Even if we solve all of those the Linux Desktop still wouldn't have a meaningfull market share.
And as one of the users, why should it? It already does what users want. Why would doing what non-users want make it better? As open source, how would it benefit existing users to have additional non-technical users? It wouldn't even predict better forum questions or answers.
The Year of the Linux Desktop happened in the 90s. It was, we were, many of us still are.
If you RTFA it seems their sample size was 20 programmers.
Right, so that tells you that they're idiots because they can't do what the idiots speculate, or that the idiots speculating misunderstood the purpose of the tool?
when you've sampled the compiled... output... of a million coders all using different compilers on different architectures and are getting at least a 99% accuracy rate, get back to [me]
There are multiple problems in your analysis. First, there are not millions of compilers or architectures. If you take the compilers and architectures that make up 95% of what is used, you've only got a few platforms and a few compilers, not different ones for millions of programmers. This may sound pedantic, but the problem you imply with this part is actually one of the sample size being too small. If each programmer had a different platform/compiler combination, then even a large number of programmers would have too small a sample size of comparables. But the problem is the opposite of that. (LMFAO) The problem is that since there are only a few different platforms and compilers, lots of people (most people) are using the same few combinations, and so the sample size is actually too large with millions of programmers.
And worse, why do you think it would need to be 99% useful to be significant? It seems you grabbed the wrong end of the stick there. If it was 20% accurate with a sample size of 1m my goodness, you could really narrow things down with that. Combined with other factors like cell phone movements, and machine learning methods so that you're using the actual calculated liklihood and not a binary yes/no, well now it might spit out a vastly reduced list of possibilities.
And working the other direction, in the state the tech is in now, if you can reduce your million candidates to 100 based on cell phone movements combined with other known information, then you have a 60% chance of picking out the 1 person? So if instead you calibrate it to give you the top 5 instead of the top 1, the accuracy would probably be in the high 90s. Getting down to that small group is hard, but then traditional techniques can be employed successfully once you get there, eg, investigation.
Right, except, you don't make a case that supports your conclusion. You make a good case that the use the idiot in TFS describes is not a good use. But that doesn't harm the capabilities of the technology at all. Your conclusion that it is snake oil mistakes the location and nature of the mistake.
From what you said, it sounds like each of your past employers could use it to tell if you were the one who wrote a particular function or method, based on the specific ways that you implemented their stated coding standards. Once you find a better use case, then you can realize that the size of detectable signal is very reasonable for the technology to work. There only needs to be subtle differences between team members to tell which one wrote a particular thing. Whereas, if you don't already have a small sample size then it reaches the problems you describe. But not all use cases reach those problems.
It is just like a polygraph machine. It works, it works well, it works under known conditions, and it produces known results. Of course, then things it does are not the things described by the words people use near it, nor are more of the actions it is used to support actually supported by the function of the machine. And yet, the machine is not malfunctioning.
This is not an investigative tool for law enforcement. It is a useful tool for certain business researchers, and it may prove useful to historians of computing in the future. There are probably other reasonable uses, too.
lol yeah. The blathering about governments is just somebody getting silly and running their mouth about stupid shit. Newsflash, if a person sounds like a conspiracy theorist? They're probably not a good data source.
This is great technology for figuring out which one of 5 people wrote a particular method/function. And I have no doubt that governments will use this technology to mislead juries into believing it is like a fingerprint, by using the word "fingerprint" nearby the name of their test in sentences, but they'll only be using it to reinforce whatever evidence they used to find the person to accuse in the first place.
This would be more likely to have real-world impact in the hands of a large corporation's recruiting department. You don't necessarily want to hire away all your competitor's team, they just the best few people. With this, you might be able to tease out who wrote which parts of their product; especially if also have code samples from the 20% that applied with both companies, or from FLOSS code.
Wow, you take the time to post complaining that I was insensitive, and yet you use "autistic" as your descriptive word for that. Why do you need to bring people with disabilities into it, and turn them into a pejorative, when you could use a more sensitive and demographic-neutral term like "asshole?"
As a software developer with many years of experience I have to point out, engineering is a specific type of discipline. For example if you think "waterfall" is a bad word, you're not an engineer.
