Comparing "murder" with "reporting the race of Google employees in a way you don't like" is a little hysterical, don't you think?

Sure it is. Why are you doing it?

Do you simply love the smell of straw in the morning? Is there a crow problem where you live? C'mon, give over. Inquiring minds want to know!

There is an issue of readability that crops up when maintainance is a consideration. Serious regex reads like APL after being put through a shredder.

I'd rather not use a regex if there's something clearer available:

myString.find('searchTerm')

...and...

myString.replace('searchTerm','replacementTerm')

...and so on.

On the other hand, when writing my own language (yeah, I know, shut up), one of the very first things I did was incorporate regex handling, so WTF. :)

Or how about don't use tabs at all because it's dumb?

Yes. Much better to type 4 or 8 spaces when you could have just hit tab once. I totally see your point. You bet.

Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

And with Ruby you don't need a specialized editor to tell me the difference between space and tab characters.

If your editor can't tell you the difference between tabs and spaces, you need a better editor. It's 2015. No need to stick with weak development tools.

Which is not to say that Ruby isn't a fine language. It is. As is Python 2. And 3.

Like Python 3?

Yes. Precisely.

Python 3.x is not Python 2.x by any means. Python 2 code won't work under Python 3, and safe conversion requires complete re-testing and so is unlikely to be a practical or sane option for many installations, regardless of tools that do it automatically. That's not to say that Python 3 might not be a better language than Python 2; just that it isn't the same language, any more than Ruby or Perl is the same as Python 2.

But this is one area where open source comes to the rescue. The ability to keep Python 2.x relevant without breaking everything is readily available to anyone who needs it and can afford the investments in time and effort. Python 3 is an option, not a requirement, just as the new version of Perl is.

what equipment they keep between their legs

Related to that, however, is the question of what hormonal influences may arise. For one example (of many possible), with males, you often see more aggression, and (obviously) with females, less. Pretending there can be no relevant differences WRT job performance is not an optimum approach. Furthermore, interactions between the people of significantly different sexual identity are of inherently different natures. Much as the incoherent would like you not to believe it, the vast majority of us are sexual creatures. We are naturally and unavoidably affected by other concerns than the specifics of today's TPS report.

Same thing goes for age, various cultural influences, parent or not, single or not, personal maintainance, presentation, health, mobility, superstition, depth of education, and means of education (conventional, autodidact, on-the-job, etc.)

Because of these truths, consideration should be given to such factors. And of course it is, and always will be. But mostly because of the law, much of this is now sub-rosa, which is entirely a bad thing -- a bad thing that at least partially offsets the benefits of the law overriding (or at least attempting to override) people who operate using a chain of reasoning that primarily incorporates blind prejudice rather than "how will this affect job performance?"

Politically correct often means "poorly thought out and mostly harmful." When there are differences, there are differences. Pretending otherwise doesn't make such things go away. It just makes them harder to deal with.

TFS blargificates as follows:

To be fair to Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Apple and Amazon didn't want people to see their EEO-1 numbers, either.

Suppose I said "To be fair to [a murderer], [other murderer1], [other murderer2], [other murderer3] and [other murderer4] didn't [fail to murder], either."

Suddenly it becomes (or should become) obvious that there is nothing relevant whatsoever about the other entity's actions that involves being "fair" to the entity being examined.

Google is being evil here. No slack for this should be contemplated whatsoever. It is irrelevant to our consideration of Google if/that others are being evil as well. The metric shouldn't in any way be "everyone does it", it should be "this company is doing bad things, and they should stop."

You don't get a pass or a better evaluation for being an ass just because others are asses too. If you're an ass, you're an ass. There is no moral or ethical relief to be had, no excuse that arises, no forgiveness earned, by simply being part of some kind of grouping of asses.

FTFY.

If this whole hypothesis pans out, the difficulty in making a space craft that makes use of this phenomenon is that it would eventually build up a large positive charge, which would eventually damage the craft, if it can't be dealt with.

Wait. I'm confused. If it's spitting out electrons that are *part* of it, yes, it'd go positive. It'd also be losing mass (and changing composition) which puts it right back into the "I am fuel and will run out" category.

But if the electrons are merely the photons re-directed out one edge here, then it's a conduit, like a wire, not a charge reservoir or source. Just as a wire doesn't constantly gain positive charge because electrons are moving along it, I don't see why this stuff would either.

And if the photons are coming from outside... well, there's no reason for something that arrives and then leaves to change the net charge of the thing it is passing through/by/along/whatever. Again, just like a wire.

Or do I have this all wrong?

So you work for their competition, then?

The "$200 hammer" was because the corporation that sold it wasn't willing to go through the paperwork for less.

A few scores and mass intimidation, and that's probably still an underestimate. But that's still minor compared to Beria.

Weelllll.....maybe.

Batteries can have a few problems. Exploding, e.g. (To be honest, I can't think of a form of energy storage that doesn't have a few problems.)

This probably means that there need to be construction standards for how the batteries are installed that will protect the house that they power from being destroyed if there's a battery problem. Not an insurmountable problem, but I haven't heard anyone talking about that yet.

There are worse things you could do, and that's about the highest praise I can give this choice.

Both were design problems, and both were also operator errors. Chernobyl in both cases had worse problems, but remember that in Fukishima the back up power supply was located in a trough where after the water washed over it, it remained flooded. And it was flooded in the first place because it wasn't high enough above sea level. Another design problem. Then the spent fuel rods were kept on site, and not properly disposed of. (Know any other plants that do that? Perhaps on the US coast?)

Not all things that are clearly problems have an obvious solution. The spent fuel rods is one example. But a different solution is now clearly needed, and it should have been obvious that one was needed before the incident. (It probably was, but deciding what the right answer is, and implementing it, is not going to be easy.) So I'm calling the way the fuel rods were handled a clear human error, as it wasn't a part of the design of the plant. They weren't supposed to stay there.

Of course, you can call any design error a human error also, and you'd still be correct, but I'm following what I understand your separation to be.

The problem is, you aren't going to be able to prevent human errors. You can only minimize them. So you need to count them in as a part of the cost of the incident. (And if the same series of mistakes as happened at Chernobyl wouldn't happen again, that doesn't indicate that no equally bad series of mistakes will ever happen again. And Russia isn't the only country were there are often very loose safety regulation/enforcement.)