relics443

I wonder how often a Chrome extension had to led to a feature implementation or bug fix?

I feel like 200 years from now, our times will be viewed as something akin to the industrial revolution. Recency bias makes us feel as if we're more important in history, but 200 years is a long time. I'm sure there'll be another "revolution" or two in that time. And the people of that time will probably consider it to be the most pivotal revolution yet.

History folks. It repeats itself.

As an American I have no barometer for this.

Anyone here from the UK, will the public at large really be as affected as the article claims?

True.

I was mostly stating that in regards to the viewpoint of orthodox Jews as espoused in the GP.

My main point was that it is not an idea that came about in the 20th century.

All orthodox Jews ascribe to this.

I'm not sure how you can claim this is a 20th-century interpretation as I'm currently looking at writings from ~2000 years ago (the Mishnah and Talmud) that discuss it.

I have no idea why G-d put dinosaur bones on Earth. It has no effect on my belief that G-d created the world, and on how old it is.

If you feel very strongly about it, then when you create a world, make it's physical age and time age match :-p

They way I remember it, it was 10 conflicting opinions...

It's related to the 3rd commandment to not make an image of G-d.

I don't believe the permission to illustrate the megillah has anything to do with G-d's name not being mentioned, as there are accepted illustrations of Tanach (where G-d's name is mentioned) across the spectrum. As long as there is no depiction of G-d it is fine.

As an orthodox Jew, I have no reason to believe that any other orthodox Jew would be OK with making a depiction of G-d. If someone else did, it would just be avoided. I can't speak for any other denominations.

Another thing an orthodox Jew might do is preface any anthropomorphic mention of G-d with "kavayachol" meaning "as if it were possible" (loosely translated as "so to speak"), in recognition of the fact that G-d cannot be prescribed physical qualities.

Edit: just saw your note about historical precedence. For an orthodox Jew there is no separation of what it says in the Torah and what has happened historically. We follow a masoretic tradition as to the interpretation of the Torah. So as I said above, I can't imagine an orthodox Jew being OK with a depiction of G-d from a Torah standpoint.

It wouldn't feature in the "literature" before then because the oral Torah was not allowed to be written down.

The compilation and writing of the Mishnah was in response to the inevitable upcoming exile.

I'm not sure how "tongue in cheek" this article was supposed to be, but most of his issues with the problem can be solved by buying into the language.

For:

Not sure what he's upset about, but there are many options in the standard library. I almost never use the language construct for it, and I'm very happy with it.

Nullable:

I never expected nullable to completely save me from all issues. It has the same function as the @Nullable and @NotNull annotations (and all the other variants). It gives you a simpler way to reason about nullability, and forces you to respond to it; you can't just ignore it.

Smart cast on mutable

I get that this sucks, but they can't show it to happen. Yes, the chances are small, but there could be concurrency issues. They have to account for that, and can't tell if your code is multi threaded or not.

Most of the time his issue can be solved with scoping, using ?.let or ?.apply

Java Nullability

What do you want from them? They have no ability whatsoever to control this. Either get annotations in the Java code if you can modify it (which is a good idea anyways), or wrap it and provide nullability information.

Assignment is not an expression

He got it. It's too protect against if(v=v). I know he makes a joke about automatic type casting, but if you're not assigning the result to anything, the logic in the if will still fail.

Elvis operator

I assume they removed Javas ternary operator to not get confused with the Elvis operator. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I kind of agree with him here unless I'm missing something

Automatic type casting

Frustrating, but safe

Type alias

I'm fine with it for simple cases, didn't want to parse his problem.

Generics

I hear his gripe, but at the end of the day Kotlin generics are Java generics. If there are some potential bugs in the compiler, report them and move on.

Structure syntax

I assume he means list and map literals. I agree it would be nice. Not sure why they didn't include it.

I use it a lot in Android, where certain objects are created by the framework, and I don't want a nullable reference for one of its properties.

I've moved on to Kotlin. Much more enjoyable for Android development IMO.

Well that was unexpected.

I'm assuming they'll translate bytecode for older API versions? Or will Java 8 only be available for newer API versions?

What in the world is going on in Florida?

I don't think this is language specific as much as it is about keeping up to date in your field of employment.

I've been using this since day one. It's been a bumpy ride, but the past few weeks it's been working really well.

I walk about 25 steps to get from my bed to my office. I used to take the train into NYC from SE Brooklyn which took anywhere from 35 minutes to 2 hours.

Is the author saying that Trump should be impeached, or that he actually could be impeached? Sounds like the former to me.

I don't understand the problem with this. In Ben Gurion airport in Israel, if you look like a religious Jew you'll most likely get asked questions regarding the Torah portion of that week.

Wow, your anti American bias is showing.

So you maintain that because a percentage of Americans live their lives a certain way, there's no need to defend the border?

They're treated like a criminal, because the criminals sued, saying "why are we the only ones treated like this". They'll also do it because something tripped their alarm, and they have to do due diligence (see my updated note about my grandmother).

So why do they pull in elderly women in wheelchairs? Because someone sued, saying that the agents were profiling.

Yes, they do want to distress people, but they don't have anything against them personally.

They weren't looking for Fox to self-accuse; she was only in there to fill their quota of older white women who they needed to pull in.

If someone is coming into the country with intent to perform illegal activity, then I say they're not doing enough. As a citizen, I don't want those people in my country.

They are expertly trained. They did exactly what was needed, and it seems like they did an excellent job. Unfortunately the subject didn't need to be subjected to that for any reason other than random selection.

Edit: They were trained for exactly what the situation would necessitate. Even if they only pulled her in for random selection purposes, they can't not subject her to the same treatment. Otherwise they could get sued for not treating everyone who gets selected the same. Go figure.

I don't think they have anything against her personally. These tactics are used to fluster and confuse, and hopefully cause the subject to make a mistake. Clearly it's effective.

In a perfect world, this would only be applied to criminals. Because the agents aren't allowed to profile, they have to pull in people across the spectrum. Which includes authors, women with children, and old ladies.

I don't think they mean any harm. They're trying to do their job of protecting the border, but they have protocol that they need to follow.

Edit: anecdata, but there may be other reasons they make ridiculous selections like this (like old ladies). My grandmother, who is an elderly white lady who is hunched over, has the same name as a criminal on a watch list. Every time she went to the airport she was selected for additional screening. She never had the same experience as Fox, but sometimes they got real nasty. She always thanked them when they let her go, because what if she was actually the criminal, and they were protecting the country.

I have friend who is an engineering middle manager at Uber. I was having drinks with him and some of his direct reports (including 2 women), and they all told me that they've never experienced or heard of any of this behavior until recently.

Obviously that's anecdata (although it has the benefit of me knowing that it's true, as opposed to Amy's story), but I think people are jumping to conclusions here.

It seems that there is some kind of problem at Uber. The scope and size of it remains to be seen.

Or that was all made up? Who is in a position to know every employee at Uber, so they can verify that this person actually existed, AND that they actually wrote it?

I understand that, but I fail to see how it has any bearing on the story.

I'm not sure how the religion of the owner of the company factors in here. If they were atheist would that change the situation?

After reading the problem, I spent 5 minutes writing a performant, optimized, generic, recursive solution in Java (technically Kotlin). I don't consider that to be one the reasons that I'm a good engineer.