If he was a real person and not a dice employee acting a role, he'd have to be a complete tool to be looking for jargon with an Ask Slashdot. A person with an advanced degree AND 15 years of experience in the field would simply read a few glossaries and be a lot farther ahead. A person who has a MS should be darn good at research, and they wouldn't be asking broad general questions in the form, "Where do I start to learn about a specialty?"
It is absurd, and the poorly written character deserves all the criticism he gets.
He says he has 15 years as a "SW engineer/developer" which I take to literally mean "SW developer with no engineering training."
He also says that even with 15 years of experience, which should make him a high paid senior developer making six figures, he can't afford to quit his day job. Well gee, whiz.
My advice, forget about machine learning for now. Spend the next 5 years learning to budget your income, and setting aside some money to live on for a few years while you transition away from the job that you don't like but borrowed yourself into slavery to. Also, gosh, what if you lost your job for other reasons, or there was a natural disaster? You'd be screwed if you're living paycheck to paycheck on "15 years experience" money. An earthquake could mean losing your house and car, because you overflow your buffer as soon as there is an interruption in the money signal.
And when you get there, I can answer the original question for you easily:
Q: Is [narrow specialization] for me? A: No
Just keep repeating until you hit a specialization that you don't have to ask about, because in your generalized work in the field you've already been interested enough by it to learn about it, and so you know a bit already and you know a bit about how it relates to the rest of the field. If you're not there yet, the answer will remain "no," and once you get there, you're not going to be asking; you'll already be a specialist, just one who is working in a general position. And then you can easily decide to change jobs, or not.
If you have 15 years experience, you should be approaching paying off your mortgage. You should be in a position to change careers if you want.
You're talking about a handful of theaters in the nation with special super-sized screens.
Large theaters with dozens of rooms in major cities don't normally have that. They have regular, 3d, and IMAX which may also be 3d. There is not normally a single room with a bigger screen than any other room. If a theater in a mall has 16 screens, at least 4 of them are probably IMAX and are exactly the same size. They may have three sizes total, but usually 2.
People such as yourself are repeating details of a contract that you've probably never seen, and describing it in a way that is clearly not true in its implication. It may be literally true in some marginal way where it is true for those few theaters that have a single super-size marquee screen, but the way it is being phrased could easily mislead a reader into thinking that all 4 IMAX screens would be reserved for Star Wars. I don't doubt they have rules that say at least 1 of the largest-size screens has to be dedicated to just Star Wars. They appeared to have 2 of the 4 showing Star Wars where I went, and the other 2 rotating between 4 or 5 other movies.
If some idiot has a theater with a single oversize marquee and they were showing something else on it, yeah, that is a total planning fail on their part. If you hate Star Wars and nerds and really wanted to watch some lowbrow western or something, that doesn't change the evaluation; obviously the biggest movie in history would be playing on the marquee screen for a few weeks after release. Duh. Why would a consumer of these products be attempting to covet watching the less popular movie on the biggest oversized screen in town? That seems a pretty silly requirement for satisfaction with your purchase.
Apparently JJ only has two modes: Zero Originality, and Shit All Over Everything?
I didn't realize it was such a technical subject as to be incomprehensible, but you do realize that the person you're insulting doesn't do the job you're insulting him based on? Completely different people handle movie distribution. Directors and producers probably don't even enter that building, and the bean-counters certainly don't contact them for consultations on theater relations and contract enforcement.
So, you're going to refute my observation that some theaters had enough rooms to have high quality (3d,IMAX) offerings for all the major movies... with a theory based on having heard about some contract, the details of which probably don't contradict what I said? Gee whiz, kiddo.
If a theater planned the wrong number of showings of a major movie, and had to adjust their showings because of their contract, that is 100% on that theater for being bad at their job. And in hindsight, people making that mistake were idiots; they were betting on the movie having a smaller response than predicted, and it actually exceeded many mainstream predictions. Their contractual business partners, who they rent movies from, may indeed have forced them to fix that evaluation. But the only reason for a negative impact on other movies is resistance from the theater owner, causing them to whine and cry and do a poor job at choosing what to put in what room. It may be that they wanted to keep showing another movie longer than expected, or something like that.
