phyller

My understanding is that there are literally hundreds of qualified, passionate applicants for each spot. I've met a few. If we are spending billions of dollars to strap that particular person to a rocket, I think humanity should be able to benefit as much as possible. I don't think its unreasonable to have as a requirement for that service that certain health records might not remain private. Just like it would not be unreasonable to require certain high level public servants to divulge their tax records, as long as it was understood as a requirement beforehand.

From the article: “None of those ads on Facebook would have been very effective if they said ‘paid for by Russia.’ ”

They wouldn't say that. Just like all other political ads they would be funded through an organization with an appealing name, "Paid for by Americans for Freedom and Justice"

The eetimes article is just a short summary of the actual article at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-06/tsmc-read...

This is from 2011

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. You realize this is exactly what every evil dictator in history thought? They didn't wake up one morning and decide to be evil, they were trying to do what they thought was right. In their minds they were good, they were actually trying to make the world a better place, according to their world view. They had great plans, and the foolish mob didn't know what was best for them. And one thing led to another.

So what if the right-wing people in charge had the same ideas as you? Several democracies with cancerous social media networks have been teetering on the brink of left-wing national socialism, the mob needs to be controlled.

What we dislike about fascists and their ilk is not the right-wing or left-wing part, it is how they deal with those they disagree with. Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Mao for more than Stalin, neither of them right wing. If you were able to enforce what you suggest, you would be worse than those you oppose.

But you are right about democracies devolving in certain times of stress. How about this statement instead? "The mob needs to be inspired by the self-sacrificial service of good leaders for progress to be made"

"It was a brave action. Had Allied infantry been ambushed as they advanced on Sansepolcro, his court martial would have been brutal."

Yes very brave. I'm sure his reputation might have suffered as his fellow officers wrote home to all the families of the dead who would never see their loved ones again. He might even have lost his rank! Thank God he knew better than his superior officers. /s

I understand people can come down on both sides of this issue based on their priorities, but praising him for risking a "court martial" is silly. Considering what was at stake he barely risked anything at all to himself. The real risk was run, unknowingly, by the infantrymen tasked to take the town. He gambled with their lives, not his own.

It worked out this time, and maybe it was a good decision, maybe not, but he is certainly no hero.

I thought Williamsburg was more expensive than most places in Manhattan now? You can find a ton of cheaper places in Manhattan (still expensive) if you are willing to go farther north. But then you have to deal with a longer subway trip. It's odd that commuting to midtown from Stamford, Connecticut is about the same from Inwood, Manhattan. If you don't mind an hour commute, and you work in midtown, metro north is really good and Stamford and the areas around are really nice and much cheaper. You can buy an actual house.

Ok +1 for the super cynical article about how to stop functional programming :D

But obviously that's a cheap shot for an example, no one would have a problem with the function he starts out with, he doesn't need to have a side effect. The problem is when you are in an OOP app, with an OOP language, doing things that really lend themselves to OOP, and trying to shoehorn everything into FP because it's How Smart People Program. And the result is not less complicated, but way more complicated.

I've got these opinions because I've already been that guy saying please stop writing this complicated stuff that I don't understand. I'm not an idiot, we've just got a huge amount of work to do, and the time it takes for me to piece all this together and find the bugs is not worth it, especially because it is going to be just as opaque to you when you have to come back to it in a few months.

I'm not saying FP isn't the best thing ever and someday I'm sure it's going to take over the world, and given all the time in the world and a clean sheet I might choose it myself right now. But I care about working as a team more than the finer points of coding philosophy, and making simple, effective, and on time code. I'll choose practical over principle if I have to, though I'd prefer to have both. And if that means FP, then let's do it, but so far my experience has been the opposite.

For context, we are talking about JavaScript apps, and my comments are limited to front end apps using OOP frameworks and fetching data in the form of objects from a REST API.

I think this is exactly right, but it also shows why bitcoin is actually a very good candidate for a currency. It has every characteristic that makes gold a good currency, and additional ones as well. In the ways that gold is convenient, bitcoin is more convenient. As far as currencies go, I think that the less intrinsic value it has the better it fulfills its purpose. It is not meant to be hoarded but serve as lubrication for the exchange of goods and services. I could go on, but basically I think bitcoin could be seen as superior to gold as a currency, if its value was as globally accepted. But still, I think it is inferior to the dollar. For a truly stable economy we need to be able to control the value of our currency.

That's a fair point, currying is the main offender here, partial application is just making a new function. With the right name it's not harder to understand. It does add complexity because you have layers of dependencies instead of everything being in the same place. The example is always some simple math, but usually functions are doing more, and when they get changed it isn't always obvious that the things that rely on partial applications of those functions are also affected.

But that is true of anything that uses any dependencies, and a fundamental part of how we usually code. I prefer to reasonably minimize the number of dependencies, and then of course good tests protect you against this problem.

Good points about bitcoin, but really that holds true of everything. I don't understand why gold always gets a pass here, everyone assumes it has some magic intrinsic value. But the same rule applies. It's worth what other people are willing to give you for it. I'd wager that the value of a fresh loaf of bread has held its value more consistently than an ounce of gold over 10 years. The only advantages gold has over bitcoin is that gold has some useful chemical properties (which probably have little to do with its current price) and it has a lot longer history as being used as currency, which I think is the real reason we value gold today. It is valued because it is valued.

This is interesting, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, particularly in JavaScript. As soon as I started working on a large project with a team of devs my coding style began to change dramatically. Simplicity and readability become paramount. Minimize how much a dev needs to understand about the code before they can work on it, and how long it takes them to read it. With the right coding conventions, anyone can start working within seconds just by seeing the names of the functions and variables.

The mental gymnastics required to read these functions and understand how they work is not negligible, it adds up. Especially when the function definition might be in another file from the one you are working on.

If any of my co-workers started actually using these techniques in our code, I would flag it. Usually, if you find yourself in a situation where it is beneficial to use techniques like this, it's a sign that you might be able to refactor your entire approach to make the design simpler.

That makes sense, Bahrain is even more unusual, presumably for the same reason. With women in the area more likely to be out of the public eye, it must appear to be a surreal culture of almost only men. http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/bahrain-population-pyrami...

Yea. I think every employee of a 3 letter agency should be required to write a scholarly paper on the term "blowback" and have it peer reviewed before they get to spend any money.

The article says they are theoretically only arming groups that are fighting against ISIS. I'm pretty sure if they can defeat them on the ground without committing American troops (airstrikes can only do so much) and only spending $1 billion dollars they are going to consider that a big win.

The sentiment of this question explains why even further. ISIS does very bad stuff and is a major problem, and we can all wonder why the west doesn't do more to stop them because they clearly have the ability to do so. But then the moment the US gets really involved, everyone is going to shift blame to them for everything. I don't condone secretive actions like this myself, but considering the US's global influence and capability, if they weren't doing something about ISIS the question could easily be restated "What does the US government gain by allowing extremists to rape and pillage the middle east?"

The problem is the food you are storing is constantly going bad. So you need to recreate the entire massive food stockpile every year or so, in order to have it ready when the time comes. We'd have to find a way to efficiently cycle food through the stockpile and back to consumers before it became useless. But I doubt consumers are going to be lining up to buy old food. The food would be expensive to buy fresh, then wouldn't sell for much when it is old. It would be a crazy expensive program, and it would increase the price of fresh food for everyone.

It's true about the US, and if you go on unemployment the company that let you go can be on the hook to pay for about half of it. So you definitely want your ex employees to get another job fast.

That's a good point. But there was an article in the BBC that stated at least one agency in the UK was aware of the situation. Given that the guy is temporarily at least a hero, the short time frame since Alphabay was taken down and the evidence discovered, and the fact he was traveling to the US, it was probably better for everybody that it happened in the US. I don't think politicians in the UK would have enjoyed the prospect of extraditing him to the US. My impression is not that they were sitting on this for a couple years, but that the Alphabay operation unveiled a lot of info that they couldn't act on until it was finished. But that's all pure speculation on my part.

