I have a hard time understanding how this could possibly be seen as bullying. I have heard about his supposed tirades before but if this is the evidence for his tirades, then I am no longer in the camp of Bill was a Bully.
It is good to read that some people are at least trying to take a measured view of things that are happening. I don't know how to handle the "news" these days other than to ignore it completely. People are just too interested in being entertained on a simplistic level I guess. It is really hard to watch.
I am considering starting an LLC but I live and work in Japan. Do you know somebody who might be able to help me understand what my options are in terms of tax implications (the interaction of having income in both places)? This will be a sole proprietorship.
This problem is solved with a couple of simple if statements. Finding a "solution" that is more complex than necessary or introduces knowledge that really isn't needed is the sign of a programmer who... over-engineers and is likely to be a detriment.
Yes and they made a conscious decision to not include so much in the language in order to make the compiler fast so your criticism is rather odd. They made a choice. It results in a faster compiler. And yet your comment comes across as if this is somehow unfounded praise. Nonetheless we have all come to love your "get-off-my-lawn" sort of approach to criticising golang at this point, I suppose :)
"As an example, in Islam the recommended practice is to fast two times a week (consistent with the regimen the OP discusses)."
I was simply trying to point out that this sort of phrasing is constantly being used in a religious context to try to create an argument for the whole of the religion rather than to just stop at "here is something about my culture that might work". These things are constantly being conflated as being scientific evidences of the "deeper" truth lying within religion. Before you know it they become yet another thing that people brow beat as they try to convert the people around them. It simply isn't an interesting argument from my point of view.
People have been believing lots of things in religious texts for many, many years. Often enough they are flat out incorrect. Just because something is "believed" doesn't make it necessarily true.
You conveniently left out the individual who does neither. Or the individual who uses some sort of herbal "medication". Or the individual who chooses yet another solution to their mild flu. Your argument for prayer is equivalent to "doing nothing".
As long as it is only about trying to get people to think about what they are saying that seems ok, but I suspect it will only degrade into a pitchfork mob on most occasions.
Really as others have suggested the only required "rule" is: talk about programming.
If you don't understand set theory, you cannot possibly be a programmer. That is to say, whether or not you realize you are applying set theory, it is the heart of programming.
Sadly I think that UBI supporters tend to the false impression that everybody would be:
1) Frugal.
2) Responsible.
I just don't have that much faith in (roughly) half the population. What happens when people have too many kids and are still too impoverished? Is there going to be a "reasonable limit" to the number of kids you can have? Women could have as many as 20 kids or more. Is that really going to work? What happens when they are drug addicts (or worse free-to-play video games addicts) who cannot control their spending?
For me personally I love the idea of UBI, but I just don't think that it can work on a practical level. The examples that explain how to generate the required money to pay for it don't seem very feasible to me. You cannot add VAT. That is borderline "perpetual motion machine" logic right there. At the most basic level you will just have to tax the wealthy more one way or another. That is it. The only option. The question is: are they ok with that?