It's very clear that you didn't read the article, don't understand the arguments involved, but SOMEHOW feel entitled to spout your opinion.

Why?? Why not just read the article and become smarter? You don't need to show your ignorance off to the world, you can easily read the article, become non-ignorant and say something informed.

People who complain about the US dollar and oil are people who've never taken an economics class.

If you're too lazy to learn economics, then do a simple search to find out the world's oil production compared to the number of dollars in the world, and that should give you an idea of how much influence it actually has.

This is much cheaper than actually going through the labor intensive process of psychoanalysis, so insurance companies like it.

I wonder when we'll see the Ritalin lawsuits.

Have you ever actually tried using Numpy in C?

You can tell how serious someone is about performance based on whether or not they bring out a profiler. If they don't use a profiler, they aren't serious about performance (or maybe they're just clueless).

What do you want to program?

Modern C++ didn't get rid of the gotchas, it just added more of them. It's fine if you're working by yourself, but you can't prescribe what features other people will use (including the writers of libraries you want to use). But old C++ was fine when working by yourself too.

You can add types to your variables in Python. You can use typescript with Javascript.

You can also introspect your types in Ruby, so his point is moot.

There is also the question of why you would add type checking to a dynamic language: if you don't want a dynamic language, why did you choose one? But the reality is most of us don't choose languages anymore, we choose libraries and have to accept whatever language they are attached to.

The author is claiming that Python is readable.

A lot of lawyers prefer checks because a signed check is proof of intention. Not only is it signed, it often has a "reason" memo written.

This can also work in behalf of the person writing the check (in court). For example, if you pay your rent by check, the landlord shows the intent to accept it when they deposit the check. Whereas if you pay with direct deposit, the landlord can claim they had no intention to accept the money.

A lot of times you can have the bank write the check and mail it for you free. Usually it's in the "bill pay" section of the UI.

It comes with nice, official (intimidating) printing. That's what I do on the rare times I need to write a check.

I get the impression that a company like ADP requires that an employer employ at least some minimum number of employees in an area. Otherwise, ADP appears to fall back to printing paper checks for the employer to mail. I don't know the specifics; I just know that I got ADP paper at one job after a bunch of layoffs, and I got ADP paper when I was the only remote worker in a particular state.

In my experience at my last three jobs (in the midwestern USA), small businesses that don't have enough employees in an area have to print and mail paper payroll checks instead of paying their employees through direct deposit.

Really shitty. I'm arrogant so I do want to point out the obvious: Trump won the primaries and became the candidate for the Republican team because the Republican party is shitty.

Both parties are really shitty.