Re: Hardware on the Accounts
I don't really see why - they can just report on the two lines separately if they want to.
2234 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Aug 2006
The assumption most make is a rockstar dev can be parachuted into another project with very little domain knowledge and excel; not going to happen.
Sure, but they will excel much faster. And people who can write good code, spot edge cases, test well, and have a high bar for themselves generally, and do all the same for other team members, will always be a lot more valuable than someone who can't, almost regardless of domain.
Also, most real rockstars devs I have met were rather unassuming not egotists that is implied by the term.
The term exists because these sorts of engineers were so undervalued in businesses.
Principled individuals may reject the notion of software heroes outright because the very concept can be taken as antithetical to the abstract notion of equality. But it's important to distinguish between equality as a civil right – everyone deserves equal treatment under the law – and equality as an assertion that everyone is the same.
How is this even on the table? Don't forget arithmetic equality - we don't mean that one either.
And other principled individuals will say that some people are more valuable to a project than others. That's one of the reasons why we compensate them differently.
Why would they care? They're still getting the money.
The problem here is the PR failure - if the US government can't be trusted to side against a non-US corporation from time to time, then they can't really be seen to be benevolent DNS dictators for life.
The EC's attitude and complications as regards non-NATO EU members maybe encouraging an increase in the importance/use of 5 Eyes.
This is pretty normal, though. Complications about who helps whom at the national / territory / treaty / bloc / etc level are always going to be a thing. Military types are used to it, and very good at it.
Samsung Galaxy Chromebook is arguably the most aspirational Chrome OS device we've encountered since the original launch of the Chromebook Pixel in 2013
"Aspirational"? Let's say "expensive". That's fine, and doesn't sound like a drone pulled it from the short list of "2019's Advertising Words".
Why would I pay $49/year for them to provide me what amounts to a bit of web hosting?
It depends on the scale, right? If it's 50MB or less, then sure, that sounds a bit like Web hosting, and about 1-5 photos. If you've got multiple terabytes of photos, $9/mo starts to look pretty good.
which just means that they have to tell you what they want the info for, and ensure that they don't do anything else
And they pass that same condition to their 3rd parties. Along with they and their 3rd parties must be able to provide all their data on you at your request, and you have a right to be forgotten. On pain of much fine.
Access to the labour market is a fair exchange for providing workers with particular skills or knowledge oppotunities to be rewarded and sustained without them necessarily needing to have all the skills to run a business themselves.
Not just the skills, but the capital and the risk are taken care of by someone else. And sometimes owners are ruined due to the risk, and sometimes they're not, and the latter are rewarded with people commenting that they've not deserved what they've got.
The basic issue is manglement control. With a union, manglement does not have as much control over the indentured servants and they might have to treat servants something approximating a human being.
I can't believe you're saying this about Google. Look at their list of employee benefits, it's insane. "Something approximating a human being"...really?
If you want an example of how user concerns do not drive how software gets made, check out this Google-backed API
I think you mean:
If you want an example of when user concerns did not drive how software got made, check out this Google-backed API
An example does not prove a generality.
Rather than being explicitly wrong and saying everything's a file?
They could be totally correct and say everything has the empty set of properties, as a minimum.
The balance between usefulness and correctness isn't always "as correct as possible".
But they're certainly guilty of and heavily invested in the technological infrastructure which makes that shit possible. It's already far more intrusive and pervasive than anything dreamed of by the Stasi.
Presence of technology doesn't imply usage. We also have nukes, only dreamt of by the Nazis, which make much worse things possible. Had them for 70 years.
That sounds like the title earns the salary, not the job. E.g. Netflix's engineers are all "senior engineer", but they will be paid different amounts, some $250k more than others. Because managers want people with the right skills, and will pay for them, and those skills are often moving too fast for job titles to keep up. And, the competitiveness around individuals is high as well.
This is why footballers are not all paid the same, and houses don't all cost the same. This is reality. Same salary bands for job titles is the fiction. It helps with some things for business owners (e.g. keeps wages lower for certain jobs), but stops you hiring the best.
on the whole the book was reasonably well received and not nearly as controversial as we like to think.
Indeed nonsense like the following is pretty ignorant:
It was a scandalous book in its day because it refuted the creationist doctrine that life in all its diversity was snapped into existence fully formed by God. "Design implies a designer" and all that.
Oh, I have no problem with type coercion. It can be a good thing, especially in exploratory/analytical workloads. It's one of the key reasons Python is so popular in this space.
Can you give an example of Python type coercion?