Not true. The customer will see the company getting punished which is worth a lot more. They will think twice about doing something idiotic next time. This is what I call using your lawyer powers for good (and profit).
The analogy is getting your car stolen and telling the police, who find the car, keep it for their effort, and let you keep (one of) the floor-mats. You are saying that this is fair because the thief ended up in jail.
The main point is that it makes a clear punishment for the company; so that others think before doing it themselves.
If the cost of loosing the case is high enough, all manufacturers will learn to be cautious about including 3rd party software on their laptops.
What have you done that makes you feel satisfied with your life? Just curious. I'm 37 and feel like I'm just getting started. Keep in mind that I have wasted very little time. Always working on some project here or there. Right now I'm planning my next fourty years. So it really makes me wonder how you can feel you are done.
I am right there with you. I am a little over half way through my 30th year of life. I have "wasted" a lot by having a ton of fun and enjoying myself, while also getting plenty done professionally. I am excited about the future, and also intrigued with this concept of another 30-50 years of productivity, but like you, sometimes I can accept a fate of being 'finished'. It's weird, but not in a morbid way, more like a, "I'm so blessed to have been able to do all this amazing stuff" kind of way.
I'm not part of the elite. I do what I love even if that means I'm broke. Saying that you cannot do what you love because you are not priviledged are just excuses. Sacrifice what needs to be sacrificed otherwise don't whine. Find a way otherwise you were never meant to do it if you give up too easily.
Most people are just talk though. They will do what they love if you hand them everything in a silver platter. Well the universe doesn't give a damn about you. You are just star waste.
Well .. nothing against you, but if you can do what you love even if that means you are broke, means you are elite. It means you have some guarantee of a social support. May be your definition of broke includes welfare support from govt. There are parts of the world where people commit suicide if they are broke. All people in the first worlds are elites.
And even more places where if you're broke, you simply starve to death.
I'm in the "do what I love even though I'm broke" category, and my background is definitely privileged. My girlfriend on the other hand grew up very poor and had to grind for 10 years before she could even start to consider doing what she loves.
Social scientists have been trying to understand why some of the "happiest" people in the world (across "first" and "developing" economies even) are oftentimes of Hispanic origin. The general explanation that everything seems to point back to is basically that all of these cultures share extremely close ties and social support as the fundamental basis. This is in spite of all the poverty, violence, and general economic malaise that may be affecting us all.
What seems funnier is that even the "elite" seem to have trouble with this part, sometimes even because of their ambition and turning away many people.
So the clear goal to happiness to me is fundamentally "find people that you like and will support you and you will support them, and enjoy each others' company for the short time we do have on this planet. Inspire each other, love each other." This is regardless of whether you're a start-up founder in SF, drug addicted junkie in rural Honduras, or a housewife in Saudi Arabia.
I also disagree very much that everyone in the first world are "elites." Have you ever been to an Indian reservation in New Mexico? How about the backwoods of the Appalachians where there's still snake handler churches that hold services every Sunday at least? There's no running water in half of these places and transportation to the outside might be almost discouraged. Yet so many people will point and go "they're in the richest country in the world, they're PRIVILEGED!" and that's the same tired argument as saying that poor people in the West are "privileged" because they can afford a TV and electricity.
My point is really that your local conditions are EXTREMELY important regardless of what country you're in, period. Your social circles, your family, and even the people you hang out with online all affect you. And if you have none of these... that is rarely a recipe for happiness by anyone's definition aside from the most isolationist of worldviews.
Wealth is about our time. When we can purpose more of our time than others purpose for us, we are more wealthy.
Lots of ways to get at that condition. Having lots of money is one way. Limiting dependencies and costs is another way.
Well put.
Wealthy people tend to be happy people. And in the sense of time and purpose, I believe that's fairly true.
At least they have a good opportunity to be happy.
The other way is to really think about work, potential paths, and then network, until you find an arrangement that resonates.
For some, it might be working on contract. For others, it might be a good team that gets along well. Still others might want to be working on something novel, or making things. Whatever.
I'm not elite either. And I've managed to spend a lot of my work time doing things I really love.
And that's been difficult for me sometimes too. It's never perfect. That's the work part of work. But, it's possible for a lot of people to take steps, one at a time, to get somewhere they feel good about.
All comes down to what's worth what.
For me, I can't really deal with just living for weekends, or even burning so much time per week. It's gotta all mesh somehow, or I'm on a grind, and it's just not worth it.
The other case is being trapped. Being careful about money limits dependencies, and that can help with aligning work, life, love. Been there a time or two as well, and once that was bad decisions, another time it was happenings that ended up falling on me. Took time to dig out from that.
This is super off-topic, but what compels you to write like this? Putting paragraph breaks after every sentence, or every other sentence. Did you learn it from someone? Did you fall into the pattern naturally?
I've seen it more and more, and it really frustrates me. In my reading it corrupts your ideas with this TED-talky, breathless, pseudo-momentousness, ruining what might otherwise be an interesting point or story. And I guess I'm surprised I'm (apparently) in the minority on this view.
I presume it's the dumbed down HN interface that ignores formatting.
Each sentence I write here is on new line.
But unless there is empty line between them, they are put together in one monolithic block, which isn't very nice to read for many including me.
A bug on HN side (or idiotic feature), circumvented in this way (I don't like the result either, something in between would be the best solution)
There are a few things. Honestly, I see the text in the input box here, and a sentence appears multi-line, and that will corrupt my perception of how it will appear. That is one basic cause.
Edit: HN should just A/B test this. Make it much wider and see what happens. I know my response will be more robust paragraphs. But what of others?
Another is conversational writing modes are more relaxed generally, though not always. So I care a lot less, often thinking in dialog, writing same, rather than composing in a more structured way. There is a time balance component too. If I'm to participate in some dialogs where I think it makes sense, I manage that investment.
I participate in a variety of venues. If you go back through my threads here, you will find some info on advocacy, and a big part of that is how one's text will flow to readers.
(and this varies a lot!)
Clearly, readers here are more sophisticated, and I see a range of styles, and in general, more paragraphs and more appropriate paragraphs. Fair enough to question my content on that basis. I agree with you.
But, that's not often the norm.
Over time, I've entertained some meta dialog of this kind, and have found breaking things up helps for a lot of people. There is a difference between, say an article, or structured piece, and dialog / sharing kinds of writing.
On narrow devices, mobile, smaller browser windows, etc... it actually does make sense to be a lot more liberal with paragraphs, and I do. I very frequently am using such a device myself. So there is that. Where I've got a keyboard, I find myself more in line with more traditional expectations.
Finally, line breaks sometimes are good for emphasis, and that's my own style. It's not always liked. And that's OK with me. There are some times when I've had to compose a complex sentence, with some logic, if, and, or, either... and the phrases between contain enough words to warrant line breaks in the sentence itself! Some contracts and proposals I've written contain these, and some A/B testing with them was interesting!
I got a lot less questions using line breaks to segment complex information into smaller, consumable, but connected chunks. And those deals just moved too. Not as many issues. In one sense, it really does manage down the hiding of something in a wall of text, "didn't you see that?" style. I prefer that as well. And like I said, it's been productive in that context.
Having said all that. Thanks! Maybe you are not in the minority, and I sure don't want it corrupted on mere style issues.
I'll up the paragraph compliance and see how it goes here. Of course, I'm bound to go looking back through things in some lame attempt to better understand votes and style now too.
Frankly, I'm OK with not being popular, and all that. The dialog here is great. I also know my perspective is not a common one to this crowd too. Fine. My biggest frustration is often downvotes without commentary. I read absolutely great comments here, and very frequently find serious thoughts bubble up from the many discussions. Worth it.
It's OK to be wrong or challenged! We are better for it, but only when there actually is a meaningful dialog associated with all that. Otherwise, it's just all negative and rather useless.
