I would prefer a method that satisfies the Condorcet criterion (that a candidate who would win in a two way election against any other candidate wins, if such a candidate exists). Approval voting does tend to approximate this, if accurate polling data exists and voters are aware of that data and vote strategically, but I would prefer not to rely on that.
The trillion dollar coin wasn't supposed to deal with US debt, it was a trick to get around the debt cap rule that Congress imposed on the government.
If they actually spent the trillion dollar coin, that would likely cause devaluation of the dollar; as long as the coin remains locked up in the treasury it's just an accounting trick to get around their own arbitrary rule and wouldn't cause devaluation, because everyone buying dollars knows it's just a stupid accounting trick and not actual money.
I would be fine with them getting green cards and letting them compete on the same terms as I do. I'm not fine competing with someone that gets deported if they get fired and don't find someone else to sponsor their visa. H-1Bs give employers too much power over the employees.
Other people have discussed the speed, but one aspect of performance that people often ignore is memory usage. In C# (or at least the most common implementation), there is a per object overhead of at least 8 bytes on 32-bit platforms and 16 bytes on 64-bit platforms. C++ implementations typically have no overhead for objects without virtual functions and 4 or 8 bytes of overhead for objects with virtual functions. This means that a program written in C++ could potentially use a much lower amount of memory than one written in C#.
I've experienced the opposite but that might be because I'm looking at software development jobs. Most of the mega-corps and the medium-large companies that do software development actively recruit new grads while the small companies are only looking for experienced people.
The problem with that question is that there isn't really any answer to it. It basically just ends up being that at some point someone made an arbitrary decision to do something that way and a bunch of other people copied them.
I assumed it's aimed at those of us who know better, but are too lazy to actually verify signatures. If I'm using my own computer with Thunderbird and Enigmail set up, it checks them automatically for me, but if I'm checking my email from somewhere else through a web client, I'm guilty of assuming that signatures are valid without checking them.
Don't they already do this? I don't know much about marketing, but I was under the impression that pretty much any large company would have guidelines about what overall message they want to convey in any public communications.
I have never seen a web site require me to explicitly agree to something like that. There is certainly no implicit agreement that I must view any content they happen to send me.
A key difference is that the slaves didn't have a choice about which bids to accepts, they just went to the highest bidder, nor did they keep the proceeds.
With this, they aren't really bids in the strictest sense, they're non-binding offers of an interview.
> Does this mean that DeveloperAuction will only accept developers residing in these specific cities?
They probably only accept developers who want to work in one of those specific areas. Those are probably the only cities where they have connections with enough companies to get bids. The whole thing would be pointless if no one was bidding. I would imagine that if they are successful, they will expand to other areas.
This isn't a big problem for Google because they are mostly focused on a tightly controlled server environment where they control everything and created most of the software themselves.
For general purpose use, this is a huge deficiency in Go.
First of all, that's the terms of service that you agree to when signing up for an account. If you don't sign up for an account, you haven't agreed to that.
Additionally, you left out this from your quote "(except as provided in Section 2.3 of these Terms of Service)". Section 2.3 says "You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Services for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein". All an adblocker does is download some of the content and decline to download some of the downloadable items. That's permissible under Section 2.3.
I think a lot of the backlash comes from a misunderstanding of how this affects prior art. The name "first-to-file" makes it seem like you can take some invention that has been published but not patented, and patent it, preventing the actual inventor from using the invention. That is not the case.
Only the inventor is allowed to file a patent. Under a first-to-file system, anything that has been made public can still be used as prior art to invalidate a patent.
It wouldn't always be that clear cut. His employer's policy might be something like "outside projects are allowed as long as you don't use knowledge that you gained from working there".
That could easily be interpreted more broadly than it was intended. He could interpret it as "I learned Javascript while working there, so I can't release a project in Javascript" or something like that, when they really intended it to prevent use of non-publicly available information related to their business.
I'm a technical person and I don't like social login and I don't like creating individual account for every site. What I would like is a decentralized single-login protocol like the article is talking about.
