jfager

Four years of letting Republicans remind everyone how terrible they are at governing for a chance to be rid of Clinton for good and take back Congress and the White House in 2020? Maybe worth it.

I threw $n at a shot to get an honest, articulate voice on stage at an early-primary-season debate, to hopefully influence the party/eventual candidate's agenda. It didn't work. Oh well.

I have a $500 iPad sitting on my coffee table gathering dust, too, which was the bigger waste?

Even if you prosecute on the basis of what could have happened (maybe we start charging everyone who runs a red light with manslaughter?), we're still not reaching the level of physical harm to anyone or (barring complete negligence on the part of the Tribune) a catastrophic material loss.

You really think society's need to avenge that wrong is worth spending $30k a year to hold him in federal prison, exposing him to possible violent harm, and depriving him of his future? Sorry, but that's insane. He should pay the actual damages, a punitive fine, and perform community service, tops.

Both of these things are completely irrelevant to the fact that any jail time for defacing a website is completely insane, the result of a witch-hunt mentality surrounding computer-based crimes.

Privacy is addressed in the paper but I think the real issues with it are just glossed over. "You get to see how your delegate votes" is great and should absolutely be true, but there are two other sorts of privacy that matter: privacy from the electoral system itself, and privacy from closely related people.

In very Googley fashion, this paper seems to take for granted that of course you'd trust the system itself with the knowledge of your votes and delegates, and that its privacy-respecting duty is fulfilled by simply not broadcasting that knowledge to the unauthorized public. But that's a terrible way to run a government that at least partially relies on a secret ballot as a means of expressing dissent and effecting change in the government itself, for hopefully obvious reasons.

The other form of privacy that matters is on a much smaller scale. A delegate who can exercise the votes of an arbitrarily small number of people is also capable of ensuring they are exercising the votes of a specific set of people. An abusive husband/father/wife/mother/boss/etc can know simply from the count of votes they hold whether their victims are following through on their command, and via transitive delegation they can pool that power with collaborators.

You can no-true-Scotsman code that compiles, runs, and blows up in your face with any modern C++ compiler all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Rust eliminates entire classes of errors that are trivial to hit in C++.

It's even fine in the case where you're pulling data from a file or other low-latency sequential data source, assuming that the cost of filling a spliterator buffer is less than your cost of processing.

But there's a list of gotchas all more dangerous than the "magic make it faster" button of .parallel() imply:

- For the sequential data source case, if the cost of filling the spliterator buffers is higher than the cost of processing, you're just wasting a ton of overhead trying to use parallel.

- You have to be aware that by default all uses of parallel() run on the same threadpool, which makes it a potential timebomb if someone uses it in the context of, say, a webserver where multiple requests might all individually process streams. This also means blocking operations during stream processing are very dangerous.

- Mutating an external variable goes from being fine for a sequential stream to a race condition for a parallel one.

- You can't hand out Streams that you intend to be executed sequentially, b/c your callers can just call parallel() whenever they want.

And, yes, all of these considerations make the api more complicated than one operating over plain old iterators.

In other words, in order to support a gimmick you can actually use in production in a maybe a handful of use cases, they complicated the api for the use cases you hit 99% of the time. Awesome.

If anything, it's the functional parts that feel bolted on: closures are crippled (though getting better soonish), the types that get spit out of iterator chains are hideous, no currying, no HKTs, functional data structures are much harder to write w/o a gc, etc.

Quoting:

"When the rate of return on capital significantly exceeds the growth rate of the economy (as it did through much of history until the nineteenth century and as is likely to be the case again in the twenty-first century), then it logically follows that inherited wealth grows faster than output and income... Under such conditions, it is almost inevitable that inherited wealth will dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labor"

"Forces of convergence also exist, and in certain countries at certain times, these may prevail, but the forces of divergence can at any point regain the upper hand, as seems to be happening now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century"

"My conclusions are less apocalyptic than those implied by Marx's principle of infinite accumulation and perpetual divergence... In the model I propose, divergence is not perpetual and is only one of several possible future directions for the distribution of wealth"

But again, it's just a matter of taste and not really worth wasting a lot of time worrying about. The important thing about Rust is its semantics (speed, safety, control), not its syntax.

Not true. My 'learn rust' project is pcap-based and has a trivial websocket implementation, and (after the basic learning hump) it's dirt easy. Aside from how simple it is to interact with C, Rust's current networking stack is libuv under the hood (i.e. same as node), and if you don't want libuv, native implementations are landing now.

Do you see this eventually becoming your bottleneck (every rpc server has to handle every event)? If so, what's the plan for reducing the event fan-out?

Rank-and-file don't get nurseries in their office? Ok, they don't get a CEO salary and responsibilities, either. That's life.

Yahoo lists dependent care on their benefits page (http://us.careers.yahoo.com/benefits/tag/4754/lang/en); even without knowing the details that's already a lot more than a bunch of other companies offer.

From this post: "Even though we all knew it wouldn’t last as acceptances come in (it already hasn’t held), our team enjoyed a brief moment basking in the future that we (and all educators around the world) hope to build"

They never said they extended offers to more women than men and they never said the actual class had more women than men, they simply highlighted a point in the process that had more women than men and used it as an opportunity to be optimistic about the future.

But thanks for using math and stuff to enlighten us all.

Yes, the government bailout of AIG went towards paying off their counterparties. But those were actual debts that AIG owed because of their own stupidity and greed. Had AIG gone bankrupt instead, the counterparties would not have received anywhere near full payment, and there's a compelling case to be made that that's how it should have been. But this idea that AIG somehow got screwed by having to pay off their shitty bets with our money is laughable and disgusting. If the shareholders want to sue someone, it should be their own board.