A good question. The difference is probably delivery time and interaction with product owners.

Autistic individuals can often be very OCD. An autistic individual who finds every problem in the process of coding the actual application may cause delays while they identify and fix every one of them. That compulsion may be too strong for them to overcome. This is a problem, even with some "neurotypical" programmers. You don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

If the code already exists, the autistic QA individual will still find all the issues, but then decisions by people with less compulsion can be made about "need to fix now", "patch", or "won't fix", without delaying the code delivery cycle.

Most of the time, you need something that does the job, but it is nice to know what you could do better, or where errors have crept into the process for later polish.

The major problem is that fixing certain ingrained problems requires a certain amount of time and preparation to execute on properly. Many executives want results "now" so they can show value. That is what really needs to change, but unless we can somehow change that "immediate fix" mindset, it's going to continue to be fits and starts.

Of course, in their defense, sometimes the only way to deal with a persistent problem is to get out the machete and start whacking. You will lose some value, but you may end up freeing up resources to generate much more value than you are losing. This process eventually happens one way or another, either through some crisis or though outright revolution. It may be better for everyone for the person on the other end of the slashing tool to be looking at things rationally and not from a position of panic when some politician orders it to be done because it ended up on the Evening News.

Yes, I was concerned about the situation of shaming someone who has not (yet) been convicted of a crime. You can seriously cause problems for people if you make others think that they are a drunk. There could be implications to their social life, marriage, even their job or their kids at school who could have to endure taunts from their peers. Shaming is powerful stuff.

It feels to be unprofessional on their part to do something like this, at the very least. I am sure it is coming from a place of concern, but punishment should come for the guilty, not the accused.

Businesses are not fond of buying licenses like that.

Perhaps it was in the Canadian government's interest to have a non-exclusive license, but let's face it, if Canada is having a bad enough emergency, they'll just pass a law suspending the exclusive agreement and get it done. No government is stupid enough to let itself truly be held hostage in an acute crisis by some pissant corporation.

What is more likely is that the small corp will be "convinced" to suspend or sub-license to to other corps who can make it. Heck, they may even want to do that, since having other corps manufacture the drug means that their cut of the sub-license fee would be essentially money that they'd never have been able to make on their own due to their limited production capabilities.

People often make the mistake of believing that a monopoly is the most lucrative way of doing business. Over the long term, perhaps it is, because a monopoly has probably built up or acquired sufficient production capacity. This little corp most likely does not have the needed production facilities to pump out enough for a whole public health program.

You can't sell what you can't produce and you also can't sell what no one can afford. Licensing your intellectual property and collecting money on top of other producers' efforts is how you make that sort of money.

There is a top end price point that the vaccine will reach where other expensive therapies will start to become more cost effective. At that point, you have to move inventory, you can't just make one vial and sell it for a billion dollars.

Cancer is a a tough one because it is not actually one disease, but many causes for abnormal cell division and tumor growth.

Most of the other ones are actually not things you need computers to fix. Except for temporary situations caused by disasters, the only real reason for plagues and poverty is human nature.

We could feed the entire planet with the food we're growing now. Everyone. Instead we burn it or turn grains into ridiculous forms of fuel or drinks because we don't care to share it, and what is more, many times when we do want to share, the powers that be on the other side don't want to let us give away that food.

Technology has already advanced us to this point where we could legitimately feed and clothe people, but it is never going to do that until we allow ourselves, and they allow us, to take care of one another. Unfortunately, that means we'd need to get over certain things like antagonistic relationships and greed to get there. And not just corporate greed. All forms of greed and distrust. It may seem strange, but there are people who will starve today because they don't want to accept help from someone they don't trust. The choice is not always that obvious, but decisions like that are made all the time in the name of nationalism or pride or (again) greed.

I'd agree that there are certain applications that AWS would be not so good for.

If you can guarantee nearly full utilization of your equipment and a certain amount of bandwidth, you're probably best with buying your own stuff. The price tag will be large up front, but you'll save money over the long term.

That said, if the problem is ramping up and down your needs, you might have a good case for at least adding Cloud services to your existing mix. It is probably a bitch to get new equipment for the government, as well as getting it approved and set up. If you can scale out in the cloud, you have the ability to codify your infrastructure and recreate it at will, when required. That means not only almost instant set-up of networking and instances, but also near instant set up of software and security features (if needed). And when you don't need it, blow it away, and the infrastructure code will be there the next time you need it.

Initial data loads into EBS or S3 can be done via drop shipping hard drives to AWS, so bandwidth for initial loads may not be as bad as it would appear.

