The Florida congresswoman's resignation — under pressure from top Democrats — comes amid the release of leaked emails showing DNC staffers favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the party's 2016 primary contest.
Ideally such functions will contain several pages of incredibly complicated looking code that will be completely optimized away in release builds, but exhaustively execute for debugs and traces, and require months of careful human analysis before anyone else can be completely certain of that fact.
Depends on what exactly you're doing. As a general rule I prefer to avoid deeply nested code, but I've also written some code where a large block of code all interacted with a large amount of data, so that there were no natural "separation planes" to decompose it into smaller blocks without creating subfunctions that would themselves take dozens of parameters that might (or might not) be modified, making the whole even more error-prone and difficult to understand.
Not a common occurrence I'll grant you, but sometimes the task at hand really is that ugly.
I've also employed deep nesting in special purpose situations code where it could be naturally decomposed into subfunctions, but those subfunctions would themselves be extremely brief with near-zero chance of reuse. At that point the overhead of function decomposition can rival the time to actually get it working, so unless there's a dramatic improvement in clarity or I've got time to spare, I'm unlikely to bother.
Quite. Reminds me of the definition of "undefined behavior":
It compiles perfectly.
It debugs perfectly.
It works perfectly throughout all functionality and QA testing.
It explodes in the worst possible manner when proper functioning is actually important.
Then I clearly need to step up my game and have them call one another for no reason that anyone reading my code will ever be able to understand.
I second this, and also add that I like to throw in a bunch of superfluous methods in all my classes that are very complicated and are never called.
Certainly they do - one has a vested business interest in improving the perception of Autopilot's safety, and one just avoided facing manslaughter charges because of a feature of his expensive new toy. That doesn't mean either is being objectivly honest.
Clearly Musk is including the entire computer control system, including long-common safety features under the "Autopilot" umbrella, which probably makes sense from an implementation perspective, but means Autopilot is not synonymous with self-driving, and is being given credit for safety features that other cars have had for a decade.
Let me ask you this - aside from various degrees of self-driving, what other "convenience features" does Autopilot have that can be engaged while driving down the street?
Unfortunately for your argument, there's not really much evidence that raising the minimum wage causes problems - in fact pretty much everywhere it's been increased we've seen quite the opposite effect. Minimum wage salaries are typically only responsible for a tiny percentage of the cost of the products or services being sold, and the cost of doubling them can easily be passed on to the customer. Meanwhile, doubling the wages of a large fraction of the population considerably increases the size of the customer pool, and thus the available profits for the business.
As for "harming the rights of the employer to operate his business in an equitable manner", what world are you living in? The vast majority of the US economy consists of corporations that have pocketed 99% of all the productivity gains of their employees for the last several decades, while worker wages have remained largely stagnant. That's hardly operating a business in an equitable manner.
If you want to talk about the government immorally imposing demands on society - how about we start with the completely artificial strong property laws that allow a tiny percentage of the population to concentrate the vast bulk of societies wealth into their own hands over the course of generations? Without those laws individuals can only accumulate as much wealth as they can personally defend, insuring a far more equitable wealth distribution. If we're going to have such laws, then we need counterpoint laws to prevent the terrible excesses that they enable.
Of course slavery requires consent of the slave. A slave who refuses to work is no slave at all, only a victim of abuse and probably eventually murder.
That the violence in a rigged economy is homelessness and starvation not directly imposed by any specific individual does not fundamentally alter the fact that consent is often coerced.
Nope, they're just going to know a MASSIVE amount about your daily routine. There's a reason that putting GPS trackers on your car traditionally required a warrant.
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson