ispolin
Take me for example. I indulge myself with books, songs, apps, etc. Granted, it's on a completely different financial scale than Hermes bags, but I own more things than I can realistically consume. So let's call whatever I buy but can't consume "excess".
Whatever instinct causes me to buy stuff in excess instead of using that excess to help the poor more than I currently do is likely the same instinct that causes the rich to buy 4000 shoes and 100 Hermes bags instead of helping the poor more.
I don't introspect enough to know what that instinct is, but most of us here probably have similar very minor excesses in our lives and can get some clues by thinking about those.
Maybe there's an evolutionary adaptation that lowers testosterone production during times of high population, and in the artificial conditions of the experiment that adaptation exhibited itself too strongly?
That would also explain why mice taken out of the experimental environment didn't rehabilitate. There are other studies cited in "The Red Queen" that suggest that levels of testosterone are largely determined by the mother's environment and stress levels during gestation.
I wonder if this kind of thing happens for any mediums you aren't familiar with from childhood.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Arriv%C3%A9e_d'un_train_en_ga...
In fact I think that only 13 "functions" are "magic" in clojure (as in written in java), and the whole rest of the language is written using those 13 functions[1]. That would be like, for example, adding golang's channels to ruby syntax by writing ruby code, without having to drop down to C, which i think is pretty cool.
I also found it very useful in real-life, mostly through having clojure libraries that can do things more seamlessly than similar libraries in other languages. For my last project, I needed to use maybe monad functionality quite often, and having it be as easy to use as the core language in my code was a huge win for my sanity.
[1]: I think some of the data structures are written in java as well, but only for performance reasons.
(println (max 34 64 15))
becomes println(max(34,64,15));
and vice-versa.Another thing that helped is realizing that almost all things that require special syntax in other languages look like function calls in clojure. So, for example, to create a new function, you call the defn "function" and pass it parameters for the name of your new function, the expected arguments, and the body of the function.
The last thing is remembering that in clojure, the last statement in the body of the function is automatically the return value of the function, so I just imagined that the last statement had a "return" call in front of it.
With these 3 rules I could mentally translate 95% of clojure* to c-style code and back.
*The other 5% is mostly about macros, which are what give clojure (and other lisps) the power to add new features to the language via libraries, among other cool things. They they're powerful and used sparingly though, so you won't bump into them too much, and when you do, most will be documented as to how to use them properly.
1. What attributes constitute a condition we call a "Police State"? (a list of which you already provided)
2. Does America (or some part of it) have those attributes?
3. Assuming the above is "Yes", what can we do to make it not have those attributes? (e.g. call currently elected representatives, elect representatives based on their historical opposition to those attributes, avoid certain companies or products, etc...)
4. How do we track if these actions are being performed and how effective they are?
Actually, we probably don't need to do categorize negative attributes so much. We can probably just focus on reversing the attributes we think are making our country worse.
Also, enacting political change is a skill as old as civilization I'm sure. There is probably lots of material around on how to do it effectively. We can start by reading and trying some of that stuff in place of arguing in circles about what is and isn't a police state.
(edit: formatting)
gets on soap-box
Maybe the candidates aren't even lying outright. Maybe it's like when I'm estimating programming effort: I can really really believe in the estimate I give, but unless I look at how long similar projects took me or others in the past, the planning fallacy[1] gets me every. single. time. A similar thing for candidates would probably be to look at how much actual change previous presidents were able to bring about and assume that those presidents were just as smart and trying just as hard.
Of course even with a realistic estimate, there is another problem I constantly run into, and I imagine candidates do as well: Once you have a realistic estimate of what you can do, how do you compete with someone who over-promises?
One thing I found with programming is that clients who were previously burned by over-promising are somewhat inoculated against it. This doesn't seem to be the case for elections though. Does anybody have any other ideas?
I realize that most other people have a different feeling about it so I thought I'd mention it as an interesting data point.
I just wanted to express my appreciation that github being down is not as big an issue for most people as it would be if github was cvshub or svnhub. :-)
I hope github can deal with today's issue without too much trouble, but it's not a major inconvenience to me and the rest of my company's devs. We can just push and pull changes to some convenient in-house server via ssh to sync up our work.
I hope this is a sign that at least some people in the NSA recognize that what happened was an egregious breach of the spirit of our constitution, and the principle of government by public consent. It would be nice if it meant that some of NSA's members welcome, for their organization, public accountability, clear limits on power afforded to them, and recourse for pressure from other parts of the government to violate these things.
Regardless of whether this is just wistful thinking or not, we should continue to bring awareness to this issue, and take action.
I hope the form of this action will be public awareness, peaceful protests, crowd-funding representatives, and holding those elected representatives legally accountable for their campaign promises (because I do not see how we can have a representative democracy if the words of the representatives before they are elected are so divorced from their actions after).
I hope the result will be legal safeguards and public oversight to make sure that no federal agency can violate the constitution, and act against public consent, no mater how secret their mission.
(edited to include the bit about public awareness)
This hints at another way to optimize for this metric; make the language as expressive as possible. Less characters should translate into less typos. Paul Graham strikes again! (http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html)
As to your point about redundancy, I think the researchers are in agreement with you on that one if you consider unit tests to be a sort of redundancy, expressing the same concept in two different ways. They bring this up repeatedly in their report.
Obligatory Perl jab: It surprised me that any of the Perl solutions used more than one line. :-P
You guys enjoy while I prepare for the lynch mob of Statisticians :-)
Lang Err % LOC LOC adjusted Err %
Ruby 0.17 159 27.03
Python 0.15 161 24.15
Perl 0.22 156 34.32
PHP 0.36 224 80.64
JS 0.18 102 18.36
Java 0.1 331 33.1
Haskell 0.15 114 17.1
C# 0.095 389 36.955
C++ 0.08 461 36.88
C 0.1 458 45.8One of the reasons it's done this way is to teach you to ignore inter ear cues and trust your instruments. Your inter ear senses acceleration, not absolute motion. Couple that with the centrifugal force during a turn changing your perception of which way "down" is, and your body responses become one of the main reasons you get into trouble.
It's similar to banked turns on car racetracks. When you're in a banked turn, "Down" for you is no longer towards the center of the earth, it's at an angle, perpendicular to the speedway. You also loose the sensation of turning once you're in that banked turn long enough (specifically once the fluid in your ear settles down and stops moving). If you were driving with a blindfold, you wouldn't be able to feel how steep your turn was.
[1]: http://sportys.com/pilotshop/category/864 "View Limiting Devices"
As the original article pointed out, the first reason is that the sensations are so compelling that doing what the instruments tell you will feel VERY unnatural and you will keep thinking that your instruments are broken or stuck (hence you HAVE to trust your instruments). And even if you remember not to trust your instincts, you will still often unconsciously apply slight pressure to the controls.
The second reason is that for every change in the plane's orientation and speed, several instruments will start moving at once. Without training it is very hard to integrate what the 6 instruments are telling you into a complete mental picture of what's going on with your airplane.
As a VFR pilot, you've received basic instrument training. Remember that training, trust your instruments, and you'll make it though.
A good book on brain hacks like the aforementioned spaced repetition is "Mind Performance Hacks": http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Performance-Hacks-Tools-Overclock...
And another good read is "Pragmatic Thinking and Learning": http://pragprog.com/book/ahptl/pragmatic-thinking-and-learni...
You can also try this site: http://lesswrong.com This is a good section to start from: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Science_of_Winning_at_Lif... Be warned, though. The writing on this site is heavily influenced by AI research so it tends to be somewhat... Vulcan, which can can be good or bad depending on your preferences.