vectorjohn

How are those two different things? Seriously. I like Hillary more AND I dislike her less. How are those even two separate concepts?

So, wild exaggerated claims are made, they get trivially refuted as bs, and your comment is that's not the point? Really? Get some perspective. Neither candidate is flawless but let's not pretend they're equally so. One is a dangerous megalomaniac, and the other is pretty much a regular standard ass politician.

I think you missed the point. I for one can't stand the chrome dev tools. I use Firefox largely because i prefer the dev tools there.

So, the point is, it's possible there is no real difference and it just comes down to personal preference or what you're used to. At least, that was the commenter's point which you didn't address.

How DARE they try to improve their reputation by offering something people want. The scum!

Nope, you're not working. You or the parent. That's a nonsensical definition of work. Nobody is making you mull things over, you're doing it because you want to, because you find your job interesting. Some may try to claim the contrary, but I'm sure if you're doing something other than a mundane task like driving or cleaning, your mind instantly gets sidetracked from "working". You can't possibly actually be thinking about work in any real sense while you converse with friends and family, read a book, watch a movie, etc.

Do you think carpenters never think about work after hours?

And yet nobody has yet to dig hundreds of feet under the pyramids to find out what they're really hiding. Also, the thing will be practically made of Rosetta Stone, designed on purpose to help translate.

Really, there is nothing to worry about.

Mining, dynamite or otherwise, has to be for something. So why would people dig super far down in the desert through sand and worthless rocks?

Not nuclear waste.

I disagree, the right place is in the code where the functionality is defined. And the comment you replied to i didn't read as "assertions instead of tests". That's absurd. You should have tests that exercise the code that contains the assertions. It's the best of both worlds. You get code automatically tested and you get inline documentation that can't lie to you.

A non exploitative lottery is also called a bank.

As a person who reads and is mindful of what I click, I click the button that says what I want it to do.

Meh. In my opinion, manual transmissions are a waste and appeal to people's vroom vroom instincts. Which is not utilitarian. My electric fiat feels super powerful from a stop and I really appreciate it for merging or other uses. I don't want to drop any clutches or have my car sound like a revving chainsaw just to speed up quickly. My previous car was a Honda civic, and I appreciate the considerable improved acceleration and smooth everything of an electric car. I'll never again get an ICE if I can help it, and it looks like the model 3 will be waiting for me when I'm ready.

Pigeons have very easily exploitable security vulnerabilities. No, you should use end to end encryption if you want security. But the other end is the weak link so you have to trust it.

Mmmmmm, ham corpus :)

Obviously yes. That's how hiding works.

What powers would you say the AWA grants, then?

"probably" sounds really good for a commercial airliner. For some idiot to fly a drone around an airport.

And you're basing that on... ? You being an expert? This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. You don't know what you don't know.

Whether the teachers are good or have good resources or have a class too heterogeneous to teach effectively is a different matter. But people who assume they know so much more than the experts need a humility and reality check.

Clearly it was a concern about CPU architecture differences.

No, wrong. They are going to teach what a large association of actual experts in education think they should teach. Of course you should trust the people that put as much or more effort into education as you did in becoming an expert in your field.

I think I heard something about how people that get a lot of expertise in one area like doctors, lawyers, programmers, tend to far overestimate their skills in unrelated things. Sounds like you and the OP fall into this logical trap.

That is a horrible defense of a horrible sounding parent.

Other comments have made the required comparisons to other idiotic appeals to antiquity, but there's another thing. It seems almost barbaric when we're past the time when people had almost no say in their career path to limit your children's exposure to add many ideas and experiences as you can. A farmer in the 1600's didn't have much choice, but we do now.

That brings up another good thing about sending your kids to school. You owe it to them to expose them to more than just their overbearing parents like. Maybe they end up liking something different than you and that's good!

Yeah, not just ignorance, but willful ignorance. You have to try really hard not to see how much luck and chaos has to do with every day life.

It's not just arrogant and cruel, it's also logically inconsistent. Everything libertarian leads to an everyone for themselves hellscape. But this in particular would indicate you shouldn't help someone in a car accident because of driving in bad weather, or really driving at all. They took the risk, the risk was well known, so screw them while they bleed to death in the car, right?

Hmm, I see your point. But I don't know how you can draw a distinction between this and other forms of reckless endangerment. A manufacturer at least in principle isn't being reckless. But some random person that fancies themselves an elite hacker messing with things they definitely do not understand seems definitely reckless. And therefore criminal.

Absolutely it could be considered reckless. You think some guy messing with his car's firmware understands it well enough to be as safe as the manufacturer? If an accident caused by manufacturer firmware can make the manufacturer liable for an accident, then someone tampering with it obviously can make them liable.

It has never happened? Who cares, what does that matter?

Yes, absolutely there should at least be the possibility of the owner being criminally liable. It's like if you drive with shit poorly strapped into the back of antruck and it falls off on the highway and kills someone. If it can be shown that the tampering caused the harm, it's really hard to argue there is no criminal liability.

Seems like a weird arbitrary rule. Why isn't public intoxication considered free speech or something. I don't know how public intoxication laws can be justified.

Gotta hit that Ballmer peak[0]!

[0] https://xkcd.com/323/

This has always been a really bad argument, the myriad ways it's been made. I wouldn't want my doctor drunk while he operates on me either. But failing a marijuana drug test says absolutely nothing about weather you are under the influence of marijuana. If you could detect alcohol in the blood a week after taking a drink, it would be clearly stupid to have random alcohol tests that cause you to lose your job if a trace is found.

The way to ensure that people do a good job is fire them if they don't do a good job. No need for indirect methods.