593 karma · joined February 8, 2017
A MacBook is also a possibility, but it is a matter of taste.
Unfortunately, I still find it hard to develop on Windows, because bash has become the de facto standard (for better or worse). Development, however has gotten much better lately with WSL.
Furthermore, many companies gain experience in manufacturing parts for ITER - experience that might be useful for other projects in the future too.
Lastly, many different players collaborate in ITER so the whole of things is also a management experiment.
Go is rather performant and in contrast to C++ memory safe.
This system design allows to built proof automation outside the kernel, i.e. it is safe to use proof automation that hasn't been proven correct, because any proof found by the automation will be checked by the kernel before it is accepted.
Another feature of Coq, which unfortunately is underused in practice is the inclusion of a notion of reduction in the type theory.
Terms of the type theory are programs, and equality in the type theory is defined up to execution of these programs.
This means that in principle, one can construct a function SMT(s) and a proof that SMT(s) returns true if the smt formula s is satisfiable, and false otherwise.
The cool thing is that a proof that a certain formula s is unsatisfiable can now be represented as an equality proof SMT(s) = false. This proof is very small, because it relies on the function SMT which is essentially a verified SMT solver.
You might wonder how quickly SMT can be executed. The answer is that you would have to write SMT with purely functional data structures, but that Coq has an integrated JIT compiler that will speed up execution.
So Coq is a pretty amazing system, but it is, 30 years after its creation, still in its infancy.
What important news is getting buried? ;)
My only comment is that if you cannot discuss an idea then the idea cannot evolve, and you probably won't change your mind.
Maybe the problem is not oppression of ideas, but the lack of a discussion culture which can tolerate a wider spectrum of ideas for the sake of debunking some of them.
However, I fail to see how the power of Google & Facebook to "curate" the internet is an argument against net neutrality.
To me it seems that if ISPs are not bound by net neutrality, then the power of big companies will be even greater.
Just another example is a startup competing with Netflix. Without net neutrality, one most likely has to buy a premium Netflix packet from the ISP on top of the Netflix subscription to be able to stream the whole month in high quality. You can look at Portugal, where at least on mobile such packages are already available. Now I don't see how a startup can compete, if its users also have to buy another premium package from their ISPs to use the startups services (in addition to the Premium package the already pay to be able to watch Netflix).
With net neutrality, ISPs would be over-regulated, and competition/ease of market entry would be hampered.
The article then goes on to claim this competition is needed, because Google and Facebook already have so much power over the internet.
But this is deeply flawed, because big compabies will only have more power over the net without net neutrality: they can just pay for the net to behave as they want.
It is important to expose this mechanism, document it, and starte a broad discussion about it.
Suppose for the sake of my argument that this petition is successful and Ajit Paid has to resign, and the newly put in place chairman the removes net neutrality anyway.
It will then be obvious that there are powers in place that want net neutrality to fall even at the cost of having to replace the chairman.
Given that it's unlikely that net neutrality can be upheld in the current political climate, this would be a victory.
"Hard work brings success" is paraphrasing the American Dream.
The author now says he learned that success does not depend on factors that can be controlled. He uses the verb learned in contrast to taught to emphasize that he thinks this is true.
Unfortunately, this explanation seems all too plausible to me.
But more seriously, if life expectancy increases, but we still suffer the same 'elderly' conditions as humans always have, there is a problem.
From Wikipedia:
>The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order purported to give the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as enemy combatants. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without legal counsel. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights and, indeed, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)[38] the U.S. Supreme Court re-confirmed the right of every American citizen to access habeas corpus even when declared to be an enemy combatant. The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus could not be revoked in the case of a citizen.
I'm just saying if you're eating something which barely contains any agricultural product, you should ask yourself whether this is really healthy.
This is is social issue: there are people that just don't believe anything anymore.
One would assume that some basic education is enough to debunk such crackpot ideas yourself.
On the other hand, saying the Earth is flat and scientists, media, school books, etc have been lying to me is a testimony to big distrust in society.
We should all be asking ourselves where such big distrust is coming from.
One would assume that some basic education is enough to debunk such crackpot ideas yourself.
On the other hand, saying the Earth is flat and scientists, media, school books, etc have been lying to me is a testimony to a big distrust in society.
We should all be asking ourselves where such big distrust is coming from.
As a consumer, I try to think about the ingredients of a product: if it is mostly chemicals (in contrast do agricultural products), then the product probably isn't healthy.
It took almost 40 years to prove that smoking causes lung cancer.
Similarly, despite unambiguous scientific evidence, it still seems acceptable to deny that man-made CO2 release into the atmosphere causes global warming.
There's actually a good book covering these two instances and others: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
That being said, 3.2k is a good salary in Germany, and housing in Berlin is not as expensive as in Hamburg or Munich, 1000€ will get you a spacious flat for 1 person, utilities included. Food is cheap in Germany, if you can cook a few hounded € per month are enough.
My guess would be that if you have a decent lifestyle, find a not too pricey flat, you can save between around 1000€ per month.