"Sciences" should not be an independent anything in the state.

You want to keep science as far from government as you can. Indeed, this only shows that its too close already.

Which is entirely valid in CS as well. I remember taking almost blind shots into the dark because I heard someone moving in a manner that I was used to hearing people move through certain areas. It worked because the sound is well placed and you get a feel for what a charge down one side sounds like, as opposed to a push down another.

Hell, if you got on the most common maps, you could run to a certain place, count to 1 and then just fire at a door, and 50% of the time you'd headshot someone who ran the same path, full speed, as everyone else always runs.

I agree that the people who do it for a job have more reason to cheat. You get almost nothing out of cheating in games for recreation.

On occasion, I used to play on servers that allowed cheats. When I played with them, the experience was interesting at first, but inevitably got boring very fast. In the end, all you do is remove the work done to generate good levels and turn it into a super-flat experience where your ping, cpu, and possibly your actual aim/weapon skill matters. If there are auto aim or other weapon hacks, there isn't even the weapon skill.

So, it gets boring. Especially against other people with the same hacks. It is probably marginally more entertaining when you are playing against people who don't have hacks and don't know that you have them.

However, ultimately, what is the point of playing a game if you don't actually play the game? There are people out there who enjoy trolling, but I can't see that being as interesting as trying to beat other people on a well-designed map.

Getting hacks is easy, although using them covertly is dangerous due to VAC and possible bans. For all of that, it's just a waste of your time, other than perhaps to understand a little of the mechanics of how the game works and how hackers might be using hacks on you.

I can understand how it would look in that scenario, but I don't care. You could just as soon suggest that all three blacks didn't care about the evidence and wanted a trial so that they would get their pound of flesh just because there was a white cop. I don't think that would be fair to those three jurors to suggest that, but that would not be unreasonable under the same scenario you're suggesting.

If we're going to hinge our acceptance of the legal system on a minority of jurors who are perceived to have the most possibility of bias against the cop, then the problem isn't with the legal system, it is with those who are trying to manipulate it.

I know that racism isn't dead, but this jury was shown a lot of evidence, and that evidence has been made public. That's all I need here.

Apparent legitimacy, you mean.

If I'd been in that jury room, I wouldn't have let that cop get away with it, if I had probable cause. And not because Brown was a black kid, but because he would have been a person wrongfully killed by the police and police corruption personally disgusts me.

I am plenty white, and the assertion that I am unable to listen to evidence and come to an impartial decision is ridiculous. I understand that we'd all feel better if there was a black person saying it was all okay, but fuck that. I am no less a citizen of the United States who is capable of doing my duty on a jury than someone who happens to be black. If you want to truly have a world without racism, then we need to stop requiring the token representation to legitimize anything.

Even though the Grand Jury is frequently overwhelmed by prosecutors, it exists to prevent situations like this where someone is forced into an expensive and traumatic trial for a crime that there isn't even probable cause to believe a guilty verdict could be reached. Those people who think that the grand jury should have just passed this to trial ignore the fact that such a trial should not be undertaken simply to satisfy the uninformed preferences of the crowd.

Calling someone over to your car to talk to them is "getting in to a fist fight"?

Wilson called for backup, but it is his duty as a police officer to keep track of the suspect and delay them, arresting by himself, if he had no other choice.

And when the assailant not only did not heed commands to halt after that fight, but then turned on him and charged, the cop is now a cowboy?

There was nothing about this that had to turn into a fight. Cops have the right to talk to you without punches being thrown. If a cop wanted to talk to me... I'd talk to him, albeit with some concern about what he wanted and thinking about my civil rights. None of that requires me to attack the cop.

Brown just knocked over a convenience store. So, I understand why he started a fight, even if it was still a colossally stupid thing to do. What I don't see is how the cop is now responsible for starting a fight by doing what he did.

It was the Freemasons. Duh.

The cop actually DID know there was a robbery and that is actually why he stopped Brown. You can read that on CNN or the documents if you like.

Your information is dated from the days when everyone was speculating without evidence. The Grand Jury was presented evidence that Wilson was well aware of the robbery call and acted specifically in a manner to attempt to delay Brown until backup arrived.

The robbery was particularly relevant.

June 1930 was pretty close to the 1929 crash. Remember, we are looking for what made the Great Depression into what it was. Would the stock market crash have caused a recession? Sure, possibly even a depression, maybe. But the Great Depression lasted basically until WWII. The New Deal helped with morale, but the economic conditions of the depression only really ended with the war.

Something that happened in 1930 was well placed to help convert a downturn into a global disaster.