Not anymore... there's a big confusion over equal opportunity vs equal outcome. Conservatives typically believe in equal opportunity, liberals mostly believe in equal opportunity with some leanings towards equal outcome (that is the justification for affirmative action).

Well that's the thing. Conservatives like to believe we already have equal opportunity and the disparity is just due to the intake. They use that to dismiss affermative action.

The fact remains there is not equal *opportnity*. Affermative action does help to correct that.

There was an article here posted about CVs in some context (academic?). The CVs were of course made up allowing the researchers to perfectly control for the content. CVs attached to "black" sounding names were consistently rated worse.

That means they were not being given equal opportunity.

Affermative action corrects for that.

Whoever modded this insightful is an idiot.

The EU takes a very dim view on abusive companies, local or foreign. Whining because the company is American just means you get to whine twice. Once because the evil Europeans are harming the benevolent rich american companies and once more because you have shitty phone contracts that massively suck, unlike in the EU, where they dealt with those *local* companies.

Tech isn't about equal rights. It's about if you are smart enough to get it done.

That's the fucking definition of equal rights.

If there isn't a minority in there they are not smart enough.

Ah the old *ism doesn't exist because I say so argument.

Was there a racial element to the interview? Probably, given that black men are very rare in IT and that people are not used to dealing with unusual things in many ways. However, these sound like typical dumbass "brainteaser" questions:

So now questions like, "How does one measure the amount of water passing a particular point in a river?" or "Why can you not see the Moon during the day?" are being asked.

The problem is they're not really brainteasers, in that they're fun "impossible" or "off the wall" questions.

The first is a rather fun question and has had many solutions with a rather interesting history. If you've happened to done any civil engineering, then you may have covered streamflow measurement in which case the first answer is somewhat nuanced and based on the size of the river, number of measurements required and various other constraints.

The second one is the old "why are manhole covers round" in that the question is outright wrong.

I never run above 60C with stable clocks, usually...
Seriously, what processor will run that hot?

Most of 'em. My eee 900 (which I'm posting from) has been hovvering around 60C for about the past 5 years. Current uptime is 114 days and it's sitting comfortably at 58C at the moment.

Will this "copper wool" be as flammable as steel wool? If so, that could spell trouble.

No. This is much less fine than steel wool: try burning a steel scourer. Second, copper is substantially less reactive than iron.

It's not about the superiority of languages it's what the programmers who use it feel superior to.

In other words, if you really are smarter than the mass of men, knowing that is not arrogance.

His most recent rant about C++ smacks of arrogance, because it's a very strongly held opinion backed only by incorrect facts, poor logic and outright logical fallacies. He is smarter than "the masses" but he's not smarter than people like Stroustrup, Sutter, Bright, Alexandrescu, Stepanov and such like. They are all preeminent in their fields and very, very smart people.

C++ proponents aren't very humble

What like Strostrup? Sutter? Alexandrescu? Some evidence required for your bold claim.

neither is the language itself

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I also get upset with people constantly trying to shove C++ on top of C projects, just because they don't know C very well.

I also get upset by people needlessly sticking to C because they don't understand C++ very well. Your point?

Here is a flow chart to decide whether to buy Oracle products:

<Do you enjoy being utterly fucked over?> Yes--> Buy Oracle. No--> Run for the hills.

I've been at two places which have been Oracle'd. It's like being pwn3d except you end up $10,000,000 poorer. You also end up with less dignity than the inevitable tebagging you might get in Halo.

But the shift within the Linux kernel code was still valid C (C++?) code, so it was a compiler problem, even though it didn't affect most programs.

The things Linux are doing are way way outside the C spec. Nopt surprising, since the C spec doesn't have much to say about interrupt routines. It's an intersection of obscure techniques, one particular platform and obscure compiler options not all being implemented together properly.

GCC is very standards compliant in that it will compile almost all standards compliant code correctly.

As I said, all compilers have non portable extensions. If GCC went and DIAF as you so desire, you'd just get people writing to the non portable extensions of the other compilers. So then you'd move the hate along.

What this translates to is that you hate the most popular compiler.

Linus is actually a very humble guy

His rants about C++ do not sound like the rants of a humble person.

u wot m8?

Seriously I have no idea which part of my post you're replying to---something about your lack of quoting.

haha good call. I didn't realise 4.9.1 was out. Should have wageredon the next release version, not a specific number.