I look crazy for saying he didn't learn to read when he claimed I love the alt-right based on that post I wrote?
Maybe I shouldn't have replied but he was basically trying to start a mob against me. Not that I care but just wanted for the record that his claim was wrong and didn't want to engage in any civil manor when not spoken to that way either.
Your reply is a case of putting out the fire with gasoline. When you know nothing else to do, but you are absolutely sure this will make things vastly worse, standing idly by and watching the fire burn is the least worst thing you can do.
Maybe I shouldn't have replied but he was basically trying to start a mob against me.
This is precisely how they operate. They are trying to use a tactic of persuasion by repetition simultaneously with a tactic of tarring by association. Far left ideologues are currently engaging in this behavior towards DC Comics artist Ethan Van Sciver, claiming he's an actual Nazi based on his drawing the Green Lantern villain Sinestro with a Hitler mustache and titling it "My Struggle" -- ten years ago. It is conscious and deliberate. And it has been going on that way since 2012 or so.
Before the tire fire that is rvm became "standard", it was normal to just download the version you needed and build it from source. There's nothing forcing us to use crappy, obscure tools like rvm and rbenv. And I agree with you on all points.
It's a total shitshow. But since ruby manages everything with environment variables, you need some kind of tooling to manage multiple versions. Horrendous.
Ruby should just standardize on a way to point projects to rubies. Instead of a zillion environment variables, just a shebang. It's how everything else works.
Public healthcare incentivizes the government to protect people's health; the American system incentivizes politicians to protect the profit margins of the insurance industry.
I'm not sure if you have the law in Sweden, but here in Norway we got a "Smoking law" that prohibits smoking in public places to promote people's health and reduce the cost of running the government hospitals.
To be fair, the smoking laws here in Norway are a little more relaxed than they were when i was living in the US. Want to smoke in the hospital parking lot? You'll get escorted off. Same for areas outside some airports, but I can smoke outside the airport here in Trondheim before I get on the bus. No real problem smoking on the sidewalks downtown. Some ask you to go away from the doors, but that isn't a real issue and I find it reasonable. Companies aren't firing people for smoking, and I don't find they tell folks they simply cannot smoke during the work day (including lunch).
You can smoke in dedicated smoking areas outside, but it's actually not allowed to smoke on bus-/train stops/sidewalks etc. There are just no one to enforce it.
I guess the places where you get escorted from in the US are privately owned and not due to a law (but I could be wrong).
The companies firing you for smoking might also have to do with a bit stronger labor laws in Norway :)
This is one case where the libertarian argument that governments are fundamentally coercive works against you. Insurance companies can't take such broad actions to protect health as government can -- things like taxes on products with negative health externalities, regulations ensuring workplace safety, etc.
The argument here was about incentives -- i.e. the practical component of how our laws get updated, not about the theoretical component. Your original argument was that private companies are incentivized to pursue safety, and my counterargument is that incentivized private companies do not nearly as much power to effectively pursue safety as incentivized governments do.
There's a crop of startups now that are incentivizing healthier lifestyles by gamifying healthy activities, routine doctor visits, etc. Insurance companies pay them per head to make their software available to customers, and reward customers with the most health points with lower premiums and such.
Insurance companies, by and large, make their money on the delta between the prices they charge and the costs to deliver service. If they can delivery service to a predominately healthier population, then they can deliver service for lower costs, meaning they can lower costs to be more competitive, while being able to make more profits and deliver better outcomes.
The notion that they want to drive up healthcare costs is kind of ridiculous. If that were true, they'd be rushing to sign up patients with terminal illnesses and costly pre-existing conditions, but the fact of the matter is that the government had to literally force them to for that to happen.
Taking care people and difficult medical conditions will likely never be dirt cheap, right? Unless you're envisioning Dark Mirror style robot care and cure everything pills.
In Australia, we have a public-private model for hospitals and health services. However, I think there's starting to be a greater awareness that private health insurance for many holds increasingly poor value, compared to what is available publicly under government funding as well as simply saving up what would be paid to private health insurance companies and instead directly pay health providers from one's own bank account. To date, everything I've learned about private health is that it's to maximise profit while being able to provide a semblence of good value healthcare.
