anarchotroll
anarchotroll on Hacker News
Oops! The high density of comments criticizing capitalism made me misinterpret what you had said. My bad.
If the so called "evil wealthy people" control all the machines that produce goods and services, what would they use those goods and services for, since the rest of the world is miserably poor?
Apparently not even Stephen Hawking understands the broken window fallacy.
Copying with pentadactyl using Y shows exactly what has been copied on the status line at the bottom of the screen.
Lockheed had been working with D-Wave for a while. If they decided to actually buy one of their computers, this probably means that they liked what they were seeing.
Is there something that prevents you from starting your own company?
He says he dislikes a private system but, at the same time, indirectly acknowledges that what makes the system at his district work is the fact that it is partly private. It is partly private because people actually raise money voluntarily and charge outsiders in order to make it work.
I really don't understand what makes someone do something for 4 years that he or she clearly dislikes.
He must hate his himself.
Humans will always figure out a way to combine the resources they have to generate additional value. It doesn't matter if these resources are wood, sand, oil, water, steel or software.
In the example given above, the owner of the business buying more automation is actually an explicit example of an enterpreneur REINVESTING. A manual job is being traded by a specialized job. Demand for specialized jobs is being created. I fail to understand where on earth that would be a bad thing.
When resources are reallocated, some people lose their jobs on the way, that's just the way life is. A responsible individual doesn't take a job for granted and saves so that he or she can go through bad times.
By visiting a third world country it is very easy to observe the lack of automation employed by its society. Yet, quality of life is ridiculous. Can you explain why?
Seems like the big confusion about the controller is that it is closer to a ViewModel (think MVVM) than to a Controller itself.
Potatos, Potahtos.
The bottom line is: everything that cannot be scientifically proved acquires this sort of "religous" attributes. No wonder religions and politics are like that
What he wrote about Microsoft is completely unrelated to the rest of his post. It says nothing about the company's culture and software development processes.
He could have saved himself the embarrassment of writing that.
The cons mentioned in the article above aren't Ruby cons per se, they are shared by all dynamic languages.
It kinda sucks that you still have to declare an interface in order to pass functions around.
Do you guys know a productivity application that monitors app usage and keystrokes?
C#, the language, is not windows centric. The framework released by microsoft might be, but the language itself is decoupled from windows.
I also feel like "Funcs" are a work around. What I like the most about C# is the fact that it keeps evolving and incorporating new paradigms (closures, lambdas, LINQ, etc)
You shouldn't be proud of having 1 gazillion tests if all you do is rewrite/fix regressions on them.
Bottom line is: test code is code and you have to maintain it. If you write code that does not give you anything in return, or gives you more headaches than anything else, you wasted your time when you wrote it.
When you are writing any code, you should try to predict if what you will gain out of it will be worth it. In other words: evaluate the risks of anything you do in your life.
And how often did you have to rewrite those tests because you were drastically changing the architecture of your code?
Do you think the effort of maintaining all those tests might not have paid off? This question is very tricky to answer.
Exactly. The computer will just repeat what you tell it to do. There is the chance that you will tell it wrong (a bug in your test code), and the chance that what you told it is not true anymore. An automated test basically saves you the work of doing the same thing over an over again as you develop.
But we must keep in mind that maintaining test code has a cost. Automated testing is not a holy grail and it isn't useful 100% of the time. You should carefully decide what code is worth testing via automation.
Unit tests in general don't catch any regressions, they only help you develop.
Functional tests might be useful, but only if you are testing something that is not likely to change much. E.g.: It is not worth to automate testing the UI if you are going to completely redesign it next month.
Manual testing can actually be cheaper than maintaining test code.
You can never actually guarantee anything even if you have tests.
The tests will only increase the likelihood of catching regressions.
How many of those 17% are illegal immigrants? Do you have that data?
In other words: you have no _freedom_ to pick insurance yourself. The current system gives benefits to employers and not to individuals.
I sincerely don't understand why people call it "free market".
I am sorry but the logic above could be applied to anything.
"Part of the notion that suggests people should be forced into sharing those risks is that nobody can rationally rule out future unbounded <whatever> expenses; you can't predict the future, and virtually nobody has enough money to cover every plausible <whatever> expense they might face."
Meet socialism.
It just doesn't make any sense for a health insurer to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Insurance is all about risk; if you have a pre-existing conditions, there isn't a risk involved anymore, since you already know you have a problem (unless the provider doesn't cover anything that derives from that pre-existing condition which would also increase processing costs).
If you can opt out of public helthcare, then it is fine. But if you can opt out, I wouldn't call it "public" anymore.
If you can't opt out, then choosing private basically means paying for both.
That's cause most of the people are insured and there is no pressure for lowering rates for the uninsured.
Individuals can opt into an insurance plan. That's sharing risk.
What "society" (government) can do is force everyone to share THE SAME risks
single-payer insurance == monopoly