kiruwa
Every one of these other participants breaks the analogy enough to make it useless.
I loathe Trump, but does huffpo honestly think this article is convincing to anyone who isn't already drunk on their koolaid?
You do have to admit the slight irony of the shortened string-handling function names in C, given this fact.
But there's a reason that this sort of name has been left behind in modern APIs.
And no, I don't believe you. Making your variable names more descriptive does not make your code less readable. Even when it's not strictly necessary, it's not harmful to comprehension UNLESS you refuse to move from a completely outdated line width.
Some people argue that it takes longer to type and edit. But as we all know, we spend far more time reading than writing code, and modern editors (like vim!) have solved this non-problem anyways.
Do you have any defense of that? I'd be interested to read it.
I think every article on coding advice I've read for the last decade favors long and descriptive function/variable names.
The NHS has serious problems related to accountability, the typical problem with huge multi-level government bureaucracies. Honestly, the NHS has similar problems to the American public education system, for mostly the same reasons.
The ACA has the serious problem that it was explicitly sold as a way to contain costs both at an individual and aggregate level. That has pretty much been exposed as a lie.
The ACA has been good for the narrow band of people who were included in the expanded medicaid coverage, but it's not too hard to imagine a separate (and much simpler) bill that accomplished that part of the bill, without the massive rework of healthcare for the middle class.
In fairness, I've literally never seen an accurate media report about one of the topics I know far more deeply than the average technically educated person (a particular NASA project, a certain narrow specialization in physics, and a language/culture I have spoken/lived-in for much of my life).
Not even "oversimplified". They are literally always wrong or misleading.
If you actually use long/descriptive variable names, you can mentally process much wider text quickly, invalidating the research the "80 character optimization" was based on.
Personally I use a 145 character width, because that fits nicely on my portrait-oriented monitors, with room in both left and right margin for the editor to highlight/mark. 80 character wide limits on a modern project is like an adult riding a "Big Wheel".
If you're including all issues that have economic effects, perhaps I'd agree with you. But I'm talking about the decision-making process.
We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm. It's a moral question.
The same is true of slavery from the North's perspective in the US civil war. (You can make an economic argument for the south, but it's still a stretch) Fundamentally it's a moral/social/political question, that has tremendous economic effects.
----
I'd actually argue the contrary. There are almost no "economic" arguments when it comes to regulation. Any argument worth having is fundamentally moral or social.
* How much taxation is "fair"
* What level of economic inequality violates "justice"
No, you're discussing your narrative... which doesn't have much to do with the post you replied to.
Greenspan is rather heavily implicated as one cause of the problems. But he's attempting to shift the blame to the political side, rather than the economic side he was responsible for. He may actually be right, but I wouldn't take his word for it just because he was there. He's joined by political hacks pretending to be economists (like Krugman), and a few genuine economists. But it's far from agreed-upon.
Although some free marketers (and many others) argue that things like prostitution should be "liberated" from prohibition, that's generally tangential to the arguments.
Usually, legal arguments about what can be bought or sold are settled in social/political terms, economics isn't really all that relevant.
The question is... has he been a strong proponent of extra licensing requirements for government contractors. Licensing requirements that his family is able to easily handle, but will push out smaller competitors. That would be hypocrisy.
Has he supported legislation against subcontracting or legislation that artificially limits who the government (or private industry) can hire?
It's not hypocritical to offer services to the government. You're confusing neoliberals with anarchists.
1) That's not actually what he said. He said that the regulatory apparatus is currently working to assist rent-seeking and pushing wealth to the "1%". Regulation has been used to protect the wealth of the wealthy from the consequences of a free market, at everyone else's expense.
2) Argument from consensus isn't actually a valid argument. Most of the people in your consensus have been journalists, not economists. (economists are mostly trying to get people to understand that the causes are way more complex than the journalists want to believe)
Their argument is essentially that the economy-wide boom/bust paradigm is driven by the motivations of the central banks. Normally individual industries and companies would experience fluctuation, but it would not be nearly as damaging without the central banks attempting to 'synchronize' the economy.
Looking through the link, Davies seems to be arguing that even applying metrics to measure performance is somehow 'neoliberal'. He badly misreads Hayek (enjoying a bit of pointless psuedo-psychoanalysis), rather than reading or understanding the man's arguments.
Whenever anyone attempts to tell you that one group in particular was responsible for the US housing crisis, you can safely assume you're dealing with political ideologue. Davies falls completely into that category.
There appears to be this baseline assumption in certain leftist circles that "capitalism is based in greed, we see greed in western capitalist systems, therefore all examples of greed are due to capitalism". This would be a laughable syllogism if so many otherwise intelligent people didn't seem to take it seriously. Most of his "examples" are springing from this rather absurd belief.
Without taking a bit of Davies' argument into the article, that seems to badly undercut the argument. I'm not sure I can imagine a segment of society less neoliberal than either of them. (particularly by comparison to other western democracies)
Should have just been purged.