97 karma · joined May 31, 2011
More specifically, the failure of people who would have common cause within some topic to actually come together over that cause and effect a change. Instead, people seemingly fall victim to 'wedge issues', reactionary prejudices, and etc.
Given that there is a serious and ongoing discussion about the lack of criminal proceedings, but that there are other kinds of very much lesser processes, it is legitimate to be concerned that financial institutions, and their employees and directors, are getting off too lightly. Then, in light of successful prosecutions against foreign corporations, the original question is legitimate.
Actually, the pattern of national bias is well established from well before the last great meltdown. And given that, these foreign prosecutions make one wonder why there have been so few against US banks.
Why optimize the code to support cases that don't actually exist yet?
Or even better, why optimize the code in ignorance to how it will need to be optimized in 2 years?
That he thinks it is ok to cut through residential neighbourhoods because the freeway is backed up is more than stupid, really. It is dangerous and unfair. I was going to say that, given the apologetics around this strategy, that he's being a little tongue-in-cheek. But when he opened with "the really painful part of being stuck in traffic is not, really, the actual amount of time that it takes to get from Point A to Point B" it was pretty clear that we were going to be looking for wisdom and intelligence from other sources.
The summary for me is that Delphi was more productive and way better designed than VB with the performance of C. I never understood why it didn't have a broader following. My guess is that developers enjoyed the challenge of C/C++, call it an aesthetic judgement.
For me, another use case is 'all the fantastic things that have been invented because of war'.
REUTERS - In the small hours of the morning Irony coughed up a lung and died. It had been on life-support for nearly a decade when a seemingly innocent ...
What makes you think The Economist is interested in probing the nerdosphere? Would Tesla, Apple, etc., be more effective? For sure, the '... adoption is 10 years away' thing is funny. Makes me reminisce for Popular Science.
If I were to guess; they are advertising where their technological sympathies lie. It is more about managing their brand than probing an audience.
I have to admire the trajectory of the word's decline. It joins the ranks of "conservative", "liberal", and even "neoliberal".
Perhaps military first adopters are a net positive; like, the first buyers of a technology who will pay top dollar for working prototypes. But what on the original innovation side can you actually attribute?
After decades of work they are orders of magnitude away from break-even. Makes me wonder if the goal is actually break-even and/or power generation. Not really; but it's a revealing question.
I'm no great fan of the budgets these huge projects pull down; I think the bang-for-the-buck is greater elsewhere. But modelling nuclear weapons is an even greater waste of time. It's all kind of a sad epigraph about national science and technology initiatives.
Assuming the modest proposition that fusion energy is possible, why not make fusion energy a 'man on the moon' kind of national goal? It's hardly in doubt that we need a large source of clean energy. Is it a failure of imagination? Is it a failure of the political system - Can't get Bubba to vote for no fusion thing. Is the status quo energy system resistant to change? Whatever, the NIF thing just makes me depressed.
The punch-line is that non-participation in shared (public) resources by the wealthy is a more significant problem then disparity. An interesting premise having both plausibility and examples. Somewhere back in HN, within the last year is an interesting study of the exact question focusing (I think) on education systems. But healthcare systems also work.
It's been a while since I've seen that. Thanks for the belly-laugh.
It would be fun to have an review of how insightful a given analyst has been. It would also be good to have a proper 'full disclosure' policy.