Where did I say all? And where did I say friends?
Some of my acquaintances seem to watch Fox news and believe it is balanced and accurate, some seem to watch The Daily Show and believe it is balanced and accurate, some listen to NPR/watch PBS news shows and believe they are balanced and accurate.
JS a newsman? That's funnier than JS on his funniest night -- you're quite a comedian, perhaps you should apply for Jon's job.
Even when Jon Stewart is telling the truth, he cherry picks facts that support both his worldview and that he can spin a gag around. And, for a political comedy show, that's completely appropriate. The problem is, too many people seem to think the Daily Show is a news show just as too many people think any 'fact' Rush Limbaugh states should be considered to be anything but fiction until carefully investigated.
The Daily Show is a comedy show built around a few selected memes that are floating around that day or week. Jon delivers them well and is funny if you can stomach the complete lack of balance and the lack of "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
I stopped watching him because I eventually got too annoyed by his complete misrepresentation (or, perhaps a misunderstanding on his part of the role of law, the role of judicial vs. legislative branches, and the US Constitution) of simple things like SCOTUS decisions of the day which I had already read within an hour or two of release.
The thing I miss the most about no longer investing time in watching the Daily Show is that I no longer instantly recognize the source of the balderdash I hear from friends and acquaintances the next day. It was fun already having formed a devastating counter argument and dismantling their arguments without a second thought. Sadly, sometimes these people live in such an echo chamber that I actually have to help them support parts of their own positions when Jon accidentally stumbled on a good point or two but didn't have the argument to support the point.
2 is also location limited to NIMBY
No. To pass the Turing test the program would have to respond to arbitrary questions and be compared to a human doing the same.
For example, given the starting point of this poem, as interrogator I might ask:
Your wrote:
I tell you it is waiting for your branch that flows
Using the simplest language you can that a layperson with no literary training or inclination could understand, describe what "it" is and what events would trigger "it" to decide that the conditions being waited for were satisfied.
I'm pretty sure that by comparing this program's response (if it even had a way to ask it a question, it sounds like all it could do is spit out another random poem) and a typical human's (even a poet) response I could figure out fairly reliably which was human.
In some cases a buyer could deserve a bad rating for other than failing to follow through with payment.
If, for example, a buyer attempted a return on a "no return" item claiming it wasn't what was ordered - and the ebay dispute process concluded that it was as ordered, a negative buyer review would be in order as the buyer caused the seller to waste time responding to bogus claims.
Indeed, companies collect taxes from consumers, they don't pay taxes.
He's obviously a PHB.
How does Uber improve "the amount of car pooling we do" in a significantly useful way (i.e., one that furthers the goals for which car pooling is usually advocated)?
Consider if an individual leaves their home, drives 8 miles to their destination, and later returns home driving another 8 miles. Total miles of pollution and "road space" is 16 miles worth.
Suppose that same individual uses Uber using the same type of car. Obviously the same 16 miles would be traversed - but even then, the car weighs slightly more so would consume slightly more fuel and produce slightly more greenhouse gasses. But, in addition, an Uber driver will almost always have to drive from wherever they are TO the customer's location to pick them up and have no one else in the car during that time - and this scenario repeats on both the outbound and the inbound trip. Suppose that, on the average in that area, the Uber driver "deadheads" three miles on each trip. Now we an additional six miles of driving and associated environmental impact (including road congestion).
Sure, in the 'self driver' case, there's 0 miles of dual occupancy (a.k.a. carpooling) while in the Uber case there's 16 miles of dual occupancy (with slightly higher pollution due to the additional 150 or so pounds resulting from dual occupancy) -- but the cost is an additional six miles of single occupancy.
About the only "carpooling" type benefit is that less space needs to be devoted to parking at the destination if enough people take taxis, Uber, public transport, cycle etc...
If the goal is to increase average vehicle occupancy, why don't we just pay people to pile into cars and then drive the cars in circles?
