clmckinley
On the other hand, most people I know have at least dabbled in learning to code. In this case the cost of quitting is very low and the cost of getting good is reasonably high, so it self-selects for people who excel at it and love it.
That said, if you only compare people with similar aptitudes, my experience is that people with formal training are better.
tl;dr: The most important thing to me is comparing past work, interview and personality. If you have a CS degree with no personal projects, you won't get a job offer. If you don't have a degree but have active projects with good code then I don't care if you have a degree. That said, I have been getting hundreds of applications for every entry level job I post so I can normally find someone who has both.
reddit is doing this because their investors want them to be a multi-billion dollar company, not because they already are.
We will need to pay for servers and dev time so maybe we can allow our users to donate to upkeep. Maybe call it new service platinum. Unfortunately, most people don't pay so maybe we can have a limited number of non-intrusive ads on the site. Well now people with equity want some money back so we need to figure out how to make some more money. These third party apps aren't showing our ads, so lots of our power users use these third party apps and lots of companies are leveraging our service to make lots of money. The obvious answer is to get some money back from the api users. I shall call this site reddit.
To me the question is whether companies/employees will continue letting/wanting to work remotely in the future. I am certainly not concerned about a population collapse in big cities because many companies and people want to live there and don't because of cost.
That said, i am pretty sure the the TOS for MSDN funds say they are not be used for production systems.
The problem is that determining the source is difficult and even if you did it is most likely over seas where enforcing the fine is impossible.
I would love to hear a technical solution that has been implemented somewhere that had a significant impact.
I believe we need structural changes to really solve this problem but absent that, I think having a computer algorithm that has the following priorities in the following order:
1) Compact (ie smallest circumference)
2) Least number of axis points and smallest difference in the sides.(ie a square is the goal)
3) Least number of wasted votes (ie use the proposal from the supreme court case)
4) Least change from a previous district (maybe not for this first run)
My bigger question is when the political split is more like 80/20 case should the 20 be guaranteed representation?
Skiing was intuitive and my body wanted to do enough of the right thing to get me down most of the beginner slope with little "learning". Snowboarding felt unnatural so i had to fight my bodies natural instincts. The trick with snowboarding is to go faster than feels comfortable at first because it is much easier when you have momentum.
HN is more about interesting content/discussion instead of posting memes and it is much harder to scan and determine interesting content from images than it is from titles. As a note: when HN has the same target audience as reddit is when i stop using HN.
Not saying that working in a country with no regulatory or physical infrastructure is easy, but buying a bunch of mosquito nets is much cheaper with very few unintended consequences compared to doing something like OP suggested. For instance, wouldn't a revived/subsidized CC put a lot of current companies/workers out of business? How would that opportunity effect a high schoolers decision making? Is this something that goes on forever, it sounds like we would be training more people to do a job then would be needed if this program stopped. etc, etc, etc.
1) I assume you are speaking of primary school, in which case yes, because they are serving children that cannot be relied on to make good decisions. That said Libraries primary users are adults and children under adult supervision, in which case no they should not be filtered, but depending on what you do there could be consequences.
2) No, because cable is not a required for success in the same way the internet is.
3) No, see above.
4) Interesting question, but it is really a straw-man because it is so trivial. I would say no, internet providers should be required to treat all bytes the same.
5) This is interesting, but seems more like a content owning question then a net neutrality question. I personally don't think caching has anything to do with how you treat the bytes going across the wire.
6) Yes i do, and that is because there are different costs to serving different neighborhoods, where there are virtually no differential costs between bytes of data.
7) Net neutrality doesn't specify how much you can charge, just that all bytes are treated the same.
8) If it is a private network then i don't think it would be considered a utility. If it becomes a required monopoly (kind of like a foundation patent) then yes.
9) I don't understand this analogy. Coke and Pepsi are luxury goods goods that are physical that are sold in non-monopolistic industries.
10) Sure, but the ISP should charge and treat netflix bytes the same as other similar bytes.
11) Yes, but when they are essential they should treat all similar cars (packets) the same
12) I am not sure how this relates as long as VPN packets are treated the same by the network infrastructure i don't care who pays for the access to that infrastructure.
13) Yes, they should treat all packets the same when they go over the network.
14) I am not sure i understand this one. If they don't have the infrastructure to handle the incoming bytes that is different then the core internet infrastructure. But if you are talking about a small ISP then i think they should still be required to treat all bytes the same, now they could limit the number of bytes a customer purchases, but not they type.
15) i think a simple net neutrality law will prevent lots of special case laws. Just treat all packets the same, period.
The problem is that large infrastructure based industries like the internet are very vulnerable to monopolies or oligopolies. That is clearly the case with the internet and it is getting worse with the infrastructure owners are buying the content companies.
When oligopolies own the infrastructure needed for other companies to innovate then that is exactly where the government needs to step in to prevent them from abusing their position to stifle innovation. That move actually protects the free market.
My business school had all graduating seniors take a similar assessment and liked to advertise that our students scored in the top 99% of all universities on the test. The thing they left out is that the top 50% of business schools did even bother with the test.
That didn't make the assessment totally useless, but it also didn't mean that our graduates were in the top 1% of business schools.
Basically telling people they cannot have or do anything would create a black market and the associated problems. So assuming there is anything we want to regulate (which i think most people do) then we don't really solve the core problem, we just change it and potentially make it smaller or bigger.
In terms of most drugs though i am 100% on board, especially if it goes along with treating addiction like other mental illnesses and provide help, instead of prison.
This is the same argument that Windows Phone (ironically) make, but most people want the same programs that all of their friends run. Computers and most other electronics are appliances to most people they just want them to work without any thought.