Woman are more rational than men, and don't want to go into CS because it might be a bad job market. So fields like psychology and art history, which have more than enough women, must have amazing job prospects, right? Anyone who thinks about it for two seconds can see that the problem is not that simple.

That's so entitled it is ridiculous. Oh no, I can't live in a $650k house, I am so poor. You realize that a $100k household salary puts you in the top 20% of households in the US, ignoring any money your spouse might make. What are the other 80% of people doing to live? Yeah, yeah, some places are more expensive than others. But your Starbucks barista in your super-expensive city still lives somewhere. Your barber lives somewhere. And they have kids too.

Nobody said anything about a family on a single income. I was talking about one person's income. It's still not poverty, but yes, as a household income that is not very extravagant. .

Just to clarify, that is only the case for elementary education. In middle school and up you have to have a degree in the subject (or at least something specific like " education") and pass the subject Praxis in order to be qualified to teach it.

So why doesn't your wife have a job? I didn't say $100k as a household income for four was a lot, I said for one person's salary it was a lot.

That's the kind of attitude that leads to terrible teachers. It really is not that easy. What do you think they do for two years in graduate school? Pedagogy is not a simple subject, and just because you know the material does not, in any way, mean that you can be an effective teacher. Also, if you think passing the course, or even excelling at the course, gives you the necessary content knowledge to effectively teach it, you are terribly mistaken. To be a really good teacher you need to have mastery of the entire discipline so that you understand where every class fits into the overall tableau. Not to mention the simple case of a student asking you a question that's not in the textbook (which is most of them).

The whole point of my post was to counter the guy that said he would be making more money if not for H1Bs. Tell that guy that there is such a thing as the free market, and he should suck it up when programmers can be hired cheaper from other countries. You are either pro market economies, and you should shut up about immigrants who will do your job for less money, or you are not, in which case why do programmers deserve more money than other jobs which provide similar societal value.

I'm just going by the numbers in the article, that salaries in the $100-200k range are common for programmers. And the average salary for a teacher in the US is about $50k. Even with conservative numbers, it is still at least 2x the salary on average, which is very substantial.

I didn't say that were that important, just that being a teacher requires an advanced degree and they are paid a lot less than programmers. And they make a good example because no one can say that their jobs are pointless or don't contribute to society like they would if I had said, "what about the MFAs/liberal arts PhDs". In fact, what I was trying to say that there is nothing special about programmers. Why do they deserve to make 3-4 times what other professions that require similar hours, and equivalent or higher education, make? And your sister might make that, but the average salary for a teacher in the US (across all levels of experience) is close to $50k.

If you consider that poverty level then there is something wrong with you. I don't care where you live, $100k is enough money that you don't have to worry about your day to day life. Maybe you can't buy a second sports car or live in that sweet downtown loft, but you won't have the kind of financial insecurity that the majority of people in the US do.

What do you want exactly? It's a job that requires just a bachelor's degree, and sometimes not even that. And you already make 3-4 times what a teacher with an advanced degree does, or a nurse.

That's not really the point though. $100k+ for an undergraduate degree (if that) is no pittance. In fact, it puts you in the top 3% in the United States. Not the vaunted 1%, for sure, but certainly no reason to complain.

Yes, the CPU executes all of them like I said. The "you" in this is the computer. It executes obliviously (think homomorphic encryption, but hiding even the circuit) so that someone with the key can recover the correct output but the entity doing the computation doesn't know what it actually computed.

Ummm... I don't know about you but I would be fine with the person being scared off and, you know, not attempting to murder me. Especially if the alternative is being used as bait by an incompetent police force.

What they are trying to construct (and at least partially succeeding), though, is a cryptographic construct whereby you can feed input in one end and "iterate" the computation, but not know what computation you are actually doing. Imagine that every time you do any operation on two variables, you actually do all possible operations (i.e. multiply, add, shift, etc.) and only one output is stored. The trick is that which one is actually kept is hidden from you cryptographically. That is a very crude metaphor for what they are doing, I suggest reading the paper for the details. It's actually very well written. The point is, however, that this technique is much more complicated and more powerful than obfuscation that people are traditionally familiar with, and it really does have the potential to do what you describe as being impossible.