In other words, kids are just like they've been for centuries.
No, not really. It's been relatively recent that "chicken in every pot" and "everyone should be able to afford a house" has taken over.
There were no banking regulations enforcing bad loans.
You are completely ignorant of the purpose and the result of the Community Reinvestment Act and all following legislation regarding it, then. The CRA was federal law that brought strict federal oversite to banks and who and how they made loans. It is the CRA and similar legislation that "community activists" used as bludgeons to force banks into essentially removing financial considerations in approving loans.
Remember the term "redlining"? It was the term used against banks who didn't approve enough loans in certain parts of the community. You know, like a low income part of town where there was a high percentage of people who really couldn't afford a home loan so they were being turned down. But the CRA and federal regulators prohibited such statistical anomalies, and that's how the legislation was enforced. Nobody looked at the individual loans that were approved or turned down to see why, it was a percentage game. The percentage of previously ineligible borrowers didn't change, but the percentage of loans had to go up. (And this is exactly the same way that Title IX "violations" are determined. If you don't have the same percentage of boys and girls playing sports in your high school, you are in violation. It doesn't matter if the girls don't want to play sports. It doesn't matter if you have to cancel boys sports to make the numbers balance, just as long as the numbers balance.)
Why do you ignore the fact that a loan officer who was presented with an application from someone who had little or no down payment, no steady income, and little prospect for future income was pressured into approving the loan to keep the feds off the bank's back? Do you REALLY think that banks wanted ARMs where they got almost no return on the money and every likelyhood that when the balloon came due they would be stuck with a foreclosure? If you do, then you really don't understand why banks make loans in the first place.
There were lots of banks that thought that a mortgage that was certain to be defaulted on was an asset,
Oh, don't be stupid. Banks didn't want loans that they knew would go into default. It costs a lot of money to clean every one of those loans up. They LOSE money on those loans. They only reason they BECAME an asset was because they were forced to make those loans and because that money was tied up in the loan they couldn't make other, better loans. They had to sell the bad loans. It's an OBVIOUS result of making bad loans. Everybody but Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd knew this, and I suspect that they knew but didn't care. Remember, Frank is the fellow who claimed there was no problem in FNMA well after everyone with a brain saw how the market was collapsing, and Bush wanted to put regulations in place to limit the impact.
You might want to read up on the situation. "Architects of Ruin" by Peter Schweizer covers it pretty well. If you really want to know what happened.
There are no "efficient object oriented design practices".
Sure there are. OOP doesn't automatically imply "crazy inheritance trees". If you only use inheritance when runtime polymorphism is really needed, and that's rare, your code will be plenty efficient.
Without runtime polymophism, a method call is just a function call, no overhead (and no object bloat). This is really a problem with library code, which all to often ends up OOP-heavy to make it broadly usable. Concepts really shine there, of course, and to your point the resistance against it in the committee is quite irrational.
1/3 spammer army, 1/3 in the hands of botnet operators to be sold off for use in trolling/harassment/activism campaigns, 1/3 Twitter inflating user numbers to get that sweet, sweet money.
Social media - 50% of the accounts are bots, but 100% of the users are fake.
Exceptions are perfectly deterministic. I guarantee you no entropy source is included either at compile time or at run time.
However, you can't safely use exception unless all your types are exception-safe. This is an easy pattern to follow, and easy to get right in code review, but it's not widely known. Plus, people just assume any C++ feature that's not in C must be slow, so the idea of cleaning up allocations and whatnot automatically as part of stack unwind must somehow be slower than writing all that code manually at the bottom of every function.
Scoped objects (inherently exception-safe objects) are definitely less error prone than goto fail.
Speedyfox is the real deal. Shit's FIXED!
I'm waiting for the "Find Your Ass" app. In-app purchases include 2 hands and a map!
No, it wasn't just me. Other family members had the same problem. The time jumps are across enough years and done frequently enough that you can't really track people easily. This is made worse by the fact that they all sort of sound the same and a lot of the shots are from a distance or done where you only see the back of their head. The fishing boat shot, for example.
Some of the scenes are especially jarring because you aren't given any time reference UNTIL you start wondering who the fuck a particular character is. One family member asked "Wait, didn't he die?" during one of the scenes. Until you start second-guessing every new scene with "Is this a flashback? If so, then..." and start playing the match game with characters across a decade, it's a mess.
If it was their goal to create a disorienting spiral of bleakness, then good job!
I only have a few extensions - Adblock Plus or Ublock Origins (some machines have one, some have the other; no machines have both), New Tab Override (just takes me to about:blank instead of about:tab for new tabs), NoScript, and Ghostery (only on some machines).
I figured the database was the issue, which is why I went through blowing out history. I'll try speedyfox and see if it helps. Firefox occasionally tells me "Hey, refresh your shit!" and I'm like "Fuck you! I have it set up to make it usable!".
It's duck typing done right. You get a compile time error if it's not a duck, instead of a runtime error. That makes all the difference in the world.
My two year Plantronics headset can sense when it's being worn. I imagine the air pods have the same features, and that the designers worked it into the program.
Note that while the current implementation of C++ templates leads to code bloat, that's not inherent in the idea of concepts. Compile-time polymorphism is a great idea that will be very useful, especially for library code where even the slightest increase in time can make people ignore your library.
It's kind of sad that concepts are seen as a template thing, but I guess it makes them more broad than just classes - various bare functions can be concepts as well. I'd rather see it as a kind of interface definition, myself.
Fully automatic fingerprint matching is harder than you might expect. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it would be easier or more reliable. I'd like to think those options were compared rationally as part of the project, but government so maybe not. I do think people see fingerprinting differently, perhaps as more intrusive or as something you only do to criminals. I remember an outcry when the US announced it would do some fingerprinting at the border.
Never forget the business model of government: you take money from some people, you distribute some of it to other people, and you keep the rest for yourself. The key phrase, of course, is "keep the rest for yourself".
Not true. Often the "istribute some of it to other people" is the key point: those other people own a pet politician, and his job is to ensure a steady stream of taxpayer money to his owners. More money was given out in bank bailouts than has ever stuck to the hands of a politician.
ActiveX "applets" are/were full Windows programs, which could do anything any other application could do.
Which is why for a time they were widely used.
Android Instant Apps don't have access to storage, to other applications, etc.
If that were wholly true they would not be very useful...
Instant apps have some access to the system, with restrictions. In addition to the standard Android permissions apps have to obey, they have some other limitations - a subset:
* Can't access external storage - but they can access private local storage. That to me is a potential hole, especially if the full app can get at that later.
* No access to long term ID's like SSAID, or IMEI - but can access AdvertisingID.
* Foreground services are available while instant app is running.
* Cannot use explicit intents to access other apps.
So while there are many restrictions, there are also areas where security issues may allow an instant app to break from the sandbox. Being pretty new there are bound to be some gaps.
I personally have reservations about something like Instant Apps really being any more useful than applets were. We'll see though.