nmrm

Can you explain what, exactly, you mean by this? Looking back 100 years, I can't help but see an enormous amount of improvement in culture, at least in terms of the tangible impact of culture on the lives of people living in the USA.

You can disagree with the tax system in the US, but that doesn't make tax evasion legal.

Which means he's probably not paying tax on that himself. Which is tax evasion, pure and simple. Which is illegal for good reasons.

Not really. E.g. there's no ordering in function composition that isn't also in high school math. Also, you shouldn't depend on e.g. maps processing elements in a given order.

My impression is that statement ordering is easier for mediocre but competent programmers than it is for excellent programmers. The reason is that writing correct imperative code is non-trivial, but writing correct-y imperative code is pretty easy. So someone who's carefully thinking things through while learning will have a more difficult time with simple assignments, because -- at least while learning -- they're essentially trying to construct the correctness proof in their head. And that's pretty hard for imperative code.

Certainly constructive logics (typically) incorporate a notion of evidence/proof. But constructive logics don't incorporate notions of time or communication (of proof, or in general).

I think the answer is no -- there was never a clear demonstration of an extant buggy execution trace. Just a preponderance of evidence that such a trace could exist.

Ultimately, it's impossible to know without being inside. I would imagine there's a fair bit of reuse within each manufacturer and very little sharing between manufacturers

Yes. Although the arrest can happen before the charge, typically a judge will issue an arrest warrant as soon as the charges are filed.

And given the >90% conviction success rate in the USA (at least in federal cases), it's a pretty good bet any charges filed will stick if the prosecutor wants them to.

Whereas everyone else at the company were good team-players and kept their mouth shut and head down, so the plaintiff wasn't sure if s/he could count on their testimony or if they even knew anything.

Again, just explaining how someone might fear the logic would go. Not saying anyone does or should actually think like this.

But there are many logics that can be used to reason about stochastic and probabilistic dynamics.

I've used SQLite over NFS for replication. It worked fine.

If you are not near an Ikea and can't think of an excuse to do a day road trip to the nearest one, you might consider some of the motorized/adjustable desks on Amazon (just search for those terms).

Dissertations and journal articles are some of the most readable and useful academic publications in computer science precisely because this attitude of "16 pages of bits ought to be enough for anyone" isn't enforced.

Without artificial page limits, it's possible to explain an idea from the ground up without taking shortcuts. Enforcing a prohibitive page limit is far more likely to force clever writing than good communication.

~64 mg caffeine / ounce in espresso

64 mg/ounce * 8 ounces * 3 = 1536 mg

From wikipedia: "Consumption of 1000–1500 mg per day is associated with a condition known as caffeinism."

But the "scientific community", so far as such a thing exists, can't censure news reports, government reports, or corporate reports that claim "X is true because science". It also cannot stop someone from publishing a "scientific" journal.

"Science" is not a Trade Mark, and scientists cannot solve for clueless consumers who believe everything if you say "because science!" Especially when those same consumers fail to fund / pay attention in quality post-secondary science education.

says that billboards help sell stuff. So do online ads. Unfortunately there's no RL ad block for those of us who don't like ugly.

> I'd argue these[2] are anything but.

I'll take nature or architecture, thanks.

The calculation is trivial -- top masters programs often publish entry and mid career salary information.

Highly skilled programmers, as well as programmers whose jobs are dominated by both design and implementation, will probably be one of the last professions to be replaced by AI.

But there are a lot of programmers who could be replaced by automation (although various constrained, "domain-specific" forms of program synthesis working on concert with ever-improving development environments, libraries and frameworks are probably more likely culprits.

edit: In other words, the general problem of replacing programmers is AI-complete, but not ever programming task/job requires full generality.

So it makes sense I wouldn't want to carry around a phone + an mp3 player. But if I'm carrying around cash/cards everywhere anyways, the phone needs to have an actual substantive benefit over paying with plastic. That advantage has to overcome the perception of privacy violations and the cost of changing personal habits.

* The days of the average consumer not caring about privacy are, I think and hope, coming quickly to an end. I doubt anyone will give up gmail out of privacy concerns, but any time there's discussion of adopting a new consumer product, average Joe off the street will probably cite privacy as one concern. I don't think the "novelty factor" is enough to win over the average consumer's data these days.

I understand this might not be possible in your situation, but if you can find an evening, on-site, accelerated program at a local non-flagship state school then you might be missing an opportunity. I've known some people in similar situations for whom this approach worked out well.

I can provide some advice if this is at all plausible for you.

(edit: the comment by ferrari8608 is an excellent example of why attending an inexpensive university can be a good idea, even without finishing the degree program; you'd be surprised at the number of positions filled via "former professor" relationships).

A business encouraging governments to throw people in jail for something which has never been considered a criminal infraction in order to make more money is pretty evil.

I would never dream of asking a government to throw somebody in jail for pirating my software. The benefit that I get (ostensibly deterrence) is minuscule in comparison to the human cost of a criminal record and even a short stint in jail.

The two significant differences here are 1) government officials and law enforcement are part of the housing complex and not external; 2) since they aren't housing projects, the buildings don't have automatic class stigma.

Have you done a lot of teaching?

As a matter of fact, managing a course-long sequence of lectures in a way that keeps everyone engaged is infinitely more difficult than keeping everyone engaged in a one-off conference presentation.

Your entire comment supposes that the content is interesting to the entire class, that you're moving at an appropriate rate for everyone in the course. This is never the case.

I don't care how engaging the lecturer is. If it's a lecture on linked lists (or something else I already know about) then, unless I plan on teaching in the future, I'm going to get work done instead of listening. Similarly, if the lecturer takes a class period to pound in an important concept I've already internalized, I'm going to get something done while s/he catches the rest of the class up.

The only way to make sure everyone has good reason to pay attention is to teach a very difficult topic. Which is why "not paying attention" is nearly non-existent in canonically difficult courses, regardless of the quality of presentation style.

That's because most self-taught programmers end up with degrees -- either in CS or other fields. All of the good programmers I know had substantial personal projects and/or open source contributions before starting college, and continued throughout college.

The answer also depends on what problems you'd like to work on and where you'd like to work.

I hear this a lot, and don't think it's at all true. It's pretty difficult to get to phd-level background in an area without having some thoughts no one else has explored yet. In fact I'm not sure it's even possible.