Python: The tool to use when you want to get things done fast.
Write fast, not necessarily read fast. Perl had a reputation for being quick and short to write code with, but such code had very questionable readability by somebody besides the author.
Remember, roughly 2/3 of software cost is maintenance, not original writing. I'm not claiming Python has a problem in this area, only saying that quick/short writing of code is only part of a real-world score.
Earlier this year, researchers at the University of Tokyo accidentally created the strongest controllable magnetic field in history and blew the doors off their lab...magnetic fields were generated using a technique called electromagnetic flux-compression.
So they got Star-Trekkian sparks and smoke, and Back-to-the-Future's flux capacitors. I just had a sci-fi-gasm, get the Kleenex. Now if only the damned em-drive had worked, I'd blow the doors off my mom's basement.
The Space Force will fix it by orbiting thousands of sun umbrellas, and all the rockets will be made in the former rustbelt in bustling rocket factories. We thought he was a babbling lunatic, but it all makes sense now! Sorry I doubted. MAGA!
I wonder if the bots can emit a high-pitched sound, not audible to humans, to scare away critters.
Hedgehogs might get revenge by building counter bots:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Battlebots! This is mammal-versus-mammal week. Our first battle is between hedgehogs and humans: Chronic-Sonic versus Tombstone... Oh oh! Cronic-Sonic cut through the cage and is headed toward the audience... "
While it's true they want to "pad" their specific industry or company; in aggregate, they want less regulation. One CEO typically won't have enough power by themselves to make significant changes for their own particular industry or company to counter other CEO's. Let's see if I can better illustrate this numerically:
CEO 1: Less-Regs: A,B,C More-Regs: D.
CEO 2: Less-Regs: A,B,D More-Regs: C.
CEO 3: Less-Regs: A,C,D More-Regs: B.
CEO 4: Less-Regs: B,C,D More-Regs: A.
Total against regulation A: 3 Total for regulation A: 1 Total against regulation B: 3 Total for regulation B: 1 Total against regulation C: 3 Total for regulation C: 1 Total against regulation D: 3 Total for regulation D: 1
Thus the net weight is against regulations in general.
The vast majority of employers can easily screw over employees and have an army of lawyers at their disposal to win a majority of cases using legal trickery and gimmicks. They've probably faced several hundreds of similar employee/contractor claims and can "service" them in their sleep. An employee is starting from scratch.
Your suggestion doesn't solve the problem, just changes actors. You work at Employer A, they screw you over so you then work at Employer B, and then they screw you over so you then work at Employer C, and then they screw you over so you then work at Employer D, and then they screw you over, etc.
One can spend a lot of time changing jobs yet still get screwed over because they won't have the legal fire power to fight back against corporations.
I myself have abandoned lawsuits against corporations because the time and expense on my part was greater than the winnings if I multiplied them by the estimated probability of succeeding. The resource math was against me.
If Hillary were poor, she probably would be in jail. The laws on classified info are vague because our law-makers are too lazy and ill-informed on technology to write clear laws, and good lawyers use vagueness to their clients' advantage.
Here is a hint: the rich and the political elite don't give a sh*t about "left" vs "right".
Most billionaires do have something in common: they want lower taxes for the rich and less gov't regulation, because both of those conditions make them richer; and the rich wouldn't be rich if they didn't really like yet more money. Yes, there are exceptions.
The rich are more balanced on social issues, however, because those don't affect their income sources as directly as the above economic issues. (Social issues include but are not limited to abortion, ethnic and religious diversity, and LGBTQ rights.)
Yes, they once grew almost as evil as big corporations.
All big orgs have some corruption and sliminess in them, but we still need checks and balances. Unions provide a check on corporations abusing employees (or at least used to).
I can testify that corporations do evil because I've worked in multiple who've payed me to do evil. (I didn't like it, but was not always in a position to quickly leave.)
COBOL hasn't lasted 50 years; it's an old legacy language that's running because people are still using it and paying huge money for it.
But that's largely because it does relatively well in its domain.
why would something else critically-important to large, super-rich clients simply fall out of maintenance?
Even if something doesn't fall out of maintenance, it still may be difficult to find people versed in it. Like I said, a more general-purpose language would probably need lots of libraries to be competitive with COBOL, and those need learning and maintaining also. Learning COBOL is also learning the built-in keywords and idioms for handling its domain. With C# that would be a separate extra step.
the 9th Circuit court ruled that the drivers signed away their rights to sue in court when they signed up to be Uber drivers.
Such clauses should be illegal. People should have the right to sue when the want. Poor and under-employed people, especially, don't have the negotiating power to pick and choose which clauses they like in such contracts. It's not a deli: it's get a paycheck or don't get a paycheck. This lopsidedness is sometimes called "Inequality of bargaining power".
Some argue it would flood the courts, but the courts can be streamlined to have an arbitration-like stage for smaller claims where the arbiter tries to work out a mutual agreement without anybody having to visit a courtroom. If either party doesn't agree, then it goes up to the formal court. The arbiter wouldn't be selected by nor hired by the corporation.
Into what? COBOL has lasted 50+ years. How do you know Java or C# or Python will last that long (in viable numbers)? COBOL is kind of like Latin: it's stable because it's a dead language. Scientific taxonomies use Latin because it won't change on them.
COBOL also has a lot of built-in idioms for business data processing. Java etc. would have to use libraries to get similar, and those libraries may fall out of maintenance even if Java itself lasts.
Trump would love COBOL; it's usually in all capitals and makes small things sound important, as if you are God commanding an army of millions who don't question orders.
Slashdot Mirror
Write fast, not necessarily read fast. Perl had a reputation for being quick and short to write code with, but such code had very questionable readability by somebody besides the author.
