simplestats

In fact I think Standard Oil wasn't far above that by the time action was taken. They were also cutting prices and modernizing heavily.

To get much beyond that I think you need some special advantage like govt protection. I suspect the patent system, which literally guarantees monopolies to companies in return for a fixed fee, creates a big advantage for the leaders in tech markets. Hence modern leaders last a lot longer with more market share (and way higher margins) than they should.

I could be wrong but all the fancy stuff you are doing to impose constants, including your bug, look like c++11 to me.

Without these the complexity in your example disappears, and every word has direct intuitive meaning. Except for the ugly type expression on the left (which is kind of thing one must love if you endeavored to be a C++ programmer in the first place, though personally I do agree it's increasingly hard to read beyond the most basic cases). Nonetheless, using auto is the cause of the problem I was referring to. This eliminates the remaining half of the ugliness, but now if the code inside the loop chokes in your inputs, I have no idea why. Maybe if I'm lucky the compiler will give me a paragraph that I can try to parse descriing the mess that the object was compiled into, or maybe it will just say "Can't find a suitable template. Have a nice day".

Where I live now, you can wander around at night no problem. A cop might get suspicious and hassle you is about the worst.

I have also lived in places where not only would I advise more-vulnerable people against going out at night, I wouldn't go wander around myself either.

But yes the odds of being a victim aren't leaping from zero to 100 percent between these nighborhoods. More like aceptably low to unacceptably high.

> Firstly, let's dismiss this idea that C++ can avoid wasting a single cycle or byte, it doesn't aim for that. It aims for a much lower bar, albeit still a significant achievement - it says you won't do better by hand.

You're referring to the "zero-overhead" goal of new C++ features. I think the above poster was talking more generally about one's ability when using a language to implement some critical subset as fast as possible or with as little memory use as possible. I suppose it's arguable if you're still doing C++ when you use intrinsics. Though I think pragmas are certainly fair game. At least C++ (and C considered as a subset) is the biggest high-level language with such a possibility.

Your examples might fit the discussion better if you made unreadable C++03 code that worked. But nonetheless, I don't agree. I can directly read what your first attempt at a loop is trying to do. Your second one hides almost everything from me. If the second one fails to compile and gives me a paragraph-long encrypted complaint, I need to somehow half-comment the thing out and create a bunch of test code so I can go in the debugger and figure out what you are actually doing.

Are you saying the creation of security vulnerabilities has decreased in the last ten years.

edit: and as for: "No-one here is talking about advanced c++, we're talking modern c++."

I am. Reconsider your examples in ternms of not just whether someone needs the improvement, but also whether someone actually needs the preceding alternative you are complaining about.

I've been in the same niche for years and can certainly tell you what I could and couldn't figure out. There's no magic in what I do, else only 23 year-old geniuses who think outside the box would be dominating all the patents. Even nobel prizes are on average awarded for work done at middle age.

Just do peer review and get experts' opinions. Don't tell them how to make it work, just tell them what it does. E.g. make the inventor provide a carefuully-worded abstract. By the way patents that claim the category of problem itself as the invention (as opposed to the specific method for solving the problem) are another big problem that needs to be eliminated. Those broad first claims are the ones shot down in challenges. For example "use a computer to processs transactions", or even "use a convolutional network to classify faces". These are not inventions; they are problems that still need to be solved, and it can be done many ways.

Anyway if you're uncertain about 6-months, how can you justify giving them 20 years of monopoly?

How hard is it to read a "for" loop? Even when programming in python, half the time I find myself switching to a simple loop over an index because I realize I need the index. Often it's for debugging, because that index has a real meaning I can interpret when I see it.

Along those lines, I think the real disconnect in the argument here is in terms of what kind of problem people are programming for. For many applications, advanced C++ is solving problems they don't have. The above poster mentioned audio. The data there is in single (or perhaps few) big buffers with a very simple and regular structure determined by international standards. They only need a few simple pointers. Or maybe just std::vector. Similarly just a few types also with real-world meanings. Debugging may require them to check the processing in ways that abstraction, type-checking, etc. will only get in the way of. And new features may not work within whatever abstractions had been put into place for previous features anyway, because the features relate to the underlying data.

Does anyone using C++ for a real project actually enjoy 3-second compile times? It wasn't a great example to make their case (except in a narrow comparison to C), but it doesn't make for a very realistic counter-point much either.

Compile times are definitely a headache for me.

> Yes, labor is how wealth is produced, but in a sense, an individual's labor is more than that: a person's unrealized wealth is the discounted future value of their lifetime income minus necessary survival expenses. That's not a constant number - it depends on the individual's choices, but nevertheless, that is some number. And that number has some associated optionality.

Economics is the study of scarcity. Wealth is real stuff like the house.

"Unrealized wealth" or "The potential to create wealth" or "the future value of your skills" shifts around, sure. Not the same thing as actual wealth though. And these shifts of theoretical outcomes are not transfers of wealth. This sounds like straining to fit something to emotional language.

I'm having trouble thinking of examples of what you mean. It's not like people invent new branches of math to make a patent like with revolutionary ideas in physics. Do I get 6-12 months (or even more) working on the same problem and subject to the same constraints and available technologies the inventor had? A really "prophetic" idea can probably be identified as such because it's far too ahead of its time to get patented or used anyway.

But when it comes to money-making patents, I think of technological development as an optimization process where everyone has the same objectives and a pretty limited search area at each point in time (available technologies you can use, textbook knowledge you can draw on). I'd generally expect any smart and dedicated person working on the problem to find the next best next steps sooner or later (certainly far less than 20 years).

I dealt with a manufacturing patent where you had to align certain parts off-center, because lining them up was patented. Of course it didn't really matter how you did it. Hence a subsequent patent was eventually actually awarded to someone else to manufacture them off-center. Which was far worse if you think about it. The first patent claimed a unique point. The next one claimed the entire three-dimensional volume of possible alternatives--minus that unique point.

You're saying "Primary" was a downgrade from "Original" at the same price?

What works best here may be field-dependent. "Poorer quality" is not acceptable in some applications, where it directly affects their bottom line. So once the degratation and reliability issues start, the older version might as well be cancelled. Until I give them the hard "break-up" message, these are the people bugging me constantly. Once they have a solution that does what they need at a price they love (which becomes a permanent price ceiling for some), there's on graceful way out.

I also have the problem that "no longer maintained" fairly quickly (matter of months perhaps) progresses into "no longer working" without some level of maintenance (which grows as components become increasingly changed and deprecated). So it's a delayed cancellation anyway.

This is certainly the ideal scenario. But typically, they didn't exist before because they are incremental improvements based on things which didn't exist before and use technology which didn't exist before.

The claim that they are obvious is based on the fact that anyone who is involved in the production of those prior incremental steps can see what can be done as the next increment. People are working on producing wheels using molds and certain materials. Across town, someone starts selling a new kind of mold or material. The "inventor" applies it to the molding of wheels.

In the US I think it's entirely up to the school. Or at least the accreditation bodies in different fields and regions.

When I was in school, one applied to "MS/PhD" programs most typically. And all imaginable variants existed in terms of funding and likelihood of leaving with only a MS. Some schools would fund no one till they finish the MS stage, and others would fund everyone from the beginning (just give every accepted student a full fellowship for the first couple years). And also some schools were pretty notorious for kicking people out at the end of the MS stage, with a difficult exam at this step or not enough advisors to take them on for the PhD.

One positive side, though, is if you wash out of a PhD program at any later stage, you at least walked away with a Master's.