That, of course, is written for passers by in this dialog. I really do wonder what the downvotes are for and what the other party might suggest as an alternative... That's a bit of a ramble. Thanks for just putting it out there. I much prefer it.
It completely defeats the whole point of a garbage collector if you have to resort to hacks like this. I understand why it is done. A lot easier to use the work around then to fix the root problem.
Unfortunatelly these types of bugs have a nasty way of showing up in other places where it can be even harder to debug. Long term these bugs need to be fixed otherwise your code will just be a ticking bomb. The worst part is when they combine with other bugs and they become even harder to debug.
I wouldn't say "completely defeats". The hacks are usually there only when you need to manage the lifetime of something that's not managed by the garbage collector. I've seen it used for mutexes, for example, to keep a mutex alive and locked.
You could say that the problem is that people abuse the garbage collector to manage something it shouldn't manage, or you could say that the problem is that garbage collectors are bad at managing anything that isn't memory. (I would lean towards the latter.)
nope, when you have handles on resources outside managed memory, the GC is out and you need to have an acquire/release mechanism. This resource will probably have a bit of state visible on the managed side, so there will be some pinned memory.
There have been 116 updates since then (33 public). Given that segfaults almost never happen in the JVM (I've never seen one) I can imagine it would be the highest priority to be fixed.
> Given that segfaults almost never happen in the JVM (I've never seen one)
I've seen 5 segfaults over the last week in our system. Unfortunately we don't enable core dump in our system (yet) so we haven't really had a good sense of what might cause the system. We've been seeing about 30 SIGSEV's over the last three months, but we haven't been able to root cause it yet.
Since you provided no citations yours is just an opinion at best. I'll throw mine in. You are wrong, IQ is about context. The more context you have about a subject the smarter you will seem. Your IQ will increase proportionally with the number of subjects you acquire context in. It is better if the subjects are diverse. Also, the more context you have the faster your processing speed will seem to get (In reality it stays constant, your neurons will only fire so fast)
Sure, raw learning ability, or memorization speed which is what you are talking about, matters. But as long as you don't have a learning disability it pales in comparison to context. And we all have pretty much the same learning ability. Also, those people that are really smart have put in thousands of hours to acquire lots of context. The genius who can absorb new material by reading any subject in a single pass is a myth.
There is a strong correlation between IQ and reaction time. A leading theory is that IQ is basically a measure of reaction time.
On the other hand, IQ is steadily increasing on average. This may, however, reflect how as society develops better abstractions, it tends to increase our reaction time.
For whatever reason I cannot help but hear a strong spaniard accent when reading this. I could almost swear that you are from Spain. I'd say that the "vamos" at the start is what is tipping me off. Quite amusing how one can discern nationality by little things like that.
Nobody expected the spanish "En un lugar de la Mancha de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme, viva Mejico, cabrones"... :-)
Well, is a post about spanish language after all, should be ok to have some fun about the topics... You can trust me, such thing like a "spaniard accent" does not exist at all. A common mistake for non native speakers that mix lots and lots of accents and clichés. Spanish dialects and local variations are a big minefield.
Is like saying that English accent (from England) doesn't exist. Of course it does. Every single region has its own accents. And yes, I guess within Spain accents vary, which I guess is the thing you are being pedantic about.
Well I would definitely not expect a mexican to write Mexico with a "j". So are you from Spain or not?
And a new law is born: La muerte Flacas' law: Try to use a valid NAZI reference and a clueless bastard will mention Godwin's Law. The Laziest form of counter argument.
How could you reasonably expect me to anticipate your irritability? You've irritated me by failing to see obvious moral indignation, but I wouldn't bother to complain about it. (I'll complain about pettiness, though.)
As it turns out, the person I quoted said exactly what I wanted to say. It doesn't need elaboration.
>It's a complaint at people being lazy in making arguments.
Godwin's law is a very lazy way to make that argument, I would expect.
Happened to me with A Nightmare on Elm Street. I was 6. Also didn't learn my lesson, but never again in my life I had a nightmare. Freddie was really scary, all else can said to be a dream if Freddie isn't there. :)
