I was specifically trying to contrast programming interfaces against the large universe of applications that don’t expose any. You bring up an interesting point about external dependencies such as db, however I would say the vast majority of these applications I refer to don’t rely on users to set these up.
The first two responses to you were a solid yes and a solid no. I think that just demonstrates how the concept does not apply to application versioning.
I noticed pre-covid that businesses tend to make internal decisions such as spending and hiring, that even when not directly related to my department, ultimately affected the compensation they were available to offer me. Now with the pandemic closing a number of businesses it seems the issue of bad business decisions is even higher.
It's simply a matter of trust. If an employer is not providing the absolute maximum hypothetical compensation then we can all agree that is a truly disgusting and untrustworthy employer. I don't have exact numbers for my employer yet.
First of all, I'd like to figure out how I can identify an employer making business decisions I am unaware of. Generally it would be fine for me what businesses do internally but when it affects my salary, then it's not acceptable.
Secondly, if one has figured out that a business is taking private actions that one doesn't like, how should one handle that? I would need to quit that job the next day, but from a personal finance perspective I cannot easily afford leaving and acquiring new jobs from one day to another.
I'm looking forward to your experiences and ideas.
Everyone derides Apple for not listening to the demands of users and then, when Apple finally does give in they... continue to deride them. I'm just happy with +magsafe -touchbar. Even if the price is Apple saving face and pretending this was their idea the whole time, so be it.
This hardly makes a case at all. Only one section in the middle is actually dedicated to why syntax highlight is bad and it boils down to a baseless assertion about "biasing" the developer's mind toward syntax. I would counter that assisting developers in thinking about how code will be interpreted or compiled rather than bytes of text is closer to the semantic meaning than without.
There's also a comparison to highlight syntax in fiction, which is absurd for many reasons. A simple one being that the _goal_ of fiction can often be to obscure meaning for the sake of ambiguity. I'm offended not by the thesis but by the presumptuous nature of the argument.
That is patently false. You can divide Americans into any number of segments which they are born into and reliably determine that segment's success. E.g. white people earn more than black people. Children of rich parents do better in school than children of poor parents. Lawyers who graduated in 2000 are more successful than ones who graduated in 2008. Forces out of their control determined this. Their "conditions" are functions of this. Your statement would imply that the people in these segments just happened to make worse choices unrelated to the circumstances of their segments. That would be quite the coincidence.
I'm just looking for a helpful, actionable response. All I've seen so far is "X is bad" (not actionable) and "Let's ban X" (not helpful).
What good will it do you that there's an international ban on DNA databases when corporations use the impossible-to-stop one anyway to discriminate against and target you or the police use it anyway to throw you in prison.
The most helpful course of action imo is to learn how best to cope with this new reality. How should we set our expectations when our DNA is public and searchable? Are there behaviors that would once be safe but will not be in the future? I think those are the more relevant questions.
I'm not talking about taking random samples off a sidewalk. I'm saying if you follow a person you know and collect something they've discarded, now they're in the database. Do that enough times and everyone's in it. That's the exact technique the police use to collect people's DNA without their consent.
I'm a little confused about what exactly the point of debate is here.
* Is your DNA a secret? I think the fact that you leave it everywhere means no.
* Should people be allowed to aggregate that information? It literally cannot be stopped so I think the point is moot.
I guess what I'm missing is any addressing of the reality of the situation. I'm guessing from the content of your reply that you think that the practice of cataloging DNA should be banned. Great. What happens when they do it anyway?
I think this is somewhat analogous to the privacy issues around Google Street View. Almost nobody thought the image of the front of their house was really private, but the idea of it being catalogued and searchable bothered more than a few. Removing the barrier of someone having to physically do the work to get that information at least made them feel more vulnerable.
Has Street View been a problem for the world in that way? I haven't personally experienced that. That's probably why the DNA database idea doesn't scare me. If you want to live in the world it's essentially impossible to keep your DNA a secret. It seems to me that eventually someone will pick it all up and organize it.
Those were dangerous in general sense to the establishment's position of power. The type of speech being argued against here is immediately dangerous to the physical person of specific groups. That distinction is important I believe.
Logically, if isolation is keeping the curve flat and you still have patients to "burn" through then won't ending isolation make the curve pop back up potentially back over capacity?
It always seemed to me you needed to continue isolating to keep the curve flat as time went on until you reached a critical number where letting it go couldn't overwhelm health services.
Would something like paperspace be a good platform for software development? My slow computer doesn't handle IntelliJ that well. Instead of buying a new PC I could rent this for a few hours at a time.
I thought that was the point of the section- that you may be able to tell something is wrong with the example, but the compiler can't. Thus by programming in that fashion you're not taking advantage of the power of the compiler.
The improved way below where the Just a is unwrapped with a case allows the compiler to see whether or not x is valid.
It seems pretty obvious to me in context what the word means. You could play that game with literally every word in the sentence.
What does "achieve" mean? It's that way out of the box? If I invest in a special team of Unity developers it's possible? They'll give it to me if I work hard enough?
What does "beautiful" mean? High poly? Vibrant color? Critics or fans say it looks good? There's an object beauty score that it has high marks in?