IIIIIIIIIIII
And that is where I refer back to my comment: Pretty much nobody will become the whistleblower or the guy who prevents their company (or their country) from landing that billion dollar arms sale or from raising drug prices to levels unaffordable to many sick people even if they are perfectly well aware of how bad it is. There is one Snowden outlier for a million other people. "If I don't do it somebody else will" is just one of numerous rationalizations (and it even is actually correct).
Statistically speaking the impact of ethics education vs. incentives is like 1 : 1 billion or worse.
The question is, why do you invent stuff I didn't say? Is this show you get your highs? People like you are one of the major annoyances of online discussion.
I didn't say anything about my childhood. Stop making stuff up, troll.
The question is, why do you invent stuff I didn't say? Is this show you get your highs? People like you are one of the major annoyances of online discussion.
> The idea that doctors ... are somehow immune to those effects defies logic.
That claim was never made by OP.
It doesn't matter that you responded with "evidence" to a claim you yourself made-up. Just stick to the topic and don't invent stuff.
The only thing I ever retweeted on my otherwise completely empty and unused Twitter account so that I could copy and paste it when needed:
"For evil to triumph, all that is required is for good men to respond rationally to incentives."
You learn all your basic ethics during early childhood, not in university courses. Most of the rest is the quote above. University classes talk to and train parts of the brain whose involvement in the ethics of your decisions is minimal.
Measuring asynchronous code? You are not measuring your code. Your code is only the synchronous parts, the time spent in asynchronous parts are "environmental factors". Your code doesn't run during those times, it sits in the event loop waiting for an event so that it can continue.
That claim was never made by OP. Can we have a discussion without attacking a straw man, please? You yourself acknowledge you only know one side of equation. If the other components are larger it would not matter that you have shown one aspect - that nobody disputes, incl. OP! - to be negative.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2016/02/longer-shifts-...
> A new [...] study [...] showed allowing surgical residents the flexibility to work longer hours in order to stay with their patients through the end of an operation or stabilize them during a critical event did not pose a greater risk to patients.
> “It’s counterintuitive to think it’s better for doctors to work longer hours,” said principal investigator Dr. Karl Bilimoria [...]. “But when doctors have to hand off their patients to other doctors at dangerous, inopportune times, that creates vulnerability to the loss of critical information, a break in the doctor-patient relationship and unsafe care.”
I have no doubt that overall the long hours are bad, I only respond because you attack a position OP didn't take. Also, the long hours may still be a logical conclusion and even beneficial - within the twisted logic of dysfunction in the larger system: "For evil to triumph, all that is required is for good men to respond rationally to incentives."
Yes I know asking for an explanation causes a lot more nasty voting. This is ridiculous, the site is getting more and more like reddit, and I blame the site's maintainers: There are soooo many things that could be done for a more civilized discussion culture. Like making votes public, meta-voting, requiring explanations for downvotes, a very small downvote pool (e.g. no more than three downvotes per day), etc.
How about somebody would tell me what exactly is missing from those tools I linked to, or what is supposed to be wrong that I wrote? It's not like I insulted anyone. The guy I responded to had a lot less substance in his (short) comments. "It's very superficial" - what is superficial? What is missing? Also, "all I want are two numbers at the end of the process. How long did this take and how much memory did this take." -- well, he gets those number with the DevTools! So what exactly is the complaint? For someone with a question he doesn't seem to try very hard to get an answer. Then someone downvotes posts that try to get more out of him.
Example (memory profiling with heap snapshots): https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/memo...
Profiling functions (V8, Chrome, using the CPU Profiler): https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/rend...
What is missing there, I can see how long each function took, even more so when I combine it with the flame chart?
I assume you are still talking about the Javascript part. What the C++ based subsystem does can be examined using tools for that language on the respective platform.
But an important piece of advice is at the bottom of one of their pages [1]: "Avoid micro-optimizing your JavaScript". Apart from their argument there, keep in mind you are programming for a number of very different runtime environments. An optimization that gives you a big boost in one implementation may slow you down on another one. That is true not just between various vendors but also among runtime versions from the same vendor.
[0] https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/eval...
[1] https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/r...
Can't some people read an article without extrapolating to the end of the known universe and just stick to just the article's actual narrow subject?
See under "Other reasons CPU Utilization is misleading"
> Spin locks: the CPU is utilized, and has high IPC, but the app is not making logical forward progress.