The whole nature of the complaint is crap. The fact is that it is a matter of planning. If there weren't enough rooms to show those other movies at the same time as the biggest grossing movie ever then that is a planning fail. Nay-sayers said "nay," and they were simply wrong.
If you want a theater that isn't expected to schedule based on demand, stop visiting theaters that even show Disney movies. Go to an art house theater that only shows independent movies.
I saw it on a regular screen, and the theater had the regular number of big screens for the major films. All the big budget films were available on 3d IMAX.
Maybe the place you saw it just has poor planning?
Sadly, much of that work has shifted to python. I don't like python, because I learned that meaningful whitespace is a bad idea when I was using COBOL.
Perl's real wart is the hoops to integrate with C. It works great once you get there, of course.
Text processing these days there are such good libraries for whatever strategy you use, nobody actually has an advantage anymore. Except in cli filters, and then I reach for sed as often as anything.
Yeah, inferiority expressing as apparent superiority makes it all a bit funny with these sorts of studies.
Also, opinions towards the value of humbleness screw up the results considerably. I've met people with extreme narcissism whose value system holds up being humble as being good, so they're incredible smug dicks who won't even descend their mountain for a conversation that they started, because they see themselves as being too humble to admit knowing anything about the stuff they're smugly knowing more than anybody about. You can talk to a person like that for a few minutes and figure out what is happening, but in a study like this it is hard to tease much that is correct out of the things they are explicitly willing to say.
I'm not sure if it is realistic to do this sort of study at all. It may be that better data is acquired observationally, and that "objective" data is of too low quality to be clinically useful. I think it is questionable to assign labels like "narcissism" that have extremely negative connotations based on anything but actual dysfunction, because it invariably requires subjective value judgments about personality ideals. If there is no dysfunction, they might simply be getting "called names" by researchers with conflicting personal values.
Communication doesn't happen if people don't hear or read your words.
No, freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard. It is up to you to say something people want to hear, if you want them to listen to you. Being heard is not the purpose of freedom of speech. You ask what is the point of free speech if people choose to listen to somebody else? Seriously?!
No, censorship can't happen at either end. You've either been censored, or you haven't. People ignoring you is not them censoring you.
If you look closely at the chart of the middle class disappearing, a significant percentage are being grouped up and not down. So you don''t have a disappearing middle class at all if you're using 1% as the top group. The upper third of the middle class have increasing wealth. The lower two thirds have static wealth. And the poor are getting slightly less impoverished. So there is a gap forming, but the middle class isn't falling at all. Individually the common situations are continuing up, or stagnating.
The chart I'm seeing in the news only shows a shrinking middle class because they chose a cutoff point way, way lower than what the "1%" make. And on the bottom end, data doesn't show middle class families dropping to working class, but rather working class families are failing to move upwards into middle class at the old rate. That leaves the total size of the lower-middle class shrinking, but not due to a downwards individual trend. The charts generally hide how many people are being left out of the economy due to automation, and disguise it as a broad-base change.
Often the same firmware is already loaded, and it chooses which feature package by what is plugged in. This if often true where there was a more expensive model of the same brand. I've dealt with that many times by simply unplugging the sensors for a broken part. Then it will work with reduced features until repair is possible. (eg, parts arrive)
Not having the hardware is really the problem. Those extra cycles usually rely on having separate pumps and things on different parts. So each extra cycle probably has a daughter board that is handling the motor controls.
The good DIY solution is to replace the whole firmware with something open, and start separating and layering the logic so that you can share high-level feature programming between different hardware. Then you can have a common firmware that provides features, and device-specific daughter boards for hardware integration.
I'm not, as long as they don't build past their property line. If I refuse to enter, how can it harm me?
If "everyone" is vapid and has nothing to say, my advice is to get a different "everyone.";) In your scenario, the fault is on the lame people with nothing to say, not facebook. Facebook isn't email, or anything else outside of facebook. If users stop using other communication forms, they probably are less interested in communication. So what? Isn't that a part of their freedom?
The point of freedom is that you could just rent a VPS and start another service that offered what features you're worried would dry up. Freedom does not mean others joining you, it means that they could if they actually wanted to.;)
And to the extent that journalism is the source of news it isn't drying up at all, it is experiencing an unparalleled golden age. I think it really the people who dislike journalism being that involved in creating content that have reduced choices. But it is really just a signal/noise problem. There is actually more news being reported, there is just also more news being repeated, and so because of the signal:noise issues it gets hard to find things.
What does concern me is that it used to take me almost all day to read everything new that day on the 'net - and now it takes only an hour, if that, and I don't really read faster than I used to.
It is funny, I open tabs of pages of data that I want to consume, but defer because it is not topical to what I'm researching, and then later I can go back and read those tabs. But they grow too fast, and I only have the same 25 hours a day as everybody else. So I finally end up with firefox getting bloated, so I give up and just toss the unread tabs... by then it is usually a few thousand. I do read probably 25% of what I set aside to read.
If your internet data sources are shrinking, you're almost certainly stuck in a silo of your own making.
It is the same problem the people crying about censorship have. They lack motivation to participate in meaningful speech, and they blame invisible gatekeepers.
The difference between the internet now and 15 years ago is that now there is just more data, and most of it sucks. The noise is increasingly difficult to filter. But that should present itself as a different problem; excess crap, excess data. If you're short on data you've got severe bottlenecks. I use noscript and ad blockers, and can'trefuse to consume much of the available data, and there is still significant excess. There is no way to trim that down without restricting speech, so building silos might be a good answer. But perhaps they become less useful if they're seen as something evil that is being imposed by invisible beings.
Stop trying to restrict their speech. If cat videos are what people care about, then cat videos are included in the speech that is protected. And behold the depth of their freedom, the endless exploration of their medium that they are engaged in. If they can survive that much cute, then revel in it; wallow in your freedom to live silly lives vicariously through cats.
Meanwhile, I'm living in a world where everybody with network access can learn EE and even use advanced (free) engineering tools and the whole industry is undergoing an incredible renaissance for the "little guy."
And freedom of speech continues to expand. People whining about it are just exercising their right. There is no expectation of having something worthwhile to say just to have freedom of speech; that is part of the whole point! No, them saying idiotic things won't harm speech freedoms. That's just silly. Even the idiotic prognostication itself helps to exercise and protect free speech. If ideas so wrong and stupid are still safe and protected, then fear not.
Just like in TFS. Blathering about some attack on free speech, some loss of speech freedom that it accuses me of having been victim of, and then it lists a bunch of non-speech political things. No, a "negative trend in broadband adoption" does not mean my freedom to access the "open internet" as been even threatened, much less restricted. No, industry consolidation, while perhaps bad for reasons, is not in itself a restriction on anything, even access to the internet. For the purpose of freedom of speech, broadband is not necessary. Broadband is necessary for some quality entertainments, and for some professional work, but for the purpose of getting on the internet to engage in Speech it is totally unnecessary. The US may have sucky broadband, but if you think that makes us less "free" it implies only that you don't know what freedom is. By "you" of course I mean the summary and whoever endorses the view.
Data caps would be a restriction on speech if it was true that most people can't afford their data use, and that speech took up so much bandwidth compared to entertainment that people would be holding back on speaking in able to use their bandwidth in other ways. But that isn't the way it shakes out; internet speech takes almost no bandwidth for the speaker, and if you're up against a data cap and suffering reduced bandwidth... gosh, speech is still the thing you have bandwidth for! Quit playing and find something to say. Or is that the real problem? People with nothing to say are blaming politicians for it?
You don't describe "censorship," you describe "freedom of speech" where it is the owner of the forum whose rights are involved.
Your neighbor saying different things than you doesn't restrict your speech, and your neighbor requiring visitors to follow his rules of politeness is also not a restriction on your freedom. Freedom of speech is not "freedom to be heard in your neighbors house at your convenience." That is true of both a literal neighbor's house, and also an internet forum.
You're as backwards and upside down as the story. People not doing what you wanted... that doesn't tell you they're not free. I mean, really.
Another thing, me electing a government you don't like? Yeah, doesn't make them fascist. Fascist is a real political position, so it makes a poor pejorative for people who are... violently anti-fascist.
You know who doesn't have free speech? Cowards who don't have anything they would admit to saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if we solve all of those the Linux Desktop still wouldn't have a meaningfull market share.
And as one of the users, why should it? It already does what users want. Why would doing what non-users want make it better? As open source, how would it benefit existing users to have additional non-technical users? It wouldn't even predict better forum questions or answers.
The Year of the Linux Desktop happened in the 90s. It was, we were, many of us still are.
If you RTFA it seems their sample size was 20 programmers.
Right, so that tells you that they're idiots because they can't do what the idiots speculate, or that the idiots speculating misunderstood the purpose of the tool?
when you've sampled the compiled... output... of a million coders all using different compilers on different architectures and are getting at least a 99% accuracy rate, get back to [me]
There are multiple problems in your analysis. First, there are not millions of compilers or architectures. If you take the compilers and architectures that make up 95% of what is used, you've only got a few platforms and a few compilers, not different ones for millions of programmers. This may sound pedantic, but the problem you imply with this part is actually one of the sample size being too small. If each programmer had a different platform/compiler combination, then even a large number of programmers would have too small a sample size of comparables. But the problem is the opposite of that. (LMFAO) The problem is that since there are only a few different platforms and compilers, lots of people (most people) are using the same few combinations, and so the sample size is actually too large with millions of programmers.
And worse, why do you think it would need to be 99% useful to be significant? It seems you grabbed the wrong end of the stick there. If it was 20% accurate with a sample size of 1m my goodness, you could really narrow things down with that. Combined with other factors like cell phone movements, and machine learning methods so that you're using the actual calculated liklihood and not a binary yes/no, well now it might spit out a vastly reduced list of possibilities.
And working the other direction, in the state the tech is in now, if you can reduce your million candidates to 100 based on cell phone movements combined with other known information, then you have a 60% chance of picking out the 1 person? So if instead you calibrate it to give you the top 5 instead of the top 1, the accuracy would probably be in the high 90s. Getting down to that small group is hard, but then traditional techniques can be employed successfully once you get there, eg, investigation.
Right, except, you don't make a case that supports your conclusion. You make a good case that the use the idiot in TFS describes is not a good use. But that doesn't harm the capabilities of the technology at all. Your conclusion that it is snake oil mistakes the location and nature of the mistake.
From what you said, it sounds like each of your past employers could use it to tell if you were the one who wrote a particular function or method, based on the specific ways that you implemented their stated coding standards. Once you find a better use case, then you can realize that the size of detectable signal is very reasonable for the technology to work. There only needs to be subtle differences between team members to tell which one wrote a particular thing. Whereas, if you don't already have a small sample size then it reaches the problems you describe. But not all use cases reach those problems.
I'd be surprised if this works at all
It is just like a polygraph machine. It works, it works well, it works under known conditions, and it produces known results. Of course, then things it does are not the things described by the words people use near it, nor are more of the actions it is used to support actually supported by the function of the machine. And yet, the machine is not malfunctioning.
This is not an investigative tool for law enforcement. It is a useful tool for certain business researchers, and it may prove useful to historians of computing in the future. There are probably other reasonable uses, too.
lol yeah. The blathering about governments is just somebody getting silly and running their mouth about stupid shit. Newsflash, if a person sounds like a conspiracy theorist? They're probably not a good data source.
This is great technology for figuring out which one of 5 people wrote a particular method/function. And I have no doubt that governments will use this technology to mislead juries into believing it is like a fingerprint, by using the word "fingerprint" nearby the name of their test in sentences, but they'll only be using it to reinforce whatever evidence they used to find the person to accuse in the first place.
This would be more likely to have real-world impact in the hands of a large corporation's recruiting department. You don't necessarily want to hire away all your competitor's team, they just the best few people. With this, you might be able to tease out who wrote which parts of their product; especially if also have code samples from the 20% that applied with both companies, or from FLOSS code.
Wow, you take the time to post complaining that I was insensitive, and yet you use "autistic" as your descriptive word for that. Why do you need to bring people with disabilities into it, and turn them into a pejorative, when you could use a more sensitive and demographic-neutral term like "asshole?"
And is CS the same thing as engineering?
As a software developer with many years of experience I have to point out, engineering is a specific type of discipline. For example if you think "waterfall" is a bad word, you're not an engineer.
If he was a real person and not a dice employee acting a role, he'd have to be a complete tool to be looking for jargon with an Ask Slashdot. A person with an advanced degree AND 15 years of experience in the field would simply read a few glossaries and be a lot farther ahead. A person who has a MS should be darn good at research, and they wouldn't be asking broad general questions in the form, "Where do I start to learn about a specialty?"
It is absurd, and the poorly written character deserves all the criticism he gets.
I'm not sure that would help a failed engineer.
He says he has 15 years as a "SW engineer/developer" which I take to literally mean "SW developer with no engineering training."
He also says that even with 15 years of experience, which should make him a high paid senior developer making six figures, he can't afford to quit his day job. Well gee, whiz.
My advice, forget about machine learning for now. Spend the next 5 years learning to budget your income, and setting aside some money to live on for a few years while you transition away from the job that you don't like but borrowed yourself into slavery to. Also, gosh, what if you lost your job for other reasons, or there was a natural disaster? You'd be screwed if you're living paycheck to paycheck on "15 years experience" money. An earthquake could mean losing your house and car, because you overflow your buffer as soon as there is an interruption in the money signal.
And when you get there, I can answer the original question for you easily:
Q: Is [narrow specialization] for me?
A: No
Just keep repeating until you hit a specialization that you don't have to ask about, because in your generalized work in the field you've already been interested enough by it to learn about it, and so you know a bit already and you know a bit about how it relates to the rest of the field. If you're not there yet, the answer will remain "no," and once you get there, you're not going to be asking; you'll already be a specialist, just one who is working in a general position. And then you can easily decide to change jobs, or not.
If you have 15 years experience, you should be approaching paying off your mortgage. You should be in a position to change careers if you want.
You're talking about a handful of theaters in the nation with special super-sized screens.
Large theaters with dozens of rooms in major cities don't normally have that. They have regular, 3d, and IMAX which may also be 3d. There is not normally a single room with a bigger screen than any other room. If a theater in a mall has 16 screens, at least 4 of them are probably IMAX and are exactly the same size. They may have three sizes total, but usually 2.
People such as yourself are repeating details of a contract that you've probably never seen, and describing it in a way that is clearly not true in its implication. It may be literally true in some marginal way where it is true for those few theaters that have a single super-size marquee screen, but the way it is being phrased could easily mislead a reader into thinking that all 4 IMAX screens would be reserved for Star Wars. I don't doubt they have rules that say at least 1 of the largest-size screens has to be dedicated to just Star Wars. They appeared to have 2 of the 4 showing Star Wars where I went, and the other 2 rotating between 4 or 5 other movies.
If some idiot has a theater with a single oversize marquee and they were showing something else on it, yeah, that is a total planning fail on their part. If you hate Star Wars and nerds and really wanted to watch some lowbrow western or something, that doesn't change the evaluation; obviously the biggest movie in history would be playing on the marquee screen for a few weeks after release. Duh. Why would a consumer of these products be attempting to covet watching the less popular movie on the biggest oversized screen in town? That seems a pretty silly requirement for satisfaction with your purchase.
Apparently JJ only has two modes: Zero Originality, and Shit All Over Everything?
I didn't realize it was such a technical subject as to be incomprehensible, but you do realize that the person you're insulting doesn't do the job you're insulting him based on? Completely different people handle movie distribution. Directors and producers probably don't even enter that building, and the bean-counters certainly don't contact them for consultations on theater relations and contract enforcement.
No, actually ...
So, you're going to refute my observation that some theaters had enough rooms to have high quality (3d,IMAX) offerings for all the major movies... with a theory based on having heard about some contract, the details of which probably don't contradict what I said? Gee whiz, kiddo.
If a theater planned the wrong number of showings of a major movie, and had to adjust their showings because of their contract, that is 100% on that theater for being bad at their job. And in hindsight, people making that mistake were idiots; they were betting on the movie having a smaller response than predicted, and it actually exceeded many mainstream predictions. Their contractual business partners, who they rent movies from, may indeed have forced them to fix that evaluation. But the only reason for a negative impact on other movies is resistance from the theater owner, causing them to whine and cry and do a poor job at choosing what to put in what room. It may be that they wanted to keep showing another movie longer than expected, or something like that.
The whole nature of the complaint is crap. The fact is that it is a matter of planning. If there weren't enough rooms to show those other movies at the same time as the biggest grossing movie ever then that is a planning fail. Nay-sayers said "nay," and they were simply wrong.
If you want a theater that isn't expected to schedule based on demand, stop visiting theaters that even show Disney movies. Go to an art house theater that only shows independent movies.
I saw it on a regular screen, and the theater had the regular number of big screens for the major films. All the big budget films were available on 3d IMAX.
Maybe the place you saw it just has poor planning?
Sadly, much of that work has shifted to python. I don't like python, because I learned that meaningful whitespace is a bad idea when I was using COBOL.
Perl's real wart is the hoops to integrate with C. It works great once you get there, of course.
Text processing these days there are such good libraries for whatever strategy you use, nobody actually has an advantage anymore. Except in cli filters, and then I reach for sed as often as anything.
Right, if you don't care what you use, they do all work. Nobody said otherwise.
If you don't think your counter-culture has a superior point of view, how would you even know you're a part of it?
Yeah, inferiority expressing as apparent superiority makes it all a bit funny with these sorts of studies.
Also, opinions towards the value of humbleness screw up the results considerably. I've met people with extreme narcissism whose value system holds up being humble as being good, so they're incredible smug dicks who won't even descend their mountain for a conversation that they started, because they see themselves as being too humble to admit knowing anything about the stuff they're smugly knowing more than anybody about. You can talk to a person like that for a few minutes and figure out what is happening, but in a study like this it is hard to tease much that is correct out of the things they are explicitly willing to say.
I'm not sure if it is realistic to do this sort of study at all. It may be that better data is acquired observationally, and that "objective" data is of too low quality to be clinically useful. I think it is questionable to assign labels like "narcissism" that have extremely negative connotations based on anything but actual dysfunction, because it invariably requires subjective value judgments about personality ideals. If there is no dysfunction, they might simply be getting "called names" by researchers with conflicting personal values.
Communication doesn't happen if people don't hear or read your words.
No, freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard. It is up to you to say something people want to hear, if you want them to listen to you. Being heard is not the purpose of freedom of speech. You ask what is the point of free speech if people choose to listen to somebody else? Seriously?!
No, censorship can't happen at either end. You've either been censored, or you haven't. People ignoring you is not them censoring you.
If you look closely at the chart of the middle class disappearing, a significant percentage are being grouped up and not down. So you don''t have a disappearing middle class at all if you're using 1% as the top group. The upper third of the middle class have increasing wealth. The lower two thirds have static wealth. And the poor are getting slightly less impoverished. So there is a gap forming, but the middle class isn't falling at all. Individually the common situations are continuing up, or stagnating.
The chart I'm seeing in the news only shows a shrinking middle class because they chose a cutoff point way, way lower than what the "1%" make. And on the bottom end, data doesn't show middle class families dropping to working class, but rather working class families are failing to move upwards into middle class at the old rate. That leaves the total size of the lower-middle class shrinking, but not due to a downwards individual trend. The charts generally hide how many people are being left out of the economy due to automation, and disguise it as a broad-base change.
Often the same firmware is already loaded, and it chooses which feature package by what is plugged in. This if often true where there was a more expensive model of the same brand. I've dealt with that many times by simply unplugging the sensors for a broken part. Then it will work with reduced features until repair is possible. (eg, parts arrive)
Not having the hardware is really the problem. Those extra cycles usually rely on having separate pumps and things on different parts. So each extra cycle probably has a daughter board that is handling the motor controls.
The good DIY solution is to replace the whole firmware with something open, and start separating and layering the logic so that you can share high-level feature programming between different hardware. Then you can have a common firmware that provides features, and device-specific daughter boards for hardware integration.
I am concerned about the rise of walled gardens.
I'm not, as long as they don't build past their property line. If I refuse to enter, how can it harm me?
If "everyone" is vapid and has nothing to say, my advice is to get a different "everyone." ;) In your scenario, the fault is on the lame people with nothing to say, not facebook. Facebook isn't email, or anything else outside of facebook. If users stop using other communication forms, they probably are less interested in communication. So what? Isn't that a part of their freedom?
The point of freedom is that you could just rent a VPS and start another service that offered what features you're worried would dry up. Freedom does not mean others joining you, it means that they could if they actually wanted to. ;)
And to the extent that journalism is the source of news it isn't drying up at all, it is experiencing an unparalleled golden age. I think it really the people who dislike journalism being that involved in creating content that have reduced choices. But it is really just a signal/noise problem. There is actually more news being reported, there is just also more news being repeated, and so because of the signal:noise issues it gets hard to find things.
What does concern me is that it used to take me almost all day to read everything new that day on the 'net - and now it takes only an hour, if that, and I don't really read faster than I used to.
It is funny, I open tabs of pages of data that I want to consume, but defer because it is not topical to what I'm researching, and then later I can go back and read those tabs. But they grow too fast, and I only have the same 25 hours a day as everybody else. So I finally end up with firefox getting bloated, so I give up and just toss the unread tabs... by then it is usually a few thousand. I do read probably 25% of what I set aside to read.
If your internet data sources are shrinking, you're almost certainly stuck in a silo of your own making.
It is the same problem the people crying about censorship have. They lack motivation to participate in meaningful speech, and they blame invisible gatekeepers.
The difference between the internet now and 15 years ago is that now there is just more data, and most of it sucks. The noise is increasingly difficult to filter. But that should present itself as a different problem; excess crap, excess data. If you're short on data you've got severe bottlenecks. I use noscript and ad blockers, and can'trefuse to consume much of the available data, and there is still significant excess. There is no way to trim that down without restricting speech, so building silos might be a good answer. But perhaps they become less useful if they're seen as something evil that is being imposed by invisible beings.
Stop trying to restrict their speech. If cat videos are what people care about, then cat videos are included in the speech that is protected. And behold the depth of their freedom, the endless exploration of their medium that they are engaged in. If they can survive that much cute, then revel in it; wallow in your freedom to live silly lives vicariously through cats.
Meanwhile, I'm living in a world where everybody with network access can learn EE and even use advanced (free) engineering tools and the whole industry is undergoing an incredible renaissance for the "little guy."
And freedom of speech continues to expand. People whining about it are just exercising their right. There is no expectation of having something worthwhile to say just to have freedom of speech; that is part of the whole point! No, them saying idiotic things won't harm speech freedoms. That's just silly. Even the idiotic prognostication itself helps to exercise and protect free speech. If ideas so wrong and stupid are still safe and protected, then fear not.
Just like in TFS. Blathering about some attack on free speech, some loss of speech freedom that it accuses me of having been victim of, and then it lists a bunch of non-speech political things. No, a "negative trend in broadband adoption" does not mean my freedom to access the "open internet" as been even threatened, much less restricted. No, industry consolidation, while perhaps bad for reasons, is not in itself a restriction on anything, even access to the internet. For the purpose of freedom of speech, broadband is not necessary. Broadband is necessary for some quality entertainments, and for some professional work, but for the purpose of getting on the internet to engage in Speech it is totally unnecessary. The US may have sucky broadband, but if you think that makes us less "free" it implies only that you don't know what freedom is. By "you" of course I mean the summary and whoever endorses the view.
Data caps would be a restriction on speech if it was true that most people can't afford their data use, and that speech took up so much bandwidth compared to entertainment that people would be holding back on speaking in able to use their bandwidth in other ways. But that isn't the way it shakes out; internet speech takes almost no bandwidth for the speaker, and if you're up against a data cap and suffering reduced bandwidth... gosh, speech is still the thing you have bandwidth for! Quit playing and find something to say. Or is that the real problem? People with nothing to say are blaming politicians for it?
You don't describe "censorship," you describe "freedom of speech" where it is the owner of the forum whose rights are involved.
Your neighbor saying different things than you doesn't restrict your speech, and your neighbor requiring visitors to follow his rules of politeness is also not a restriction on your freedom. Freedom of speech is not "freedom to be heard in your neighbors house at your convenience." That is true of both a literal neighbor's house, and also an internet forum.
You're as backwards and upside down as the story. People not doing what you wanted... that doesn't tell you they're not free. I mean, really.
Another thing, me electing a government you don't like? Yeah, doesn't make them fascist. Fascist is a real political position, so it makes a poor pejorative for people who are... violently anti-fascist.
You know who doesn't have free speech? Cowards who don't have anything they would admit to saying.