You say that now...
Like we used to do in the 90s and just called it 'engineering'.
Mostly clouds are more expensive than doing it yourself, unless you fire your sysadmin(s) as part of the deal.
I think you may have underestimated the difficulty of sealing the borders of several countries. The more this goes on the more people will try to leave. There are not enough soldiers in the world to stop a population fleeing imminent death.
I think that depends what you consider the 100% to be. If it's humanity, then 1% is a significant overestimate of people who can afford this.
Homo sapiens will never stop using Latin.
The more I see of python the less I like it. Every time I try to install some python package there is some incompatibility with the system python, or some wierdness in compiling the underlying libraries, and I have to maintain several versions of the language. For some reason it doesn't seem to be backward-compatible, which leads me to question the sanity of whoever decided to make it that way. It is way worse than perl that at least 'just works' a lot more of the time. Maybe it's just me?
Nerval's Lobster writes As developers embrace new programming languages, older languages can go one of two ways: stay in use, despite fading popularity, or die out completely. So which programming languages are slated for history's dustbin of dead tech? Perl is an excellent candidate, especially considering how work on Perl6, framed as a complete revamp of the language, began work in 2000 and is still inching along in development. Ruby, Visual Basic.NET, and Object Pascal also top this list, despite their onetime popularity. Whether the result of development snafus or the industry simply veering in a direction that makes a particular language increasingly obsolete, time comes for all platforms at one point or another. Which programming languages do you think will do the way of the dinosaurs in coming years? With COBOL still around, it's hard to take too seriously the claim that Perl or Ruby is about to die. A prediction market for this kind of thing might yield a far different list.
That website does not look like an authoritative peer-reviewed source. It is not a scientific forum.
I thought she was an expert on the evolution of dogs, on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. Not sure why her opinions on walrus movements should be of interest to anyone.
>some idiot paid for them
I think we know who paid for them.
sandbagger writes: " ...it is often the case that one can be led astray by relying on the generic or commonly understood definition of a particular word." That quote apparently applies to words offering constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. TechDirt looks at the redefinition of the term "collection" as redefined by Executive Order 12333 to allow basically every information dragnet, provided no-one looks at it. "Collection" is now defined as "collection plus action." According to this document, it still isn't collected, even if it has been gathered, packaged and sent to a "supervisory authority." No collection happens until examination. It's Schrodinger's data, neither collected nor uncollected until the "box" has been opened. This leads to the question of aging off collected data/communications: if certain (non) collections haven't been examined at the end of the 5-year storage limit, are they allowed to be retained simply because they haven't officially been collected yet? Does the timer start when the "box" is opened or when the "box" is filled?
Probably, yes. Paying people to do things cheaply does not necessarily improve their life. The quality of life of a hunter gatherer is arguably better than that of a farm worker, and the quality of life of a farm worker is arguably better than that of a factory worker. None of this stops people converting from hunter gatherers to farmers to factory workers, because they want more resources and stability to look after their their children, but it doesn't usually work out that way. The extra 'richness' tends to support larger and larger populations of children, and richer and richer elites, while the quality of life of individuals does not get better on the whole.
The best way to solve these challenges is to start building these things, find out what works, and scale up to enjoy the economies of scale. Germany is clearly winning this race and will be selling everyone their technology later, as per usual.
Germany is well on the way to doing this on the scale of a whole country. It just takes some political will.