Yes - I'll admit to being a bit pedantic on this topic. I've always worked in systems software development where you can't ship the product, or let the customer try it out in a meaningful way, without about 90% of the core capabilities being implemented and those capabilities are often most of the work in meaningful features. As well, there is no "single customer" - every feature is available to all customers (sometimes at an additional cost) so for long term success one must think beyond just the few situations that might have motivated a particular feature's development at this time - indeed, most eventual users of the feature may not be customers yet but may eventually become customers, in part, because the feature meets their needs.
In these environments, Transaction Management is not optional, Recovery is not optional, Redundancy is not optional, avoiding Performance degradations is not optional (i.e., the addition of a new feature must not degrade existing features beyond some minimal amount and the feature itself must perform adequately to be useful). Every new feature needs to take these, and other, aspects into account and they often represent the bulk of the work. Once in the field, one will discover that there are additional things that would be "nice to have" (either based on customer feedback or your own support issues) but these are often known in advance and were simply deferred as a feature not essential to the first release of the new feature and fell off the schedule to meet customer delivery commitments.
As well, in these environments, using "agile" methodologies as a substitute for up front architecture can end up with a horrible hack of an architecture and a system that, after a few years, is extremely expensive to add new features to. For example, I've heard the "agile" argument that feature A "didn't need recovery because the customer wanted it to be super fast [who doesn't want "super fast"!] and will deal with recovery for that feature in the application". As a result, feature A gets implemented outside of the system's consistent recovery model. Of course, we know what comes next, it turns out several customers really wanted some recovery so partial recovery gets added to A (largely outside of the main recovery model though - because that's really costly now because it wasn't done in the initial implementation and adding it now will degrade performance of the feature for the few customers who really don't care about recovery of the feature and have had their expectations set unnecessarily high for performance of the feature). Now, for years, you have two recovery models to consider in implementation of every feature - which can break your business far worse than having made feature A simply "very fast" and fully recoverable rather than an infected pus sack on the architecture that everyone needs to avoid puncturing when working around it.
However, I think the closer you are, for example, to the View of MVC, the more sense agile makes (or, maybe I'm just not very good at human factors aspects so my first pass usually sucks and I don't know why -- so user feedback is very helpful as early as possible -- I think a shell is a fine UI).
On the one hand, the explanation for a "shortage" of women in tech fields is that somehow they are excluded because of gender in spite of being otherwise indistinguishable from men (for example, no different than men in skills, desires, education, or training).
On the other hand the linked article includes, without critique or outcry,
[...] founder Megan Tweed, who says that women's ownership of social skills not only opens up opportunities for them over their geek brethren - that technological savvy can flow from these social skills. "Women understand relationships, and tech's about relationships too [...]"
without being slammed for sexism by implying that women tend to be stronger in some skills (in this case social skills) than men because of gender.
Let's try some word substitution and see how that might fly
[...] founder Mike Tweed, who says that men's ownership of technical skills not only opens up opportunities for them over their socialized brethren - that social savvy can flow from these technical skills. "Men understand technology, and tech's about technology too [...]"
There seems to be a double standard here. It's unreasonable to fail to label a claim that "women have better social skills" due to gender as sexist while labeling a claim that "men have better technical skills" due to gender as sexist.
In my career in systems software development, the overwhelming majority of my colleagues and reports have been male. In senior positions, I think the average skill set of females has been higher than the average skill set of males. However, in junior positions, I think the average skill set of males has been higher than the average skill set of females.
What I have noticed is that the less skilled females seem to drop out of the development arena more quickly and in larger percentages than males. I don't know why this is. Perhaps...
males have fewer options outside of software development (perhaps because Megan Tweed's apparent premise that females have superior social skills is accurate so jobs requiring those skills are less available to mediocre male developers)?,
males are more likely to have some form of ASD and that helps with concentration, obsession, and attention to fine detail which can be quite useful in systems software development?,
males and females are socialized differently at an early age and (unsurprisingly) that is reflected in their priorities and interests?,
males are less willing to admit that they made a bad career decision and then take action to rectify that?,
males feel more pressure to earn as much money as they can for their families so try to stay in higher paying positions?,
males are (much) less likely to have babies and decide not to return from maternity leave after realizing how much it sucks to be towards the bottom of the skill heap.