Your assertion is that the US should not arrest someone on US soil for crimes committed against US citizens by the person while they were in another country. That doesn't make sense to me. If an American was mailing handguns that are legal in the US to people in the UK I think no one would have a problem with them being arrested if they visited the UK. Disagreeing with the laws of another country is reasonable and your home country has the ability to at least try to intervene in your behalf. But when you are traveling to another country you are subject to its judicial system. If this minimum of enforcement is not acceptable how are any of us to defend ourselves against criminals in developing countries that will never enforce their own laws?

The concept that we get to take our home legal system waltzing around the world with us as we travel is arrogant. You may be morally and legally free to post a cartoon mocking Mohammed on your Facebook page, but don't be surprised if you get detained on a trip through Saudi Arabia.

At least in the US he's innocent until proven guilty and will probably get a fair trial. And he wasn't arrested for posting his opinions on social media or bashing the president. The software in question was designed to steal people's access to their shopping and banking accounts. And the accusation is he conspired to sell it and offer support to criminals to help them abuse their victims. I would have no problem with an American getting arrested under similar circumstances while visiting another country.

The big stories at the time were that hospitals in the UK were getting shut down by it. If whoever did it lived in the UK they may have had a change of heart.

Nice. This is what the original launch should have been like. Help doctors use this to provide better care and no one is going to be calling anyone a "glasshole"

That's how App Academy works already. Put a deposit down, go through the program, then pay them a percentage of your first years wages from your new job. I did it, and rich people at the golf club where I worked were telling me it was a bad idea, sounded illegal, etc. In my opinion I got an awesome job in an awesome career for super cheap. I had no money, someone was finally willing to give me a chance based on my ability to work through problems in the application. It was the hardest thing I ever did but well worth it.

Does anyone else feel reluctant to install a tool that allows a link on a website to remap your keyboard? Am I misunderstanding this?

I lose a lot of respect for them, it's a symptom of so many (usually deep) flaws.

I'm sorry that you are in a situation where your colleagues project their arrogance and insecurities onto you. I have also experienced this myself, and it was disappointing and confusing to me. I think that a person who is willing to own up to their shortcomings is the stronger person, and more likely to turn their weaknesses into strengths as they confront and expose them instead of trying to hide them. In the end, increasing excellence in my work has won my colleagues over, and a more humble attitude has helped me maintain good relationships that are often strained by my naturally blunt nature. Rather than allowing them to turn you into a worse version of yourself, I'd suggest you either persevere despite the unfair stigma, or work somewhere else that has a more mature work environment.

I'm sure you have no ill intent, but Heather Wilson, the Secretary of the Air Force who made that statement, is female. It's interesting that it is so natural to assume that someone whose job it is to be "lethal" would be a male, but in this day and age, especially in the air force, that's not the case. Not really relevant, but I have some connections to the Air Force and people seem generally happy that she is the Secretary of the Air Force (the civilian leadership of the Air Force) because she was an Air Force officer, academy grad, seems smart, and she has political experience.

100% agree. Full code coverage with acceptance and integration tests is really good. If you can get a test case for every feature that your app is supposed to have you can develop quickly and ship often knowing that nothing will break. Extensive unit tests that don't test what features do but test how features are implemented are usually a waste of time in my opinion, unless there is some complicated and critical algorithm that you need more visibility and protection for. Otherwise the only purpose of those unit tests is to break for good refactors and double dev time.

When You are cleaning up tech debt and make hundreds of lines of changes and no acceptance tests break (because everything is still working as it should) but 50 unit tests break... I've wasted so much of my life

You're right, fixed

The internet, freedom of speech. I know, we do actually have those things, its a facetious comment, but with a kernel of truth. Our freedoms rests more on personal respect and responsibility than the government and military. Once we pass a certain percentage of people who celebrate antisocial behavior, things just break down. Cities only exist because less than 1% of people think its ok to randomly throw bricks through windows or punch strangers. If that number creeps up to some other larger, but still very small percentage of people, cities just wouldn't be livable anymore. These guys just decided to troll this project, and went to extraordinary lengths to break the law and ruin someone else's dream. If more people did this type of thing, no one would feel safe expressing themselves or sharing information of any kind.

This is why we can't have nice things