82 karma · joined April 8, 2015
Yes, we need to help these people. Mental health, substance abuse, etc do not make people "bad". But giving someone a months worth of rent/food/utilities/clothing in cash is going to be disastrous
If this algorithm is used to dispense some type of medication, and I enter 3.1 and it murders you with 10 grams of alprazolam... well.... the algorithm is still correct.
I do appreciate how the article makes a distinction between computer science and programming. We already have a computer science education in school. Its called math.
Do you think it's possible for development to be the new manufacturing? I have been saying that it is for years now - but I don't know if I truly believe it or not. There is a large academic distinction between coding and manufacturing. Solid middle class manufacturing jobs were mostly mindless monkey work. Screw this on, put that in the hole it fits in, etc. The more I work on this internal Java ERP/CRM sites the more I think it is monkey work too, but when I take a step back I realize that I have been programming since I was 10 (16 years), I have a bachelors degree in computer science, I have several years of working experience and after work I go home and code. The work generally seems like turn key work to me, but I'm not sure if that is true. Basically I'm saying that I don't necessarily believe the masses are smart enough to be developers even for shitty intranet applications
I have been seeing a lot of articles claiming that a barrier to CS curriculum in high school is that they don't have the technological capabilities to support such curriculum. Nonsense. If I ran an AP computer science class we would never touch a computer. Pencil and paper only.
Judging by his own description of his skill set I would say he doesn't do offensive security at all but rather remediation, policy, and/or maybe forensics.
"Consider now the subsequences starting at the smallest natural number: inclusion of the upper bound would then force the latter to be unnatural by the time the sequence has shrunk to the empty one."
The previous statement asserts that inclusion of the lower bound is preferred because the sequence then starts with a natural number (so for a set 1<=x<12 the sequence starts at 1 instead of 1.000000 .... 1 in 1<x<12). How is inclusion of the upper bound forcing the "latter" (what is he referring to by latter) to be unnatural by the time the sequence has shrunk to the empty one.
Am I the only person who finds it ironic that there is a humanitarian debate around the most effective drugs used to kill someone? Following contemporary humanitarian paradigm, the death by the state should be outlawed anyway.