That has nothing to do with this situation
That has nothing to do with this situation
So? Does this put the state further in debt?
In figures, quite likely.
In value, not necessarily. Inflation might make the value of the overall debt less.
Ok, we design things in California.
Often that design process is that a US company contacts a design company in Taiwan, which produces a bespoke design for which the real designer will not claim rights to. It's then "Designed in the USA", because someone in the US approved and paid for the design.
Exactly. It's a nice utopian idea, but alas, the earth is not a utopia. The money has to come from somewhere.
You print it. Those who sit on money pay for the new money through inflation. Most economies in the world now depend on inflation.
I'm guessing that sure, a lot of folks wouldn't care, but I would posit that the majority of the populace using social media even is NOT aware of the massive information collection going on, nor how it is used.
I doubt the difference is awareness so much as caring. Germany, in particular, is extremely sensitive to privacy reasons. What's more interesting is why the populace of some countries care so much more than others. German motivations seem obvious... but Russians would seem to have almost as much motivation and they're heavy users of social media.
Gabbing, food-plate moneyshots, selfie-admiration and laughing at animals does not necessarily lead to productivity.
You're implying a causal relationship, which is contradicted by the existence of many other high-performing economies -- including the most productive countries -- that do have heavy social media usage.
Actually, I meant what I said.
Then you're just wrong, because decisions like this guy made have basically nothing to do with any sort of intelligence, and certainly not social intelligence (not by any definition of that phrase that I've ever seen). They do have something to do with motivation, but it's about the goal of the motivation, not the degree.
It's perfectly possible to have high intelligence across every category, including social intelligence, and still be foolish.
While this may be true, I think it is impossible to anticipate someone's actual social reasoning performance from any measure of social reasoning capacity to any useful degree.
Likely true, but irrelevant.
Or, here in New England, the side door. (The front door is only for brides and undertakers)
That was my concern too. Drop them around the mailbox like the fscking catalog people do? Guess where I will not be ordering from, then.
The moral of the story is that even a stupid human being can be pretty smart. Particularly a sufficiently motivated stupid person.
That's an odd thing to say, since stupid is the antonym of smart. I think what you meant to say is:
The moral of the story is that even a foolish human being can be pretty smart. Particularly a sufficiently-motivated fool.
Foolishness is the opposite of wisdom, and the foolish/wise axis is roughly orthogonal to the stupid/smart axis.
Of course it also helps that intelligence comes in different flavors. Some people are good at spatial reasoning, others are good at verbal reasoning. But we often overlook social reasoning because it's not part of the traditional IQ tests. I think another reason that Social IQ testing hasn't caught on is that there is good reason to believe that social reasoning ability isn't fixed. Changes in attitude can strongly impair or enhance an individual's ability to process social information.
I don't think this has anything to do with social intelligence. It's perfectly possible to have high intelligence across every category, including social intelligence, and still be foolish. Wisdom/foolishness is in how you think about things more than in how your are able to think about things. Wise people consider the consequences of their actions carefully. I'm sure this guy was fully capable of thinking through what would happen if he got caught... he just didn't bother to do it.
Yes, it means your functions aren't allowed to have side effects (i.e., all parameters are passed by value and the only result is the value returned to the caller).
It's quite a bit more than that, at least if you're talking about pure functional programming. You also have to get rid of most all of your old notions of flow control. Imperative programming is about defining sequences of steps, some of which are conditional. Functional programming is all done with nested transformations; there are no sequential steps, there are no branches, there is no iteration.
If this sounds freakish and impossible to someone raised on imperative programming paradigms... yes, it is. Functional programming requires thinking in an entirely new way. It's a very powerful tool. I'm not sure it's the best tool for the systems I build (though I'm also not sure it isn't), but at a minimum it's a useful way to think about code construction. Every programmer should spend some time learning it.
I don't get what you mean by "like".
Procedures are procedures, period.
Indeed they are. And purely functional programming languages don't have procedures.
The grafting of functional programming constructs onto imperative languages is interesting and useful, but every programmer should spend some time learning to program in a purely functional style, even if they then go back to imperative languages for their everyday work. It opens up a whole new way of thinking about code.
There's two big things that have come out of the recent move towards more functional programming which are really important.
You missed the biggest one: Eliminating mutable state makes code inherently safe for concurrency. Not an inconsiderable issue, since the direction of hardware progress seems to be towards ever more cores.
Of course, pure functional programming eliminates mutable state by creating massive numbers of copies. Actual functional programming languages (e.g. Haskell) are quite clever about optimizing out nearly all of those copies, but the result of that is that the generated code has mutable state. Still, this may very well be the best way forward... automatic parallelization of imperative code is very hard. It may well be that it's easier to automatically decide how to split work up by analyzing data copying, and then apply copy optimization to each thread.
So what happens if this intervention accidentally goes wrong and utterly destroys the entire reef? Wouldn't it be something if those who claim to be helping the reef end up killing it?
Between climate change , ocean acidification , invasIive crown of thorns starfish and an idiot government wanting to stick the worlds largest coal mine smack in the midst off if creating a giant reef-fucking shipping route over the top of it, its already at the "disaster" stage. whole regions of the reef are dying every year and thats not supposed to happen at all
On the internet, short of blocking them on social media, you are confronted with them constantly.
Actually, I think it's the ability to block (or just de-friend) that creates the biggest part of the problem. It creates echo chamber effects, which help ideas morph into their most virulent and effective forms, especially ideas that demonize the holders of opposing ideas -- which, from a memetic evolutionary perspective are really cooperating ideas, not competing at all.
A good, though somewhat annoyingly dumbed down, explanation of this process and effect is this youtube video. If you haven't watched it, you really should -- and then think about the ideas that you hold and consider the possibility that they have evolved specifically to push your hot buttons in the most effective way possible, and how you can counter that.
The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.