You are also up against an extremely well-organised and well-armed government, but that may not even be the most salient point:
A lot of people for very good reasons do not want to see the government overthrown. They know the result will only be worse. Our societies are far too organised and interconnected over large distances, with all their widely distributed and interconnected creation of everything from basic food to almost all goods except for the most primitive ones.
Only if you can fully replace a government with a new one could you have a "revolution". So, elections and parties still are the best option. I think they actually work too, it's just that there is very little successful effort in organizing something better. Yes of course there have been plenty of attempts, but they all fail even more than the current system: None of those attempts manages to get enough people "on board", and they scream and insult everybody they don't like - so they are no improvement at all (not even mentioning the wild and unrealistic ideas they usually have).
For example, I think an alternative new movement would have to start calmly instead of yelling loudly. The latter only attracts the crazies, while the thinking people are pushed away. So, no mass demonstrations against this or that, "being against" is not a good start for the alternative. Instead work on what and how things should/could work instead of working on how to best insult and score points against the "political opponent". Or, if you start talking about revolutions I will assume your main goal is destruction.
By the way, I would posit that many people who are "greedy" are that way because of the environment, not because "that's what they are". Soooo many people, with advancing age, grow disillusioned. In particular, I know quite a few medical doctors who got into the profession with idealism - but now they actually sell "BS" to people who want it. From homeopathy to network marketing stuff like (branded) vitamins or "energy mats". Of course they don't believe in any of it, it's just that they have given up and now go with the flow.
Citation needed, as well as a definition of "don't read".
For example, for several years now I have been reading a lot less books than ever before in my life, almost zero. However, I took several dozens of courses on edX and Coursera and read a lot of documents on the Internet. Just no books, and a lot less newspaper and magazine articles.
On the other hand, OP has a point. This is once more an example of what works for anyone vs. what works for everyone. The countries you name all are very small. Imagine Asia getting even better (they probably will), and imagine African countries getting their act together (as unlikely though it may be). Who would buy all those machines and parts?
Also, another great potential for future trouble is that an oversized part of our economy is bound to making cars. The "Zulieferers" (component suppliers) are much larger than the actual car makers, and they are all "Mittelstand". If they have to find new customers some day... electrical cares require a lot less expertise and less parts I'm told, plus ever more "growth", meaning ever more cars, isn't such a promising model (looking at Asian city traffic...).
- https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/nasa-earth...
- Spain: https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/nasa-earth...
Note that they are to the side, straight down you would see a much smaller area!
So the SpaceX satellites would be three times higher. Still, you can see you may need quite a few stations on the ground, and also why you need so many satellites. They will fly over the area very quickly and by then the communication will already have to have been handed over to the next one. There is so much earth to cover, with satellites much higher up you cover a much wider area and you can have them in a stationary orbit. Earth has a diameter of 12,742 km, I have to keep reminding myself that even the ISS is barely above the surface if you were to look at earth from a distance.
[0] Source: http://twistedsifter.com/2015/04/earth-day-gallery-by-nasa/
Whenever you have such a complaint - and choose to make it public - please include more details. What system, what browser, add-ons (adblocker) at least.
EDIT: Downvotes? For answering the question truthfully? It does work for me. The question was (is) "is anyone else unable to scroll on this page?" -- and I have no problem scrolling. I answered the question! The question was NOT "do you think the page is designed badly". If that is what was meant, that is why I said "needs more details". All the person asked was about "being able to scroll"! And the design issue does not prevent it. I answered the question that was actually asked! I assumed, and still do, that the person isn't able to scroll at all.
A lot of being a successful CEO is being at the right place at the right time (of course: in addition to actual qualities).
Anecdote time:
I once was a franchisee of a major (services) franchise that some time ago decided to expand to Germany (I sold my franchise years ago). I'll only talk about one person, but this happened throughout the network, it wasn't nearly as successful as hoped in this country.
So anyway, I personally know one of the guys who lead one of the best franchises in a major German city. He expanded, became responsible for the entire wider area (which allowed him a cut from all franchises in it in exchange for recruiting new franchisees and for advising them).
He had this exact opinion (and he was a former business consultant too, I think he even has an MBA), when a franchisee didn't do well that he just wasn't good enough. He himself was proof, after all, just do your customer acquisitions and all the necessary stuff,and success will eventually come! It worked for him!
When a franchisee failed he acquired their shop, it was in the same city and they seemed to be in very good areas, lots of businesses that fit the description of the target market. Not a big risk one would think given that his own shop was doing exceedingly well with the exact same demographics, just a few miles away.
Long story short, he ended up giving up the franchise for the area as well as the two additional shops he had acquired. Today he has just that one original location. Turned out that the exact same extremely successful guy only managed to be successful in one spot. Not even in very promising areas just a few miles away did it work out!
There were more stories like this, some of them I knew personally (through franchisee training at the beginning where I met many of them), all people who were formerly employed and "important people" in their jobs, and who all thought that it's all about you and the effort and skills you put in. Some of them managed to indeed build a successful business, but they all became much more humble over time, because they all found the large amount of randomness in their success when they tried to expand (area franchise or another shop).
So, tell me again about those successful CEOs, I'd like to learn more... the books are full of such people, successful in one place and time and failing in another place and/or time. Because they themselves are only one ingredient into what is needed for success, and not even the major one ("necessary but not [even nearly] sufficient").
That is such a narrow world view. Nor does it change anything I wrote. Nor does you reply make sense, you wrote
> My MBA has had virtually no effect on my opportunities or employability.
That is inconsistent with what you just wrote, something completely different. I'm sure you are aware that humans come up with explanations after decisions? Shown in fMRI scan experiments. I'm not saying this explains what you just did, but it does seem to me that your brain came up with this "explanation" only after discovering my post.
Private enterprise wants a level of certainty, long-term or not. Tax incentives don't reduce the uncertainty. I doubt that money is the major constraint. Look at some major corporations basically "swimming" in money, and they also should be able to borrow easily (and cheaply) at this time.
Preposterous, given that you have total anonymity and anyone reading your extremely general rant without any details would have any idea who you are. I was willing to accept your comment as an opinion based on your personal experiences, but after this turn in the discussion I can't take you seriously, because it's obvious that you are creating a lot of drama that doesn't actually exist. Posting the name of the university is a non-issue - unless you fear people who are actually there might dispute your claims... given the very general and broad claims you made you must be incredibly well-connected to a lot of people in a lot of different departments at that university. Not easy to believe even without your refusal to give a simple name to the place.
I get paid well, but there is something really strange going on: I can't get my contracts directly. I always have to go through a company whose sole business it is to be an intermediate between the (large) company that wants to hire a freelancer and the freelancer. Note that those freelancers are not employed by that company and the relationship is pretty loose. The business pays the intermediary and they pay you, it's a per-project contract.
The large companies won't hire someone directly even though they would save lots of money (and freelancers would get more). Suspicious as you guys are you probably think that well, there must be a logical business reason that it actually really is worth the additional money being spent on the intermediary. For example, finding and bundling lots of freelancer resumes. While that sure is a reason it isn't nearly sufficient for an explanation, not only because they actually do precious little for the money they keep. Also, the legal side can't be the reason either when I look at how the contracts between me and the intermediary are set up.
To give one example from a very large client I worked for for 1.5 years as a freelancer, the reason I was told they go through the intermediary is that it makes their accounting much easier. Since I once worked for that company and experienced the exact same thing I was not surprised: When I worked for them in Silicon Valley I saved the company a lot of money by looking for an apartment myself. I ended up sharing one with somebody else. However, the expensive all-inclusive one-bedroom apartment I had had in Mountain View had the advantage that there only was a single bill (paid by corporate Amex card). The (far cheaper) shared apartment I got instead produced a handful of different invoices (furniture rental, cheques for the rent instead of Amex, etc.), so the company told me they would have preferred to pay the much higher amount from a single source. Which I don't quite understand - I do have some business background and understand accounting, in the computer age, what's the big deal? In the freelancer scenario they said it just works better with their SAP system then having lots of individual contracts. That company also had a big program to "streamline" and centralize their purchasing, which of course means having significantly less firms to deal with as a goal that overrides other concerns.
So, it seems the large businesses prefer to work with other large businesses, no matter how much money they could save. We don't even need to argue whether and/or how much legal and business reasons are valid or not, I think the only thing that matters for the purpose of the discussion is that the effect exists, and that that means "market" is more and more a lie the more of a countries wealth creation is done by big businesses. You don't need to look for actual "monopolies" in the classical sense, those firms quite voluntarily restrict themselves (and again, the bottom line is that it exists, how justifiable it is from the individual firm's POV is a different question, let's assume they know what they are doing and that it makes sense for them).