Here are a some links I've collected on the topic - obviously, I'm a little biased but I have yet to see any compelling case for privatised healthcare on essential services:
Great advice! I'd venture that managing large files is an unsolved problem. It's a hack in most version control systems, and uploading/downloading files from a host, even S3, is a slow, serial process. Same for checksumming. Network speeds have more than caught up, and large files are a frequent process bottleneck. Something that makes it easy to manage and consume large files could be a big deal. It probably would require a new application protocol, maybe even a new filesystem similar to XFS.
Or maybe a file should stay where it is and processing logic itself should be deployed there. If file parts are distributed then processing could be suspended and migrated to place where next piece is stored. Something similar is done with Hadoop and HDFS.
> Traditionally, there are two ways to study a page like this:
> 1. Type out every line of code
> 2. Copy+paste the code from their website, maybe play around and make small changes
Um... wut? How about:
3. Read the code. Think.
If you're reading programming books as practice, and think you're supposed to copy the code examples to learn, you're doing it wrong. If you need eval() to figure out what's going on, you need to spend more time practicing the basics, then step up to the book.
Yeah, I've never typed any of the code examples of programming books.. I just read it to understand the concepts. Often I can go really fast when most of it is familiar, but when something catch my attention I work hard to decipher and understand it. if I can't, I'll re-read the chapter or search online.
As a side note, it would be great to have more programming books written like this. I.e. We assume you already know language X so here are the differences and why; focusing mainly on specific code examples and gotchas of the new language.
By semi-pseudocode, I mean that I'm okay with not having the program in its full completeness with the less important part being abstracted away, but for the concepts that are being explained to be detailed, thorough and well documented.
As a fun exercise, one could take a big programming book and trim it down to a 1/10th (or more). There are so many useless sections. Most great devs are good at skipping through the bullshit.. why not just remove that part entirely!
Reason is probably monetary or politic. I.e. can sell to a larger audience by being more beginner friendly and/or need to have a certain amount of page and follow a template to be published.
While this is definitely what I do, for some reason, I always believe I'm not doing things "they way you're supposed to", so I almost never argue when articles don't mention doing things the way I'm doing them.
It's destructive, and Amazon can get away with being a crap book store now. I've ordered many thousands of dollars worth of computing books from them over the years. In the past six months, and especially the past couple months, "new" books come with massive creases, scuffs, and dents. Or a bad print with hard-to-read text. A copy you'd never buy in person, or B&N would knock something off the price because of the damage. When you paid $80+ for the book, it sucks.
I haven't been returning the books for two reasons: When you get ten books in the mail and eight of them are damaged, and some of them are immediately useful, are you really going to go through Amazon's return process for all of them, photograph each one, package, ship, etc.? Second, I just know that if I do this, it will contribute to some poor schmuck losing his job at a fulfillment center, or some LAZR driver getting taken off their route, because DATA-DRIVEN.
Now I just order used books, sadly most of the vendors are on Amazon so I can't really take my business elsewhere. At least I don't feel quite as ripped off when my "Like New" book arrives in "Good" condition. Even sweeter, those vendors don't sit on my order for a week for funsies like Amazon does if you resist their PRIME offering.
Has anybody else been receiving damaged "new" books from Amazon lately?
I think it's sort of like first-class flying. There's no logistical reason for not boarding the plane rear-to-front, but you can get people to pay for the privilege of being first, so why not? Non-Prime customers are second priority, and expected fulfillment is adjusted accordingly.
The reckoning would be you no longer using their business, wouldn't it?
While I still get some books from Amazon, I've been increasingly purchasing through Abebooks. They tend to be more accurate in what they stock with regards to ISBN, which is what I go by when purchasing a book as I like to get specific editions.
I doubt they go out of their way to delay the order, simply because that isn't the most cost-efficient thing for them to do. I would assume that they just have a priority queue of orders to process, and sometimes that queue gets backed up and takes a few days to clear out the non-Prime/expedited orders.
Promises existed way before they were put in the specification and way before async/await. So no, promises could not have been advertised as part of async/await since they came before async/await.
Could you be more specific? Are you talking about a Hacker News thread or something else?