glesica
Source: I work there, although I have literally nothing to do with this project.
Whenever I see people say stuff like this I mentally replace what they said with "Wikipedia is a general-knowledge encyclopedia." Not a dig at you, but this should have always gone without saying.
Really sad that companies put these kinds of restrictions on their employees...
Which, in a post-financial crisis world, also obviously involves relying on government-backing of the insurance companies and bailouts when ratings agencies hand out AAA ratings like candy. Ultimately, only the government can guarantee people a retirement. Which is why I personally think we should say "screw it" and just guarantee everyone a reasonable (livable) payout from social security...
The parenthetical in my original comment was important. If everyone thinks they know what is going on, and they're all wrong, then the price isn't a good reflection of reality.
I really don't believe that most developers of "desktop sites" care about mobile or do anything to optimize for it, and therefore wouldn't care about a 350ms delay, or even be aware of it. The people who are going to foul this up, it seems to me, are the "mobile web" developers who try to make their sites act like apps instead of just presenting content in a flexible manner.
For example, if the original paper made a critical mistake, then there is no point is carrying out a replication, it won't work anyway. The Reinhart and Rogoff paper is a great example of this.
We really should require that ALL papers in ALL disciplines allow for re-analysis, it is basically like an extended, and ongoing peer review process.
Naive educators desperate to show they are doing everything possible to improve outcomes + mountains of marketing and lobbying dollars from the companies that make the "solutions".
Source: I used to work in academic technology.
There are lots of reasonable-sounding proposals on various topics on both sides of the aisle (mostly from think tanks). The important thing is what happens when a party actually gets into government.
As a left-winger, my views and yours probably aren't that far off. I would be fine with a flat tax (that was actually collected from everyone) and a large deductible. Even more so if it was coupled with a meaningful basic income guarantee.
The problem is that I don't actually believe politicians when they say that is what they will do. With all the talk about "job creators", it really, truly sounds as though the modern GOP actually wants a regressive system where the rich pay almost nothing and there is no deductible because the poor need to pay their "fair share" (whatever that means).
So it isn't that we don't understand math. My preferred tax code probably looks surprisingly similar to your preferred tax code, I just don't trust any of your politicians to actually move us in that direction (and for the record, it's not like I trust HRC to do any better).
I think this preference has more to do with the individual's past experiences and future goals than it does with his/her level of formal CS education.
[1] Although even this varies greatly from school to school, the school where I got my MS used OCaml in the undergrad algorithms course for awhile. My undergrad algorithms course used C, so again no OOP.
For example, the way I see it, I can't help that I'm white, it isn't my fault, I didn't do anything to "earn" my white privilege. However, if I refuse to at least acknowledge that I have privilege, then that is my fault, for that I would deserve blame.
You had to work pretty damn hard to get this out of that quote. His point was that a lot of people who say they (and by extension society, this part is important) don't need privacy probably don't need privacy because their privilege protects them. So then the goal has to be to convince them that their privileged position makes them a special case, and that they should care about the unprivileged. It isn't just white people who have privilege, that's just an example.
This general idea really isn't controversial, but the terminology elicits very strong negative reactions in people for some reason (I honestly don't understand it). If I pointed out that the TSA screens darker-skinned people with extra vigor, often inconveniencing those people, most people would agree with me. If I then said that I don't care about this issue because I'm white, so I breeze through TSA checkpoints without any problems, many people would tell me I should be a little more considerate of others.
But if I call myself "privileged" in this instance then all of a sudden people would be whining about social justice warriors or something like that. Very strange.
I think part of the reason you see so many people blaming the greed of Silicon Valley companies is that so many "Silicon Valley" people (wealthy and upper-income people associated with Silicon Valley) seem to be ignoring the "unskilled people need to eat" problem or, worse, blaming the "unskilled people" for failing to guess which career paths would be lucrative in the future or for lacking aptitude in those careers.
When a non-negligible portion of the conversation actually turns on people who are effectively (or literally, in some extreme cases) calling for a dictatorship of tech companies, you have to expect people to wonder how much Silicon Valley cares about the rest of the world.
This is critical. Understandably, "chat" user interfaces don't make individual messages stand out by themselves. This means that it is easy to miss a message, or even a conversation. It also means that you can't delete everything but the important stuff you need to reply to, which is trivial in email clients.
gasp We can't possibly allow a country to do something we don't agree with just because the people want it! That would be undemocratic!
No, it was never true. What about marriage makes it specifically require a man and a woman? There was never anything in the government definition of marriage that meant that it required a man and a woman. There was never any requirement to have children, or even to be able to have children. The only reason "marriage" required a man and a woman is that laws had been passed to make it so.
In other words, you could take every word written on marriage in the legal code and apply it, without alternation other than fixing the pronouns, to a same-sex marriage. Marriage didn't change, it just became available to more people.
Marriage, by its nature, as seen by the government (that is an important qualification), requires nothing more than two consenting individuals. In the eyes of the government, marriage is nothing but a contract between two people. If your religion wants to define it some other way, that's fine with me. But from the standpoint of our government, the way your religion defines it makes no difference, nor should it.
I would actually be perfectly fine with renaming the legal institution of "marriage". It would actually be better if no one could get "legally" "married". Just call it a civil union. If you want to have a religious ceremony, great, but all the government would recognize is a civil union contract. However, most people don't agree with me, so we're stuck calling it marriage even though it has nothing to do with religious traditions.
I thought about noting that "most" gay people are born gay, but I didn't. It doesn't really matter for my argument, provided that at least some gay people are born gay. The point is that you can't equate polygamy and gay marriage because polygamists make a conscious choice to be polygamists, they aren't born that way.
I would actually be fine with polygamy (I think the correct term is actually polyamory), but it is a commonly used argument against gay marriage because most people are against it or find it uncomfortable, and it has a pretty ugly history in some areas. I was trying to refute the "slippery slope" class of arguments against gay marriage, so I gave a refutation for that one.