Master's degrees cost about $30k per year for a couple years. Not available to the average person I'd say. And even so, judging by the proliferation of MS programs at unranked schools without research programs, many of which overwhelmingly serve international students, I'd rank the visa as the most important part of the price, followed by the credential, and lastly the education itself (given that cheating is so rampant).

Not sure where this person is, but in the US chargebacks exist because they are required by law. There is also an arbitration processs they are required to provide for disputes, which is pretty cheap.

And therefore when there's a chargeback they take 20% of the hit.

He needs to go after the thief. Upwork certainly ought to help with that, rather than trying to get the bank to not do the chargeback and screw over the fraud victim after all.

So labor is wealth now? This is the same argument again. I could also discover oil on my property, or build a bigger house on it with my own labor, or all the other houses could get destroyed in an earthquake. Or, on the other side, someone could invent a new process or tool that makes your skills obsolete. Or a million immigrants could show up and bid labor prices down. These all change the amount of labor I will want in return for my house. But none are wealth transfer. Labor is how wealth is produced but it is not wealth itself.

I think the poster's point was about general data reporting, not specific to the situation. If you're going to use data to argue something, you need to be careful not to overstate what the data says. And the worst misuses of stats are when they fit intuition or anecdotal experience. The vaccine-autism argument that won't die is not the result of a bad study, but of autism symptoms typically arising right at vaccination age. Then people did a study looking for this commonly-believed "causation" and misused the data they got to make a case they wanted.

Assets going up in value isn't really a wealth transfer by itself. The buyer is just exchanging a lot more cash for an asset worth a lot more. Their wealth doesn't change overall. Rents are a different story perhaps.

The unfair property taxes in California and similar states is certainly wealth transfer though, which got vastly more unfair.

You mean because the show is about them? In the scheme of things they seem to be basically rank-and-file detectives.

All the science/tech stuff they do tends to make me cringe. A hair from a nearly-extinct field mouse found in just one park? whatever. I guess that beats big "revelations" you can see coming a mile away.

Yeah I can certainly agree that some would use a broad definition of propaganda.

But it's a very loaded word. One should avoid using loaded words where a less emotional description is applicable. One could as well argue that the use of loaded words is propaganda itself.

You mean because it has gotten so unreadable and vast?

I've never worked with a place using C++ that didn't make their own core libraries. As a low-level language, there's almost always a way to get some performance benefit by starting from scratch for your specific case.

Looks like that's because the library isn't for anything specific, other than general C++ programming at Facebook. They might worded it a bit better, like "core library" or common library" or something.

Yes. They suck at preventing decent algorithms from getting through. They are a way to gather data and filter out most of the least-sophisticated bots. Not any kind of real security.

I'd say both sides make the other side's terminology into epithets. But mostly only the left seems to take it personally and stop using the word. Meanwhile the right will continue to embrace being labelled by what the left treats as epithets. Maybe it has something to do with individualism which is a sort of rebellious mindset on the right.

I'd say Fox exists as a reaction against the left-leaning bias of media. If audiences want anti-woke content all day (or conspiracy theories, or commie-stomping superagents, or...) I don't think a business that chases ratings and profits by giving it to them is fairly described as propaganda. Entertainment is commonly centered on the fears of its audience.

On NCIS everyone is a superhuman at whatever they do. In addition to the traditional super-cop there's the super-forensics genius and the super-hacker from MIT. I think it's just the kind of show more than the kind of character. And people who watch (and write) hero shows are probably older generations and far less aware of modern job roles beyond the old professions.

But TV always veers off into personal drama, presumably to chase ratings, whether it's doctors or cops or anyone else.

I think the assumption is getting fired instantly from a toxic organization is probably a good thing. The problem is that a high likelihood of a better outcome (as opposed to ending up living in your car), still isn't a guarantee.

The most risk-averse strategy should still use some of the advice posted here, but concerns like minimizing other people's problems and your own guilt are not worth the dangers.

In South Korea, the most pro-north political parties are on the left. With the most extremely-pro-north being the extreme left.