Remember, roughly 2/3 of software cost is maintenance, not original writing. I'm not claiming Python has a problem in this area, only saying that quick/short writing of code is only part of a real-world score.
Obama was right, there are 57 states ;-)
In this case, it's coming out of Montana's butt.
So they got Star-Trekkian sparks and smoke, and Back-to-the-Future's flux capacitors. I just had a sci-fi-gasm, get the Kleenex. Now if only the damned em-drive had worked, I'd blow the doors off my mom's basement.
The Space Force will fix it by orbiting thousands of sun umbrellas, and all the rockets will be made in the former rustbelt in bustling rocket factories. We thought he was a babbling lunatic, but it all makes sense now! Sorry I doubted. MAGA!
I wonder if the bots can emit a high-pitched sound, not audible to humans, to scare away critters.
Hedgehogs might get revenge by building counter bots:
The last paragraph appears to contradict itself. It seems you only loved your go-to's, not others'.
Crossplay? It's Dukina Nukem.
See, those building physics simulations using spherical cows where right after all. Cue up the Beach Boys', "I get around".
Replace lazy ill-informed hubris-filled humans with bots designed by lazy ill-informed hubris-filled corporations. Genius!
"WARNING: This device has a 30% chance of getting your dick torn off if used improperly."
Politicians and marketers learned you have to be short, blunt, dramatic, and over-simplistic to get anybody's attention these days.
While it's true they want to "pad" their specific industry or company; in aggregate, they want less regulation. One CEO typically won't have enough power by themselves to make significant changes for their own particular industry or company to counter other CEO's. Let's see if I can better illustrate this numerically:
CEO 1: Less-Regs: A,B,C More-Regs: D.
CEO 2: Less-Regs: A,B,D More-Regs: C.
CEO 3: Less-Regs: A,C,D More-Regs: B.
CEO 4: Less-Regs: B,C,D More-Regs: A.
Total against regulation A: 3
Total for regulation A: 1
Total against regulation B: 3
Total for regulation B: 1
Total against regulation C: 3
Total for regulation C: 1
Total against regulation D: 3
Total for regulation D: 1
Thus the net weight is against regulations in general.
The vast majority of employers can easily screw over employees and have an army of lawyers at their disposal to win a majority of cases using legal trickery and gimmicks. They've probably faced several hundreds of similar employee/contractor claims and can "service" them in their sleep. An employee is starting from scratch.
Your suggestion doesn't solve the problem, just changes actors. You work at Employer A, they screw you over so you then work at Employer B, and then they screw you over so you then work at Employer C, and then they screw you over so you then work at Employer D, and then they screw you over, etc.
One can spend a lot of time changing jobs yet still get screwed over because they won't have the legal fire power to fight back against corporations.
I myself have abandoned lawsuits against corporations because the time and expense on my part was greater than the winnings if I multiplied them by the estimated probability of succeeding. The resource math was against me.
If Hillary were poor, she probably would be in jail. The laws on classified info are vague because our law-makers are too lazy and ill-informed on technology to write clear laws, and good lawyers use vagueness to their clients' advantage.
Most billionaires do have something in common: they want lower taxes for the rich and less gov't regulation, because both of those conditions make them richer; and the rich wouldn't be rich if they didn't really like yet more money. Yes, there are exceptions.
The rich are more balanced on social issues, however, because those don't affect their income sources as directly as the above economic issues. (Social issues include but are not limited to abortion, ethnic and religious diversity, and LGBTQ rights.)
Yes, they once grew almost as evil as big corporations.
All big orgs have some corruption and sliminess in them, but we still need checks and balances. Unions provide a check on corporations abusing employees (or at least used to).
I can testify that corporations do evil because I've worked in multiple who've payed me to do evil. (I didn't like it, but was not always in a position to quickly leave.)
In Australia, Weebles fall down but don't wobble.
Damn you, now I got two songs in my head!
Freedom to starve. The other co's do the same.
I blame it on Weebles.
But that's largely because it does relatively well in its domain.
Even if something doesn't fall out of maintenance, it still may be difficult to find people versed in it. Like I said, a more general-purpose language would probably need lots of libraries to be competitive with COBOL, and those need learning and maintaining also. Learning COBOL is also learning the built-in keywords and idioms for handling its domain. With C# that would be a separate extra step.
Such clauses should be illegal. People should have the right to sue when the want. Poor and under-employed people, especially, don't have the negotiating power to pick and choose which clauses they like in such contracts. It's not a deli: it's get a paycheck or don't get a paycheck. This lopsidedness is sometimes called "Inequality of bargaining power".
Some argue it would flood the courts, but the courts can be streamlined to have an arbitration-like stage for smaller claims where the arbiter tries to work out a mutual agreement without anybody having to visit a courtroom. If either party doesn't agree, then it goes up to the formal court. The arbiter wouldn't be selected by nor hired by the corporation.
Into what? COBOL has lasted 50+ years. How do you know Java or C# or Python will last that long (in viable numbers)? COBOL is kind of like Latin: it's stable because it's a dead language. Scientific taxonomies use Latin because it won't change on them.
COBOL also has a lot of built-in idioms for business data processing. Java etc. would have to use libraries to get similar, and those libraries may fall out of maintenance even if Java itself lasts.
Trump would love COBOL; it's usually in all capitals and makes small things sound important, as if you are God commanding an army of millions who don't question orders.
Banks don't want to pay for training, they want plug-and-play staff, and a pony.
Perhaps they should rename it to sound hip and cool. Stupider things have caught on*. Call it Cloudbol++ or node.bol or Bolockchain.
* Or applied to the wrong things or places
The hard part is reading and following piles of legacy code, some of which may have been written in the "go to" days.