If that's all the variable is used for, won't the compiler optimize it out of existence anyway? Or is that too fancy yet?
I think a lot of people don't really understand how the compiler actually works. Not even at a basic level.
Well, no, I don't. That's why I asked. It sounds like the answer to my question is yes?
But as for taking production back to Wolfsberg, last I checked there were still lots of VWs made in Mexico.
Right. Don't buy them. They specifically moved the Golf back to Wolfsberg. Be careful, though, because I think they moved it back to Mexico more recently. You can get e.g. a "VAG VIN Decoder" app for Android, or just memorize which place in the VIN to look at and a handful of plant codes. Then you'll know precisely where the vehicle was produced.
If adding a variable aids readability, add the fucking variable! Shove all the results into a meaningful, readable variable name and then shove *that* into your function argument, not some long series of nested function. It's not the 90s. You don't have to save memory! Memory is there to make your code readable. Use it!
If that's all the variable is used for, won't the compiler optimize it out of existence anyway? Or is that too fancy yet?
Ars Technica just lost my respect
Welcome to the party, it began several years ago.
Please tell me you already feel this way about Gawker.
I got my job just because the company I work for had over twenty developers that were all male, and it looked bad on their EEO report.
Not because you were the most qualified applicant? That means the company you work for hired you not because they should have, but because they were strong-armed into it. In fact, they should not have had to have hired you, they should have been able to hire the best-qualified applicant.
The reality is that society needs children.
The reality is that you are asking employers to pay for that, but making children isn't their business. If society needs children, then society should pay for children, through income redistribution. Oh wait, guess what? We already give people a tax break for having children. I've known people who made more than me but paid no taxes because of their children. Now you want employers to pay again?
Of course the rules should apply equally to both genders. You could argue that people who don't have kids should get more time off,
Or you could argue that people who do have kids don't deserve to get paid for their time off. A person who doesn't have kids is worth more to their employer. If people can't afford to survive while they have kids (they can) and we need more people (we don't) then it would be worth it to pay people to have kids. Big problem with that is there are too many humans on this planet already, at least while we operate in our current mode. You want more people made, but that's the opposite of what we need.
If I want a car assembled correctly, I buy one which was put together in Germany
You mean like all those VWs built in Mexico?
No, completely unlike those VWs built in Mexico, which are built like shit. The only thing more embarrassing to my heritage than how shit UAW puts together cars is how shit Mexico puts together cars. It's interesting that you mention Volkswagen because Mexicans are known to be particularly bad at that. When VW brought USDM Golf production to Mexico, reliability plummeted. When they took production back to Wolfsberg, it came right back up to the German standards that we know and love.
Anyone who buys a VW built in Mexico is a moron. All of my imports to date have been built in their designing nation, and came over here on a boat fully assembled. Started with imports with a 240SX, then I had an Impreza GC5, couple of 300SDs (still have one) and an A8. That last has electrical problems but the mechanicals are good, anyway. And there's the rub with VW; their electrical is a bit garbage, even out of Germany.
Yep, this is normal service in the UK. My broadband has been buggered since October, still no date for a fix. The government is no worse than, say, the average bank.
When did she lie? It seems like she just interpreted what happened differently. The facts don't seem to beer disputed, only the interpretation of them.
The law doesn't work the way you think it works. Just because she lost doesn't mean she lied and cheated and is a feminazi. It just means she couldn't convince a jury that on the balance of probabilities she was discriminated against. And actually there is still one claim still to be decided upon.
Let's wait and see if the judge brands her a feminazi, shall we?
Watch the first 10 minutes of this video: https://youtu.be/2BzDmZHYCrw
It explains a lot of the issues facing women (didn't mention the pay gap) and has a nice well designed study to back it up.
Things are improving, but the issue isn't "over" yet. We went from 35% of CS degrees going to women in 1985 to about 18% now. That needs to be explained, and if you just look at the data you it will be.
Your view is that of a dedicated capitalist who sees workers as tools for business and nothing more. The reality is that society needs children. Look at Japan where due to the things you mention the birth rate is very low. It's a huge problem for them because and their population is set to fall by 30m in the next 40 years.
More over most people do want children at some point in their lives. Most people are supposed to make the rules (democracy) so companies are going to have to respect that and make allowances for them.
Of course the rules should apply equally to both genders. You could argue that people who don't have kids should get more time off, or that people who do have kids should get some benefits because the burden they accept is beneficial to society and as we can see in Japan society needs to encourage that behaviour. Society wants well brought up kids too so making parents choose between work and their offspring isn't desirable.
How about people like you get a tax break, on the condition that in 30 years time you can't see any doctor under the age of 55?
I think the biggest indictment of them is the fact even my highly pro environmental friends refuse to vote for them as they see them as only a destructive force towards environmental sustainability and see either coalition or labor as a better choice for the environment.
I'd love to hear the rationale behind their thinking.
Because I'm at a loss how two parties promoting growth at all costs, overconsumption, exploitation of the environment (stripe-mining Coal, CSG, dumping of spoil on the reef, etc) could possibly lead to a "better choice for the environment".
I think you are thinking of the greens from more than a decade ago. The Greens haven't stood for that for a long time. They are basically part of labor and push for policies for short term rather than taking consideration of the long term effects or goals.
Here is the Greens policy platform.
Tell us about which parts bother you.
The greens having power would probably do more damage to human decency and DEFINITELY more damage to the environment and the prospects of a sustainable future (if you destroy business you can't head to sustainability, you head towards being a 3rd world country or Greece).
Yes, obviously they'd do far more damage than the "growth at all costs", "destroy the middle classes" pro-oligopoly parties.
The real-world equivalent of this would be a little drone following you around recording where you went, who you talked to, where you went shopping, when you did it, etc, etc.
I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Would you ?
As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison
