Currently the internet is taking over television. Unfortunately this is a temporary situation. Once the telcoms, ISPs, etc get enough lobbying money funneled into congress, net neutrality will disappear and cable TV will be back in business bigger than ever. With their monopolies on internet access, ISPs will be able to control what you see, and when you see it; will be able to insert advertising wherever and whenever they want; and will be able to charge you an arm and a leg for it. The future of the internet is cable TV version 2.0.

Apparently I've not had enough coffee yet (or have spent too long staring at MIPS CPU traces to spot the error) and thought that you said the exact opposite of what you said.

More general hint: The principle of minimum scope exists for a reason. Declare your variables at the point where they can be initialised, not at some arbitrary point and you make life easier for people trying to understand the lifetime of the variable.

To be fair, you can spend a great deal of time talking about something and make progress on the issue without solving it.

For example the current metrics are abysmal so it's worth explaining why they're abysmal. I just was able to delete several thousand lines of JavaScript from one of my projects after a data model change (through code reuse and generalization) -- yet I increased functionality. My manager was confused and thought it was a bad thing to get rid of code like that ... it was absolute dopamine bliss to me while he felt like our production was being put in reverse. KLOC is a terrible metric. But yet we still need to waste a lot of breath explaining why it's a terrible metric.

Another reason to waste a lot of time talking about a problem without reaching an answer is to elaborate on what the known unknowns are and speculate about the unknown unknowns. Indeed, the point of this article seemed to be to advertise the existence of unknown unknowns to "recruiters, venture capitalists, and others who are actually determining who gets brought into the community."

Perhaps ... but that would imply that one does not transition over time from one hump to the next or if they do, it's like flipping a light switch. When I read this I assumed that he was talking only about people who know how to program and not "the average person mixed in with programmers."

But you just said there's no way to measure this ... how could he have collected data? What data set could have satiated us? The answer is quite obvious and such collection would have been a larger fool's errand than the original article's content.

The issue is only when you pass standard library objects across a library boundary between two libraries compiled for different standard library implementations. It's perfectly safe to pass C and Objective-C values between libraries that use libc++ and libstdc++ internally.

Agreed wholeheartedly. But then, I don't want to watch many shows. I want to mostly watch car stuff, and that is now better on youtube than it is on TV. I get both higher-quality video and more variety of content — which is also higher-quality than what's on TV. I mean, even when Top Gear was still a thing, they only did a handful of shows in a series anyway. You had to have something for the rest of the year.

I don't even care about your problems a tiny, tiny bit. My best internet option is $65/mo for 6/1 from a WISP with egregious downtime and customer support to rival comcast (Digital Path.) Quit your crying.

You want people who believe in free speech to run and hide in the desert, what do you know of bravery? It's standing up for what you believe in, and you don't think people should do that. Why don't you just not log in, then you'll be labeled as what you are.

A plan with no drawbacks.

That's not at all comparable, and suggesting so is beyond ridiculous. The rules of the road are for everyone's safety. So is free speech.

There is actually a good precedent that will predict the answer to your question. 50 years ago, interracial marriage was in a position similar to the position of gay marriage now -- widely considered "unnatural" and banned by many states, but becoming increasingly accepted and the bans were increasingly being found unconstitutional.

So the interesting question is, 50 years later, are churches that disapprove of interracial unions being forced by the law to hold marriage ceremonies for mixed-race couples?

AFAIK the answer is "no"... but what's more interesting is that it's largely a non-issue, since there are so few churches that actually disapprove of interracial marriages anymore. My prediction, then, is that 50 years from now we will see a similar situation regarding gay marriage.

When we're talking about single-digit numbers, 63% simply isn't that big of a deal. Iceland had 1 intentional homicide in 2012. If they had 2 in 2013, that's a 100% increase in homicides in just one year.

Should their government panic and enact a large swath of draconian legislation aimed at curbing the epidemic of homicide sweeping the country? Let's have an honest discussion; shall we?

that's where the statement came from. Nobody is liberal on economic issues, and the environment is just another economic issue in disguise. This is where the disconnect is. If you were socially conservative you'd notice more and the phrase "liberal media" would resonate with you.

most of the real bad pollution was moved to China in the 70s & 80s. Because of this it's hard to get people to buy into the whole "poisoning everything" mantra. Also the only people who have a shot at any change are the middle class; the poor's voting districts are so gerrymandered and corrupt they're basically voiceless. But the middle class live in the suburbs and don't really feel the pollution. That limits our options.

Climate change, for whatever reason, resonates with the middle class. It's about the only thing that draws any attention. You don't win elections based on logic and reason. People vote with their 'gut'. I wish they didn't, but that's just the way it works.

For Democrats that is.