1,244 karma · joined January 12, 2012
Without those links, your last paragraph is really a statement about your own approach to the problem, with a little condescension thrown in for his failure to follow the same pattern. It's counterproductive to your own goal of persuasion.
In any scientific endeavor (not just climate change), when a skeptic takes the time to engage, the response should be data, not appeal to authority.
Put differently, environmental scientists have a credibility gap in some segments of the populace, and it isn't possible to fix any credibility gap through peer pressure. You can only offer evidence, tailored where possible to the listener's level of interest and sophistication.
My question is whether newer libraries and best practices have evolved since 2012, or if the ecosystem has remained static in this area since 2012. I'd certainly hope there's been some learning since then, unless Go really had already achieved perfection the first time around; color me skeptical.
As if logical reasoning were sufficient.
Your typical 16-year-old doesn't know a thing about history yet, or the real-world practical effects of political choices over time, or just how confounding crowd effects and herd instinct can be, or any of the other weird shit about human behavior and governance that defies the kind of logical reasoning that many 40-year-olds are capable of, let alone 16-year-olds.
A 500 GHz CPU with no data to work with is just an impressive lump of silicon.
I find that people who have racist beliefs often see differing viewpoints as the enemy - the first breach being simple consideration of a new perspective.
I suggest to my left-leaning friends that government should be a "last resort" solution at best, and is frequently actually the problem; to my right-leaning friends I explain the crucial importance of privacy, civil liberties, and equal justice; and in either case the response is frequently incredulous disbelief and contempt for my naivete and/or obvious privilege yada yada yada.
The echo chambers are real, and they are a threat to our civil society.
He said no such thing in that article[1]. I have no idea about the rest, or about Thiel in general, but I did read the article. Your statement is as bad and inaccurate as any one-liner soundbite on right wing media.
The section in question (emphasis mine):
As one fast-forwards to 2009, the prospects for a
*libertarian politics* appear grim indeed. Exhibit A
is a financial crisis caused by too much debt and
leverage, facilitated by a government that insured
against all sorts of moral hazards — and we know that
the response to this crisis involves way more debt and
leverage, and way more government. Those who have
argued for free markets have been screaming into a
hurricane. The events of recent months shatter any
remaining hopes of *politically minded* libertarians.
For those of us who are libertarian in 2009, our
education culminates with the knowledge that the
broader education of the body politic has become a
fool’s errand.
Indeed, even more pessimistically, the trend has been
going the wrong way for a long time. To return to
finance, the last economic depression in the United
States that did not result in massive government
intervention was the collapse of 1920–21. It was sharp
but short, and entailed the sort of Schumpeterian
“creative destruction” that could lead to a real boom.
The decade that followed — the roaring 1920s — was so
strong that historians have forgotten the depression
that started it. The 1920s were the last decade in
American history during which one could be genuinely
optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast
increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of
the franchise to women — two constituencies that are
notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the
notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
Indeed, there's a follow-up on this exact topic posted at the bottom of the article:
It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will
be taken away or that this would solve the political
problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of
people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope
that voting will make things better.
I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why
I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys
relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world
is us versus them; good people versus the other.
[1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
And use whitelists, never blacklists.
On the other hand: https://www.google.com/webhp#q=define%20pedagogy
The teachers have a responsibility to teach, in the face of varying readiness for their teachings in their students. Any asshat can teach people who already know the material, but good teachers teach those who don't.
No they don't. From Section 2:
The sha-256 algorithm as specified in [SHA-256] is mandatory to
implement; that is, implementations MUST be able to generate/send and
to accept/process names based on a sha-256 hash. However,
implementations MAY support additional hash algorithms and MAY use
those for specific names, for example, in a constrained environment
where sha-256 is non-optimal or where truncated names are needed to
fit into corresponding protocols (when a higher collision probability
can be tolerated).
Truncated hashes MAY be supported. When a hash value is truncated,
the name MUST indicate this. Therefore, we use different hash
algorithm strings in these cases, such as sha-256-32 for a 32-bit
truncation of a sha-256 output. A 32-bit truncated hash is
essentially useless for security in almost all cases but might be
useful for naming. With current best practices [RFC3766], very few,
if any, applications making use of names with less than 100-bit
hashes will have useful security properties.Nitpicking: Python has types, they're just dynamically determined instead of statically. That said...
> make it difficult to reason about large programs quickly
... I agree 100%. At $DAY_JOB we have a very large Python codebase and it can be extremely hard to understand what's going on, let alone refactor safely. I really miss static typing.
The truth is more along the lines that high employability for abstract (and disproportionately high-paying) professions is highly correlated with academic ability, and it is the latter that accounts for more of the overall success than the degree itself. In other words, many high-earning people would have some of those higher earnings even if they didn't go to college at all. The fact that many of those people choose to go to college is an _effect_ of that ability, not a cause.
It's easier than that -- just tell the driver you're not worried about him or her, but about the other drivers on the road.
[0] modulo subject X or situation Y -- we all have talents
sed -e 'NR == 123425938039 { print; exit; }' < file
[0]: Yes, this happens.
That value is not absolute. That's just the value to me as his or her current employer. The same receptionist would have different value to an employer with a different cost structure. This is why an intermediary like price is required.
> The older I get, the more I think that "value" (our social evaluation of worth) should be based on nothing more than hours of labor.
> An hour of labor from someone with a 130-IQ might carry a higher price on the market than an hour of labor from someone with a 90-IQ
1. These two statements are fundamentally at odds. The mere existence of a market price directly implies that some number of market participants have made their own judgments about the value (to them) of that hour of time.
2. "hours of labor == value" is the fallacy behind make-work programs where people effectively dig ditches and then fill them back up. There's nothing changed when they're done; how do you capture that economically?