it has to do with how a dollar circulates. I'm in pretty bad shape financially. I had 3 close family members get hit with major illnesses all at once. I'm still recovering and I'm not sure I ever will. What I'm saying is I spend just about ever dollar I get my hands on paying debt and buying food/shelter/transportation. There's a little discretionary funds in there for my kid. I try to let her do thing things her friends (who's parents didn't get economically cock punched non stop for 10 years) do.

Now take a Donald Trump. No matter how greedy he is there's only just so much he can buy. At some point his money is just sitting around, doing nothing. He'll invest some of it, lose some of it, etc. But He's only got so much time in the day to do that. Eventually it becomes a war chest laying around doing nothing.

When we take it even further, to the level the Waltons have achieved what we have is pretty much the dark ages. You've got a small group of folks with _all_ the wealth. They're more or less Gods (Divine Right of Kings, anyone?). They stop investing because, heh, why should they? They already have the best civilization has to offer. As a result things can really only get worse for them.

If the above sounds complicated it's because it is. That's what makes cutting the marginal tax rate so seductive. It sound like an easy answer to the world's problems. Supply side economics, right? But there really is a reason we called them Voodoo Economics...

and he basically said it wouldn't stop him from making more money. We're talking 5% of _billions_ here after all.

you're still living very, very well. Also, these high level marginal tax rates are about the only thing that I've ever seen that solves the problems with income inequality. Specifically how a civilization leans towards oligarchy and stagnation as a smaller and smaller group of people claim all the money for themselves. Wealth builds on wealth, and at least here in America we don't see any end to that. The pie might get bigger, but if my slice gets tinnier ever year it hardly matters...

Put another way, I saw an interview with a multi millionaire complaining she didn't have any political voice anymore because the billionaires money crowded her out...

It's a 9% tax on entertainment. It's not the bloody Spanish Inquisition or the Gestapo. It's become damn near impossible to raise taxes enough to run a city anymore. The Right Wing have a name for it, Starve the Beast. Thing is a big dog is a beast, and that Beast was the only thing keeping the Robber Barons at bay. Doesn't anyone remember what laissez faire meant for 99% of the population in 1900s?

I suppose I could see them complaining if it was a flat 95%, but afaik the UK does Marginal taxes the same as the US, meaning they paid the same taxes as a lorry driver up to certain point.

I've been writing code like this since 1985. Then, it was in LISP.

It's actually trivial to me at this point. You end up with a meaning trie with differential probability vectors, and some of the roots wither away as you go down. Making a machine decision is harder, but not entirely impossible.

I get incredibly annoyed at people like Lazlo Bock who want to put everyone's resumes into a form that basically allows Google (Lazlo Bock works for Google) or other companies to magically allow you to come into a new job under the horse collar of a performance review of your previous job which they were in no way involved with.

The whole "HR metrics" industry... uh... kinda pisses me off? I pick companies based on criterion other than standard metrics. If they pick me that way... they do not deserve me. Mostly they stumble into me, I fix them, and then I exit.

I understand the "OMG we need people who know what they are doing and not recent graduates!" panic. Does not mean I sympathize.

No problemo

I miss subtle stuff all the time. I rely on really strict semantics in place of "not trusting people", which I have a hard time doing (data is data).

And then he opened the SPARCStation pizza box to reveal... a Zilog UART!

For my 22K of code...

Yes. 3 bugs.

Errors are less of a problem than revisionist history.

I spent 4 weeks thinking, and then I coded 22,000 lines of C++ in about two weeks.

Ended up in wrist braces.

The code was worth it.

Give me the fixed cell VT102 (yes, I need a printer) font any day.

Also it is much better for code.

The regular safety measures weren't in place because they were installing the systems, so most likely they had people working on different things and someone started testing their piece without realizing it was already connected.

Right. Standard procedure (not just with robots but with many industrial systems) usually involves the person working on the system installing a lockout tag on the controls, and anyone removing the lockout tag without checking with the person who put it on is in deep shit trouble.

I'm *very* well aware that for a Naval aircraft, the second engine is a required feature.
That fact is why the engines are spaced so far apart on the late, great F-14. They are so far apart because the designers wanted to increase the likelihood that the other engine would survive if the aircraft were hit ( or if an engine tore itself apart, possibly due to battle damage ) It was important enough that they lived with the fact that being so far apart would tend to put the aircraft in a spin if one did go out ( as made famous in TopGun ).

My comment was that for general export sales to non Naval customers that second engine is *not* a sales feature. See my other post, the F-18 is heavier, will likely have higher operating costs, and is more expensive. For an air force flying from traditional land bases, as most export countries would be, the F-16 is the better choice. You can just about buy two F-16's for the cost of an F-18.
For a country looking to buy aircraft for their aircraft carriers, the F-18 would be the only choice between the two, even a "navalized" F-16 would lack the very important in that scenario second engine.

For an aircraft that is supposed to command the entire Pacific, I would actually want a more capable aircraft than the F-18. The F-18 is less expensive operationally than the F-14 was, and is aerodynamically better, but it does not have the range or payload ( during some missions against Afghanistan, the F-18 could not haul bombs to the distance the F-14 was able to. So, they put the bombs on the fighter ( the F-14 ), and had the attack aircraft ( the F/A-18 ) fly cover.
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Read the blog post again. http://insights.dice.com/2015/...

"I think that’s pretty cool, given we’re generating that automatically from job descriptions posted on our site. We also tried using the resume dataset, but the results were of a lower quality, as the skills extracted from resumes can be from different jobs."

It was extracted from job-postings, which would only identify Schelling points in the hiring industry, not skill clusters common to people with certain desirable skill sets; in other words, it "how to fudge your resume", rather than "how to find employees like the ones I have which I like".