> I only hope there'll be a day I'll finally truly possess my own network identities, and third parties (social networks, email providers, etc) will act as notaries who just assert them for others to verify.
If you have your own domain name, that's exactly what Persona does. The protocol is completely decentralized. Mozilla only provides a fallback for domains that don't support Persona.
It's not completely useless. For instance, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and NYC are grouped together with only a faint line on the border of districts 3 and 5 and no line of the border of districts 2 and 3, with much stronger lines separating DC and Baltimore from the rest of district 5 and NYC from the rest of district 2.
Also, note the strong separation between Virginia and West Virginia, which are part of the same district, but no separation between West Virginia and any part of district 4.
You can definitely see the effect of the Federal Reserve districts on the map, but there are clearly other important factors.
> If they really cared about "preservation of capital", they would liquidate more of their stakes when one company made them rich then diversify their holdings.
That might not always be possible. If the shares they own are a substantial portion of the total company, selling a lot of them at once would cause the share price to plummet and a lot of their wealth would disappear.
Most of them do sell off stock in the companies that made them rich, they just do it gradually, so that they don't cause the price to drop. For instance, Bill Gates has been dumping Microsoft stock for several years. The stock he sold in the past few years amounts to about 3% of all of Microsoft.
Persona is the protocol that the sites use to communicate with the identity provider. If they support Persona they will support Persona authentication from any email provider that chooses to support Persona and from the fallback provider that Mozilla provides.
Persona leaves authentication entirely up to the identity provider. In the case of the fallback identify provider that you're probably seeing, they choose passwords. Other identify providers can choose any method of authentication that they want to use.
1. Privacy: the identity provider can't tell what site you are logging in to.
2. It's decentralized: any email provider can provide Persona authentication for the email addresses that it handles. You don't have to rely on Mozilla to do this except as a fallback for email providers who don't support Persona.
Python doesn't optimize any tail calls at all. Rust optimizes sibling calls, which includes all self-tail calls. It's only tail calls to a different function that Rust doesn't eliminate.
I don't have a problem with allowing skilled immigrants into the US. I have a huge problem with the overly favorable terms that employers get with H-1B workers. I think that once a worker has been allowed in they should be allowed to transfer jobs without having to find a new sponsor. If their skills are valuable enough to let them in, the skills should be valuable enough to let them stay.
> To quote Steve Blank himselve, no software ever fails because it can't be build. You can build whatever software you want.
Bullshit. Budget and schedule overruns are endemic to the software industry. There are plenty of companies that fail because they can't deliver on the technology they promised.
> What's a "quoted exchange price" if it's not the price you actually pay?
The actual price you have to pay is based on how much you want to buy and how much other people are willing to sell at what price.
People who want to buy give a "bid" price and people who want to sell give an "ask" price. Whenever there is an ask price that is lower than a bid price, a sale takes place. This results in the lowest ask price always being higher than the highest bid price. The quoted exchange price will be somewhere in between the two prices.
If you want to sell right away, the most you can get is the highest bid price on the books. If you want to buy right away, the cheapest you can get it is the lowest bid price on the books. This means that you have to pay more than the quoted exchange price to buy and receive less than the quoted exchange price to sell.
All "Computer Professionals" are exempt, so that would cover many of the people on this site. The other exemptions are rather broad and would probably cover most of the rest.
It's also not necessary to move someone to management to give them more authority. Most software engineers don't want to deal with hiring/firing people or any of the other stuff that comes with being a manager, but they would be interested in having more say in technical decisions.
It sounds like you are heavily invested in this company and are taking risks on the same level that a co-founder would. If they can't pay you consistently, you should be getting the equity and title of a co-founder.
I think the hardest part would be getting the people funding it to agree to it. The plan, as you've stated it, gives them very little control of how their funds are used. I don't think it will be easy to convince the investors to trust the engineers not to just take the salary while producing nothing useful. If you can find a way around that problem, you might be on to something.
