or changed into) a different gender identity, including maybe "none" or "other".
Thus, if it's a social context, track their preferred status, but track different for forensic purposes. The gov't shouldn't be in the business for forcing a social classification into pre-defined boxes. Tell the religious fanatics to shove it up their plumbing.
Insurance companies are sometimes allowed to charge "males" more, but this seems like discrimination and profiling to me.
Now if there's ever required military service for a real war, that's a sticky one. Maybe everyone could be subject to draft, but the military can select based on qualifications and needs, not gender. A lot of military activity is not necessarily field combat, especially in the age of remote-controlled drones and bots. And there are physically strong females and weak/out-of-shape males.
Slashdot Mirror
Often times because office politics makes it hard to say "no" to questionable features and requests, especially from those with power. Perhaps managers will be more likely to listen to a bot if it proves to be relatively objective, or at least free from typical human bias. Or what if the bot reports suspected waste and ignored suggestions to upper management? There may be legitimate reasons to bypass bot-given suggestions, but having an "auto-snoop" could make it harder to hide BS and waste.
Yes, it's a bit Orwellian, but we can't assume The Future of work is all rainbows and ponies. As I mentioned elsewhere, the technology used to snoop and mine consumer behavior will likely improve over time and perhaps be repurposed for employee, programmer, and code monitoring.
I didn't recommend pre-cast solutions in an off-the-shelf sense. If your shop uses a lot of monetary fields that are split like this, then standard shop libraries or a central data dictionary with "segment tracking" can be made to automate the gluing and ungluing the parts as needed. And, maybe you don't really need split monetary fields; it's just an org habit that can be broken. Using pattern detection, a good bot may be able to show monetary field alternatives used by other shops and show estimated labor savings from them by comparing time and code spent dealing with them. Bots track and sift consumer habits; similar tech can sift programmer habits and code patterns (hopefully anonymized to avoid security risk).
I'm not saying it's aliens, but ... TFA is saying it's aliens.
T wasn't blaming the "rigging" on Russia, but on Democrats/illegals. It was T's burden to show evidence for them doing such.
I suppose if you claim everything is rigged/bugged/fake, you'll accidentally be right roughly 10% of the time in a general sense.
I bet they hired some clueless shlub who wrote the manual based on observing actual practices instead of checking with a security expert. Seen it happen.
Boss: "Fred, I'm reassigning you to write the manual for the new voting system."
Fred: "But I don't know anything about voting systems."
Boss: "Just observe the testers in action, and write down what they do."
Fred: "Okay, I can do that! On-it, boss!..."
True, but parents often have to drop their kids off while heading to work. Later school hours would make such difficult. (Buses seem to be going away for some reason.)
Or programmers.
I do a lot of CRUD-centric applications (tracking, work-flow, reporting, management info systems). With a good stack I'm quite productive and spend more time on analysis than diddling with code. With bad stacks I spend way too much time diddlying with code, and more stacks seem to be like that these days, partly because the choice of JavaScript widgets available makes PHB's crave ever fancier eye-candy that makes for ever more fragile/leaky systems that need ever more people to fix.
If automation either takes over the grunt work or creates more logical standards with fewer parts, a good many programmers will be let go since fewer are needed for the same position. The analyst/coder hybrid will disappear or shrink, leaving just analysts. 2 analyst/coder hybrids can then be replaced by 1 analyst.
Admit it, there's a lot of redundancy, BS, & bloat in most our stacks/techniques that can be factored out yet still do the necessary job. AI may have less incentive to add or keep unnecessary bloat; bots aren't biased for job security like we are.
Sorry, but humans unconsciously make selections/recommendations that make themselves more "needed". It's seen in the medical field also. I cannot predict what future AI will look like, but there's a decent chance it won't have this same bias, and thus factor itself better. Genetic algorithms may "evolve" stacks to fit company conventions tightly based on existing applications, for example. Fewer humans would then be needed to program with it. Our current stack manager stuck us with bloating microservices even though we don't need them because he thought it was "cool". AI probably won't. He should be fired by bots.
Field info (DB schema) is often replicated all over typical stacks, for example. DRY Principle says I should only have to state field info in ONE place, not ten. There are tools that duplicate the field info into the parts of the stack, but duplication only simplifies creation of code, not maintenance.
(I've kicked around ways to factor such, but most code tools are too file-centric or too hierarchical. Files are obsolete, I believe. Better code repositories would look more like RDBMS's so that we can use set theory on field info, UI layout, and event code instead of hierarchies. Set theory is more powerful than hierarchies and OOP inheritance. The future will eventually take us there, I believe. We are doing it wrong; stuck in the "tree past" out of habit. The Sets are coming. AI may discover this fact and our existing tools will dumped into landfill to be ridiculed the way we ridicule vinyl records and the ET cartridges. Field info/changes can then be entered into one place, and Boom! done. Go home and have sex and don't come back to work: a Set bot is in your chair now.)
The real problem is that a politician is rewarded far more for short-term benefits than long-term benefits. Thus, there's an incentive to spend on goodies (services & tax cuts) now and let later generations of politicians deal with the fallout. It also has happened with pensions, not just gov't debt.
We need a different way to ensure fiscal discipline.
If you have 3 headquarters, it's not really "headquarters". Just call them "major business centers" or something else big-but-nebulus (which sounds like an alt-rock band).
It appears they didn't actually check diet. Another thing, the closer you live to "convenient" roads and shops, the less exercise you may be likely to get. People in Japan and most of Europe seem much trimmer than Americans because they use public transportation more. With public transportation, you still have to walk the first and last mile (roughly) to get to and from the mode of transportation. They walk more, including children.
GOP didn't used to be anti-Keynesian; they were ambiguous on the topic. Their recent criticism of it seems to be political in nature, not inherent doctrine*.
To me, Keynesian economics is basic common sense: save up during the good times so you have some spending room during bad times, such as for stimuluses. Everyone should do that with their money (unless you have a fatal disease). I welcome logical arguments against it.
* A few libertarian-leaning Republicans will say that ALL stimuluses are bad because the gov't should be as small as possible, and stimuluses give gov't too much power. But this assumes that slumps always fix themselves, which I don't believe is the case: pessimism can expand in an ever-increasing downward spiral such that no business hires and no consumer spends more than absolute necessary. But it is true we'd have to fork Earth to test this in enough scenarios to be sure what really happens; however, God/Mother-Nature won't let us fork, leaving personal interpretations of a few cases as our only guide. Professional economists have highly varied opinions on the causes and solutions for the Great Depression and other slumps. My interpretation of the data is that stimuluses do help, at least to some degree.
It wasn't his book; it was on some university pamphlet that Obama himself did not write. An old fashioned typo; not a conspiracy.
Trump: "Alexa, find Obama's birth certificate..."
They did; it's called "systemd".
It's usually not done for evenings, but in the mornings so kids walking to school are safer. However, perhaps the school hours should change per season instead of all the clocks.
My state can beat up your state!
They'll merge into one giant dripping Dilbertian blob with its own YouTube channel; and start eating cars, bars, guitars, and Debbie Harry.
Why do you have to point out it's a Californian company in the headline? States are usually not mentioned there for product announcements.
Logic, set theory, factoring patterns/relationships to remove repetition, and statistics should be among the basics. Specific languages often get one mired down in syntax and symbols. Save that for later.
I'm patenting and playing a sub-millimeter violin.
"Busy"? He probably signed it on the golf course after being persuaded by a lobbyist/golf-buddy who just happened to have the form ready in his plaid pocket.
Donald didn't used to have issues with gender flexing, thus it appears he's playing politics and kissing up* to the GOP religious base.
* No pun intended.
You from Iran?
From a data design viewpoint, I say don't force something into type Boolean that may not be Boolean, and don't force anything into a single column that may be multiple columns.
For forensic reasons, a person's "plumbing" may be one thing, but the person may prefer (or changed into) a different gender identity, including maybe "none" or "other".
Thus, if it's a social context, track their preferred status, but track different for forensic purposes. The gov't shouldn't be in the business for forcing a social classification into pre-defined boxes. Tell the religious fanatics to shove it up their plumbing.
Insurance companies are sometimes allowed to charge "males" more, but this seems like discrimination and profiling to me.
Now if there's ever required military service for a real war, that's a sticky one. Maybe everyone could be subject to draft, but the military can select based on qualifications and needs, not gender. A lot of military activity is not necessarily field combat, especially in the age of remote-controlled drones and bots. And there are physically strong females and weak/out-of-shape males.
I live in the suburbs of a large city, and we still have only 2 viable ISP choices, which both suck. We call them Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum .