597 karma · joined July 6, 2016
Some unions are so hawkish that they impose hiring blacklists on affected employers, making membership mandatory instead of voluntary. Additionally, in the rank and file, there's a common fear of union corruption.
With the cnc, you can pick parts and modules from a much bigger pool, then cut your enclosure to match. A widgetized, self-contained module is much easier to adapt to a particular use than a framework, for the same end result.
The problem is that people feel so helpless in politics that getting them to care about their mostly invisible state legislature, never mind the Federal, is a Sisyphian task.
If you're staunchly Democrat, and you vote that way in an overwhelmingly red state, is that also a wasted vote?
If you're building anything else, say, a hand mixer, you're going to spend just as much time on the cnc machine trying to design toy truck whisk attachments as you would have spent just building a new mold with the incredibly powerful cnc you already have.
One of the reasons America was organized the way it is, as a republic, and not a democracy, was to prevent a tyranny of the majority. And no racial, ideological, or religious minority is as necessary to protect as the minority that feeds all of us.
You're right, farmers can quit any time they like, and many have, and are. It's one of the forces driving the automation of agriculture. But we're not at a point where we can take the farmhand out of the equation safely, so let's give them some incentive to stay. While I agree that planned economies are dumb, because of the simple fact of information density, the government is also a market force, and we need to prevent government from working against the people who feed all of us.
That said, farming is still a brutal business. For being an industry that determines whether hundreds of millions will live or die, farmers are typically faced with enormous debt burdens, long work days, and second jobs. It's a pretty screwed up situation.
In programming, the map is the territory, and in the time you can map out and nail down all of the unpredictable bits of a program, you could have written it already. We also don't have the luxury of physical laws. The few natural laws that do apply, the speed of light and time complexity, are so rarified and remote that they don't apply most of the time. We share more with the mathematician than the engineer, but even that comparison rings hollow.
We create programs custom built for a purpose, using rules of thumb and our own aesthetic instincts, that meet a need. Craftsman seems appropriate.
I can tell you three things that will guarantee failure, but I can't say much for sure beyond that.
On the surface, he's right. You don't have to listen to what you don't want to. On the other hand, I have seen his comic frequently cited as justification for not ignoring, but actively hunting down and quashing dissent. In many oppressive regimes, it's not the government enforcing speech restrictions, but rather the party and its independent zealots.
a = b = c = 4
Is totally valid, and assigns 4 to all three variables. It could cause all sorts of undefined behavior, and plenty of interesting, almost undetectable obfuscation. XSS is just the tip of the iceberg.
That way I can't use busyness as an excuse for just spinning my wheels. After a few minutes of not thinking too hard, I'll head back to the desk and verbally state my goals. After that, I tend to be orders of magnitude more productive.
You seem to think there's an element of guilt and extrinsic punishment that needs to be attached to not getting something right the first time. To use a trite analogy, should Edison have been wracked with guilt every time he failed to produce a lightbulb? People who can screw up and immediately pick themselves back up are going to make it farther than even most of the wunderkinds of this world.
The people who really fail, in a terminal sense, are those who constantly flagellate themselves for their mistakes, like you demand, until they're so beaten the refuse to keep trying.