It would be hilarious if Dorian were to be reversing Newsweek's tactics on them. Newsweek - "We have evidence - here, and that's good enough to thrown open the curtain on this guy." Dorian (via credible source of Bitcoin news, which he has control over) - You want evidence? We're the biggest authority on Bitcoin - we know this dude is not the inventor - in fact he was probably using loose language - go ask him again. Dorian to reporters "I was just using loose language, nope, I was talking about general computer stuff, not Bitcoin."
First sentence:"I'm right, period. I don't need to state an argument. Why should I, since everyone knows I'm right to begin with."
Second sentence:"Building on the rigor of my first point consider this comparison involving an undetermined quantum of information, backed up by documentation too obvious to cite."
Powerpoint is good when the visual material you have is auxiliary. Usually, when the presenter is engaging and articulate, you end up not paying much attention to the slides. The slides then become like index cards for the speaker - they help with the design. They also help 'burn' the content into the audience by keeping points in their field of view long after they were covered verbally.
Chalkboards/Whiteboards are the better choice when visual material is not a supplement but a component of the presentation. What they help do is to turn static content into a narrative. Seeing a hand circle the 'x' in 3x+5=20 makes a stronger impression than to see it circled to begin with.
Comcast has a monopoly in our area. I have had conversations resembling the one in the article with Comcast reps. About a year ago, a rep put me on a promotion that lowered my bill while also adding a phone service, which I didn't have at the time. The rep said I would have to call back after 9 months and ask to be put on a different promotion if I didn't want my bill to go up. 9 months later I called again and the rep in question claimed that I was going to be on the promotion for another year. After arguing with her and getting her to recheck the account about thrice... she finally conceded that I was due for a rate change that month and figured out a way to let me keep the rate in place.
Then a strange thing happened 5 months ago. I stopped being able to access my billing information online - the system denied me access "for my own protection" and asked for a PIN that I could only request over mail, by calling tech support (long waits...). I have requested it twice but not received it yet. This is one of the things that *nearly* had me convinced that the second rep was right - because I didn't have a way to check the info myself. The only reason I kept pestering the rep was that my wife, who was sitting next to me kept insisting I stay put... good thing I listened.
It is a disgraceful way of making money, like the author concluded in his post.
If you post a story in which you strongly insinuate that a reviewer is biased, then it's a good idea to either not be biased yourself, or to try to conceal that bias. There are several indications of bias in the post, I only mentioned one, which was to round off the price tag advertised in the review ($89,500) all the way to $100,000, instead of say, to $90,000. The exaggeration obviously helps advance the case further, since $100,000 seems significantly more than $89,500 than $90,000.
I left too much to be inferred there. I agree with your point, and disagree with the article. I was stating the gist of the message, according to me. Beyond the message summarize in that one line, the author laments about how horrible it is when you actually start using awful shit... but that goes without saying, and like you said there's an endless supply of it on the web.
And the submitter isn't
"choose an electric car that costs nearly $100,000"
$89,500 is nearly $100,000.
Mobile developers, don't make awful shit. Please.
There's a reason that "if it ain't broken don't fix it" continues to be the holy grail of engineering. It's because any value function you come up with to evaluate a new opportunity and compare it to an existing, good arrangement is bound to be incomplete. So Value = f(salary, benefits, exciting work) is one part of the story. What about the potential of a Dilbert-like management culture, processes that you don't know yet that you would find out after a year of working at the new place - at which point it would be too late to turn back.
A good job, like a system that works just fine, reflects on a good balance of a large number of variables, many of which one doesn't understand and takes for granted, until one moves out and breaks the balance.
Having said that, I have broken the rule a number of times, because discomfort is not necessarily a bad thing. Necessity is the mother of invention, so if you're healthy, robust, and not too much in debt (or have an ARM mortgage that's going to explode around the corner...) then it couldn't hurt to challenge yourself by leaving your comfort zone, every now and then
So, I love NYC and am considering going there to work. What was it about it that turned you off, that one don't see as a visitor?
It's unfortunate that the USPTO's new director and the White House are not taking aim at patent trolls specifically, but rather trying to deal with them by revamping the criteria for patentability in general. Patent trolls are bad enough that they ought to be treated as a first class problem. Even if it became next to impossible to patent prior art, trolls would still end up getting such patents and prevent companies from building things until they pay up. Maybe something like "You can't file a patent lawsuit unless you have a legitimate product based on the inventions described in the patent."
Maybe the simulation operates at a very low level, at the level of particles and quantum physics. That's where all the bugs were, but they were found and fixed. And when they do occur, they don't make black cats appear, they make galaxies disappear without a trace.
Bugs in simulators are like bugs in a compiler. Once the thing runs for a large family of programs, then subtle bugs observable as faulty logic in a given program are unlikely.
Yes, yes, people like me are the problem.
And people like you who shout Stupid and turn discussions into personal quarrels are the solution...
If you had bothered reading the thread, you would find:
1) In my original post I distanced myself from the idea that gender makes people 'inherently' different.
2) In a follow up post, I did so more verbosely in response to a more constructive version of your message (yes, everything you said is redundant, given precedent in this thread).
Except for your comment on approximations for NP-hard problems, which is... funny....
You are right, it is a well-settled matter that being a woman does not make a person a less capable technologist. And persuading girls that they are 'meant' to do one thing, not another is just plain wrong. But whether we like it or not - people have been doing it - conditioning boys and girls with those stereotypes for centuries, and in practice the effect of that conditioning cannot be undone.
Doesn't tie in with the 0.5.
Women and men are epistemologically different
I thought the above statement in my post expressed the nature of difference to clearly not be biological, but apparently not.
You are right, it is a well-settled matter that being a woman does not make a person a less capable technologist. And persuading girls that they are 'meant' to do one thing, not another is just plain wrong. But whether we like it or not - people have been doing it - conditioning boys and girls with those stereotypes for centuries, and in practice the effect of that conditioning cannot be undone. When you read a little girl an Enid Blyton book, or when she watches a disney princess cartoon, these stereotypes are automatically relayed to her. Some children's books are probably best avoided, for instance, Eloise Wilkins has a series about a families in which the daddies clearly go to work and mothers stays at home to cook and clean, but while you can avoid them at home, you cannot dictate what teachers read to children in pre-school or in day care.