You are right, but it makes my point nevertheless . Computers are being used for division and considered reliable for half a century. 3 decades after computers are ready, such a bug with such handling happened.

I have no problem accepting that more than 3 decades after self driving cars are ready, which is not yet, basic mistakes might be eliminated.

Software making specialists have perfected the at of not getting into trouble and convincing the world that all mistakes are users' fault. Ford isn't one of those specialists, even though it might make some; Google is.

I even said "software makers " in the part you quoted.

Wrong question. Context is that humans can determine from context the likely objects which could dart into the road. To that you said it doesn't matter, just that if anything does dart, Google cars are likely to be better.

After that you don't get to ask a human if they also slow down always, because the human, being human, can determine the likely objects which could dart into the road.

Really, it seems like you would be happy if it drives exactly the general state of software bugginess in the world today, which is a terrible idea given the everyday goof-ups because of rushing out releases, regulatory ignorance, lobbying legislators to keep out software makers of all trouble irrespective of consequences, and unsafe coding.

So the famous Intel math bug, the inability to properly add 2 and 2 together, never happened. Great.

Just because it is theoretically possible for an automaton to not make some kinds of mistakes doesn't mean all such automatons will actually not make said mistakes.

It is trivial for processors to add two numbers, but yet the famous Intel math bug happened.

Your stand is not born out of reason, but blind faith in fallible things.

Not really, there is no excuse for not following bridge pattern and getting bitten. At soon as 2 people use a "data type", it is not too soon to separate out interfaces. If good design were difficult, I would agree with you that anticipation of evolution is necessary for making the extra effort. But this is trivially easy to do.

Only developers not used to the static-ness of the language they are developing in can miss it. And developers not used to "dynamic" , in this sense, languages can cause shudder-worthy events, so this just boils down to bad design.

It is hard to build respect for a profession when they use the word "calorie" to signify a concept of kilocalorie. Do you also do that?

When the question involves "anything like", you don't go around finding differences. If there are enough similarities, it IS anything like.

So a million year old deer liver is anything like modern meat - both are composed of nearly identical atoms, 90% same molecule groups - say amino acids are a group, *saccharides are a group, saturated fatty acids are a group etc. Proportion is different, but correlation in proportion of macro nutrients is close to 70%. That totally sounds like "anything like" to me.

In fact, even McDonalds food is "anything like" human ancestor diet a million years ago - correlation might drop to 20% , but it sure is "anything like".

While I've done neither marathons, nor paleo, I have done high intensity cardio on weeks of getting 70% energy from fat (carb and protein about 15% each). My rough calculations show that glycogen stores and blood sugar must have depleted by the time long physical activity ended, and my average physical activity increases while on such high fat diets.

I did it just because a particular brand of butter here is so tasty that I eat it whole while avoiding regular carb-rich food. I don't do it always because that brand is not always available.

Though paleo diet followers also mention on their blogs that they do strenuous exercise just fine, I haven't verified their claims but my limited experiments show fats work all right as an energy source for that.

Saturated fats don't go rancid. By wild game, I presume you are talking about mammals, which contain only saturated fat in sufficient amount to be able to distinguished from other parts and "consumed first".

That is correct. So it boils down to bad designs in either system leading to people thinking that system itself is bad. Something like the other guy in this thread was saying.

A mistake has been committed - any important "data types" being passed around across large/many areas should have been interfaces, not classes. On large systems, bridge pattern is typically indispensable. A decent, not even genius, developer used to static type languages would not have committed this mistake.

I see in Google image storage terms that photos smaller than a certain resolution do not count towards your storage limit. So has anyone stored tons of photos for free there? How much? I tried storing some, but 2000 photos limit per album made it very inconvenient. Appears too good to be true, is it?

I remember seeing Flickr also allows 1 TB photo + video storage. This too sounds unsustainable if people really use this.

In a narrow interpretation, it can be. But then your question doesn't make sense "before capitalism" isn't a meaningful term in that narrow interpretation. This is because capitalism in this narrow sense has always been used to distinguish it from non-free market, socialistic/communistic ideas. Marx's work on "capital" has done more to define it than any other single influence. So it was an existing thing/phenomenon that came to be defined as capitalism. Hence anyone with any clue doesn't use the term "before capitalism" and expect it to mean the narrow economic sense of capitalism.

Before being defined as capitalism, the major parts of what Marx wrote about was called industrialization. But when prefixed with "free market ", industrialization doesn't cover it all.

It can be interpreted in the broad sense of free, market, capital, and ism - in which sense the question is at least non-trivial. Dense forest fits with that interpretation. I gave you the benefit of doubt but you proved it wasn't warranted.

Why limit oneself to economics, that too narrowly defined, when original statement was about "free market capitalism" ?