I've been listening to Fox News Radio and NPR as part of my morning routine, and I don't really feel like those pro-Cheeto. Fox News Radio has always come across as balanced, or even slightly anti-Trump.
Are the radio and the TV being run off of separate news sources?
This highlight from the paper is particularly telling:
The basic maze generating routine had been partially written by a stoner
who had left. I contacted him to try and understand what the maze generating
algorithm did. He told me it came upon him when he was drunk and whacked
out of his brain, he coded it up in assembly overnight before he passed out, but
now could not for the life of him remember how the algorithm worked
TOTP and the Google Authenticator app? Aside from the development cost (perhaps not even that, since anything supporting 2FA seems to support TOTP natively these days), it costs exactly zero USD to set it up.
Except you actually want them to learn a lot, not just a little: it starts with one very specific bit of information, but then you realize that in order to understand that, you need four more bits of knowledge, but each requires six more, and those each require two more, but those in turn require four more, and
The same way you start with a simple question: "If I have a logo in Great Britain that kinda looks like this other one in Massachusettes, is that okay?", and it snowballs pretty quickly into a full-blown research on common law including the 1528 case of Jane Doe v. Henry VIII and the 1796 case of Smith v. State of Massachusettes before you say eff it and instead go to a qualified lawyer.
You don't see this in action, not very often, because by the time they enter your world, people have already learned this, and head the entire process of with the phrase "It's not my problem, I don't really care, just make it work!". And it's true, it's not their problem, it's yours - that's why they pay you instead.
As a professional, you probably have a very different concept of "basic" than they do. To continue your analogy, their concept of "basic" is hammering in a nail straight, while yours is more like juggling four hammers to drive in three nails in a board over your head.
Just because it's basic knowledge to you, it may not be for others.
Let me turn this around for you for a moment...
Do you know how to, say, navigate the mazes of international copyright law? Run an ad campaign across multiple social platforms? Or balance ledgers?
Do you want to learn these skills?
The same way you're good at IT, those people are good at something else. And the same way you're not going to be interested in the intricacies of their domain, they aren't in yours. And that doesn't make them any less intelligent than you.
I work half support, and I need to deal with irate PM/management types on a daily basis. No, they don't want to understand how our product works. They wouldn't if they tried. Yet, somehow, there's always a conversation like this:
Client: I just don't understand, why can't you do X?
Me: Listen, I can get into the details why that's not possible, but I don't think you want to hear it. Do you want to hear it?
Client: Try me!
[5 minutes of moderately in-depth technical explanation on database and platform architecture and algorithmic complexity]
Me: So that's why what you're asking is not possible and will not be possible in the foreseeable future. Now do you understand?
Client: I guess I see why that won't work, okay...
As I've noticed, people say they don't care, but as long as they can parrot it back to their boss/client why their bright idea won't work, they're willing to flex their mental muscles.
Didn't Sky already do this in Britain? They even had a Doctor Who special that let you use Sky RedButton to point out stuff to the Doctor during the episode, and if you missed the cues, the scene unfolded differently (but did not affect the overall plot).
Well, feelings affect how one perceives reality (how the facts register to the person), which, for lack of a better alternative, is the reality as far as one is concerned.
That said, "Some users argued that they should be allowed to decide what’s “true, fake, or otherwise,”" - nobody gets to make that call. Truth is truth, no matter the subjective reality of the viewer, and it remains truth whether or not one believes it.
You are aware that no nuclear exchange in our lifetime will be "limited", right? Once somebody launches the missiles, no matter who they are aimed at, protocols take over and suddenly, everyone is launching everything at everyone.
The line between MAD and MAS is razor thin, and MAS only works because so far, all leaders with nuclear arsenals have thought it's better to keep on living than to be vaporized.
As for the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis flared up and down so fast, the Bulletin did not have time to react by moving the clock. It was like 23:59:59.750+0000, but they couldn't get together and debate it fast enough for the clock to actually reflect that.
Two orders of magnitude is not a big difference??
They're quite far from the cap (21 million, out of which app. 17 million have been mined). What they can't scale is throughput: the Bitcoin network can manage about 10-14 transactions per second, while Visa for instance executes about a hundred times that per second.
Now, miners can apply all the hacks they want (SegWit and co.) but if the system wasn't made to scale, no amount of patching will make it scale.
As an afterthought, I should add that I put the word "required" in quotes because it's not like "Read these books or we're terminating your probation right this instant!", but more along the lines of "Here, these are the standards we hold ourselves to and this will be the minimum level of quality we will be expecting from you." - anyone is free to say no, and even get away with it, but if they write unclear, badly documented code, no matter its performance, they will get infinite amounts of shit during their code review.
To date, nobody has refused to read them, nor did we have to remind people more than once or twice to name variables and functions properly and write DartDoc/JavaDoc in their code. I read them, and even I got a metric ton of comments on my first review, but mostly from a performance/robustness aspect, not for style.
No, it's not right for an employer either, actually. You don't air the dirty laundry to the public from either side of the argument.
How often do you hear the "juicy details" when a Fortune 500 company changes CEOs or other officers? Don't kid yourself, they aren't saints any more than I am (and I know I'm not), yet the only line the public hears is "Left with mutual agreement" - saying anything more would doom either side (nobody wants to work for someone who exposes the dirty secrets, and conversely, nobody wants to hire a potential liability whose default way of getting their way is to threaten defamation).
Sure. The first couple of weeks (two-three, usually) are usually spent getting to know the languages (mainly Dart these days) and the code base anyway, and since the seniors are otherwise occupied, "down time" between questions and pair programming sessions can be spent reading, sorting out various bits of paperwork, etc.
They're generally eager enough to take the books home anyway (yes, we hand out the hard copies
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