Who knows...
Managers introduce methodologies like Agile because the word "sprint" seems to mean that they can overwork you.
Although, I don't think that's the primary reason that managers like agile.
As far as I can tell, the primary reason is that they are completely unable to manage and plan long term and agile is a perfect refuge for those who lack these skills but nevertheless covet the 'manager' title.
(Oh, and because it sounds cool - like "Pivoting", "Cloud Strategy", "Leveraging Our Strengths", "Coopertition", etc.)
In the area I live, we have something referred to as "tenure" for unionized public elementary and high school teachers.
What this roughly means is that once a teacher is past their probationary period (something around two years I think), they can only be let go for gross misconduct (like showing up drunk too often and swearing at their students in a drunken slur) and only after a lengthy and costly hearing process (during which they collect their pay but are assigned duties that don't put them in contact with students or simply do not come to work).
During probation, they can be fired for incompetence, but once they make tenure that's extremely difficult.
Teachers can still be laid off if staffing needs decline - but then seniority rules. The most recently hired is the first laid off. I think this is within classification - if a decline in students results in the need for one less Science teacher, I think the least senior Science teacher goes even though there is a less senior Art teacher at the same school/district.
Maybe the tax software development department at Intuit got jealous of the Quicken software development department.
Perhaps the tax folks saw the Quicken folks changing the colors in Quicken X++ and tweaking a few settings to make sure that online banking no longer worked for older releases and coming out with a new version every year with little work. Then they looked at the actual work (gasp!) they have to do every year to conform to new tax laws and decided to find some way to extract more money to keep up with the Quicken scam.
[Actually, I suspect there's just a cron job at Intuit that makes these software "upgrades" to Quicken automatically every year. They probably don't even have to hire a contract programmer. Unfortunately (for Intuit) someday someone will unplug the dusty old 286 machine in a closet somewhere that does this work because they assume it must not still be in use and Intuit will realize too late they didn't come out with a Quicken #### that year.]
There have been extraordinary advances in our understanding of science and technology in just the last few hundred years. We can now do something effective about disease, drought, and the like. It's now counterproductive to expend the energy on worshiping an extreme being in hopes that they will resolve these things -- that energy would be better spent addressing the problem with science or engineering.
Unfortunately, religion brings with it irrational behavior that disrupts society. Consider the Crusades or, more recently, radical Islam killing "non-believers" (well, not really NON believers, believers in a slightly different mystical entity). Or, consider the bigotry justified by religion that is widespread in the United States.
Nothing prevents people from helping others in their society who are needy even though neither themselves or those they are helping believe in a deity.
IMHO, religion is now largely superfluous and, on the balance, does more harm than good. Unfortunately, humans evolve slowly so the genetic propensity to follow a religion will probably outlast mankind. However, I wish I could see the look on the face of the last human as they realize they are going to die and their imaginary god isn't going to do a thing about it.
...refute ID or any notion of a god (or, to avoid offense, God).
It's really hard to find a recent (last 40 years) validated scientific result that validates, rather than debases, long held religious beliefs.
Decades ago "factory religions" (i.e., the smart ones, faced with irrefutable evidence, decided to abandon their beliefs and retrench in a new fantasy) abandoned the notion that God (who?) created everything in seven days.
The ignorant and unscientific still cling to "Intelligent Designer" fantasies just as the Taliban (ISIS et al) do to their irrational beliefs. Eventually, all of these will crumble under the advance of logic and reason and the sheer weight of evidence.
Humans, for good ecological reasons, seem to want to create a "supreme being". Even as recently as the Dark Ages, this was probably helpful. When all looks bleak, 1000 civilizations that give up because logic dictates that are are going to fail will fail. One of the 1000 that have the "God Gene" and persevere against all logic may survive and propagate their sperm.
We are all likely offspring of that flawed logic and it is our duty to crush support of that logic just as we, much more recently, reversed our opinions on slavery (i.e., anyone you can beat into submission is now your property).
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
