ern

The clients probably have a reason for wanting consultants onsite. Many modern software development processes ("agile methodologies") require ongoing communication between a customer and developers. This is a lot harder remotely, especially when you factor in language differences and time zones. So a significant number would probably pay more to keep a local dev team.

Yep that's pretty much it: forms over data, in various domains.

A lot of what we regard as "skilling up" is just a product of our immature dev culture-learning stuff for the sake of buzzword compliance that doesn't improve anything in the long run. And the high failure rate of software projects shows that we aren't gaining a lot from this culture anyway.

Buzzword compliance is the tech world equivalent of sexual signaling that led to peacocks getting extravagant tails. Developers are stuck in a feedback loop with employers...the more pointless garbage they learn, the more employers value the pointless garbage, and the more developers are forced to learn more pointless garbage. Until they break down, and leave the field to younger men, who perpetuate the cycle.

Fundamental good practices should be learned early on, and honed at work. For the rest, we should work to break the cycle.

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/US-Homeland-Security-Gree...

Now, of course, one could argue that the spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security was making things up, but the overwhelming evidence, from ideologically and geographically diverse news sources all says the same thing: the ban included green cards, before being reversed.

Rudy Giuliani has now claimed on Fox News that he helped design the restrictions as a legally valid form of Trump's "Muslim ban":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.

“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

In case you don't trust The Independent Here's a solidly right wing source to back it up: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444372/trumps-executive...

That covers legal permanent residents -- green card holders -- and visa-holders from those seven countries who are out of the United States after Friday, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order with the temporary ban. They cannot return to the U.S. for 90 days. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/29/federal-judge-grants-st...

Googling "Green cards visa blocked" gives plenty more results.

Under Carter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act

Yes there is, and it is already in place. There has been bipartisan oversight of intelligence from Congress for decades. A subset of the people's representatives with the necessary security clearances make sure that there are no Deep State shenanigans. Yes, it failed in the run up to the Iraq invasion, but it worked for decades before, during the Cold War.

I also doubt that any country in has ever accepted foreign propaganda, Manchurian candidates who subvert their electoral processes (speaking generally, not about any particular candidate) and mass manipulation of its populace (the fact the the US has engaged in this sort of activity does not make it right either).

Also, it seems like there are methodological improvements that can be made to observational studies to get closer to an answer for a threshold without literally poisoning people: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27009351

But Edwards says that labeling children as “brain damaged” is also unjust. “Poisoning is obviously a loaded word,” he adds. “I’ve spoken to many parents in Flint, and I’m concerned because I don’t want children there defined by what happened to them

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flint-s-lead-tain...

You will notice all the caveats in the article above, that are generally ignored in mainstream reporting of scientific studies around lead.

If you can recommend a better strategy, I'd like to hear it.

How about scientific studies that actually attempt to quantify the effects of lead, to determine an actual threshold of harm, handle confounding properly, and avoiding emotive and alarmist tropes when publicizing the results of those studies?

Alarmism may be useful in the short term for getting action taken (and getting funding), but in the long-term, it will cause people to "tune out" or worse, to adopt anti-science attitudes (see current Global Warming skepticism).

This does not mean that children at this level are poisoned,” Dietrich says. “There are very few studies of low-level lead exposure, but there is nothing in the data that suggests that children will have negative impacts of short-term low-level exposure” over their lives. In fact, he notes, the 5 μg/dL figure was set because 97.5 percent of young children fall below it, not because blood lead levels at that threshold result in permanent harm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brains-of-fli...

The evidence about low-level lead exposure and IQ seems far from definitive, and seems (to my amateur eye) to be full of unadjusted confounding, but I could be missing something.

This does not mean that children at this level are poisoned,” Dietrich says. “There are very few studies of low-level lead exposure, but there is nothing in the data that suggests that children will have negative impacts of short-term low-level exposure” over their lives. In fact, he notes, the 5 μg/dL figure was set because 97.5 percent of young children fall below it, not because blood lead levels at that threshold result in permanent harm

A bit of a sidetrack, but Ludo does have decisions: which disc to move and how many spaces. Chasing vs rushing to complete. Whether to move a disc when a 6 is diced or to bring a new disc into play.

Chutes/snakes and Ladders is pure luck.

Attempts to introduce today's complex real-world programming paradigms into school will fail, so the obvious next step will be for real-world programming environments to become more like the ones used for teaching. The challenge will be to ensure that these programming tools of the future are well-engineeered so that the code they produce is maintainable.

I haven't worked with Java for a long time, but from what I've been hearing from colleagues who are exploring writing production software with it, .NET Core is currently a bit of a mess, showing that even coherent dev stories can easily slip into disorder.

The article is about other countries where the phenomenon is widespread.

If HRC had won. I'm pretty sure we'd have been having the same conversations although not reported with the same urgency.

I suspect that, had Hillary won, we'd have seen the same amount of coverage, but with a tone of "it was a close call".

It has been clear for a long time that large-scale trolling and fake news operations were underway for a long time, and needed to be addressed.

Indeed, I expect that the MSM is being somewhat restrained here, because they don't want to seem like sore losers.

Engaging in refuting online garbage constantly is a painful waste of time, and keeping silent or blocking it just allows it to fester.

I'm hoping that this makes a difference, and I've used a trivial and non-threatening example of fakery (fake supermoon pics) to plant the idea that nothing online can be trusted, within my social circles.