icambron

60 ms·

511.
by icambron 13y ago
Depends on what "luck" entails. Success is measured by something--for the sake of argument, let's sake acquisition price. But there have to be proximal factors; to be a bit reductive, no one is arguing that large companies pi
512.
by icambron 13y ago
So I was wrong about it being Korean (it's from Hong Kong -- I just misremembered), but it is on Netflix, as are a bunch of great Korean movies.
513.
by icambron 13y ago
Thanks, edited. It was silly of me not to check when I linked to it.
514.
by icambron 13y ago
There's a pretty good film from Hong Kong about that too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1202514/ Edit: I misremembered: it's from Hong Kong, not South Korea.
515.
by icambron 13y ago
Yes, I fully agree with that.
516.
by icambron 13y ago
I think you're conflating languages that strongly support OO with OO itself. OO is a paradigm , a way of organizing your program. Using classes (meaning, as a language primitive) as namespaces and not as, well, classes is specifically
517.
by icambron 13y ago
I think you might be missing the tone here. The checklist is intentionally overcritical and self-contradictory. The idea here--in my reading at least--is to poke fun at people who bash new programming languages by reducing their criticisms
518.
by icambron 13y ago
I wholeheartedly agree about treason, but perjury is a perfectly reasonable thing to charge people with here. And it's a plenty serious crime. For non-immune people, it means jail time. For the president, it's good grounds for imp
519.
by icambron 13y ago
I suspect that's precisely why the computer can measure it. This is the scenario: 1. Player A makes a move the computer considers suboptimal. 2. Disoriented player B responds with another move the computer considers an important mist
520.
by icambron 13y ago
A couple of odd assumptions there: - That private repos are the only thing worth targeting. What if you could inject a trojan into a popular open source project? You could do a lot of damage that way, probably way more than on private repo,
521.
by icambron 13y ago
I guess I'm saying the latter too. Can you explain the former?
522.
by icambron 13y ago
> Maynard has done some stellar work to be sure, but he built off of Zhang's breakthrough. That was actually not my understand from the article (I haven't read the papers either). What I got was that there was an earlier paper
523.
by icambron 13y ago
I don't get it. The article talks not just about Zhang, but also about James Maynard, who is a postdoc and looks young, and is part of what you might call standard academia. His result is independent of Zhang's and is orders of ma
524.
by icambron 13y ago
Charging the customer extra when there's not enough supply is inefficient and leaves money on the table. They just end up selling less electricity. In fact, they're depending on it to stop their grid from crashing. In general, rai
525.
by icambron 13y ago
If that were true, wouldn't the utilities just buy the batteries themselves?
526.
by icambron 13y ago
Right, I didn't mean to imply that you believed the hypothesis, just that you were proposing it. The distinction doesn't matter much for my explanation anyway.
527.
by icambron 13y ago
I think you must have misread the context here. The grandparent's hypothesis was that maybe the results seen here are merely the result of random chance (e.g. white and black balls being drawn from a bag). The parent was testing that
528.
by icambron 13y ago
For the individual occupations, presumably they all have enough participants to avoid a high chance of any one of them being that far off (for example, there are 100,000 veterinarians [1]) [Edit: and see sanskritabelt's comment below
529.
by icambron 13y ago
> I'm a white, upper-middle-class, works-with-USG/DOD, contracted in war zones, lots of friends in government/police, etc. person, so I have it exceptionally easy, sure. It sounds like you get it at some level, but to make
530.
by icambron 13y ago
I do think the parent is overstating the case a bit, but I also think you're looking at it backwards. The constitution guarantees you the right to free speech and then carefully circumscribes what the exceptions to that are (e.g. yelli
531.
by icambron 13y ago
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure that isn't how it works. An illegal gag order can be proven invalid and thus lifted, but you'd still be held in contempt of court for violating it before it was lifted. I know
532.
by icambron 13y ago
Not every potential Vim user already uses it. So right, you couldn't pry Vimscript out of the hands of diehard users, but you might get a big crowd of people who aren't otherwise willing to take on Vim in the first place.
533.
by icambron 13y ago
The CEO certainly says he pays more than minimum wage (when the statement was clarified, it turns out it doesn't include part time labor or contract labor, so it's not clear how true that actually is). But why would he pay more th
534.
by icambron 13y ago
Let's circle back to this.
535.
by icambron 13y ago
That some global optimizations with direct negative effects on a particular business outweigh their downstream positives for that business doesn't mean they all do. Perhaps this is more like Wal-Mart lobbying for higher minimum wage so
536.
by icambron 13y ago
Again, do you actually believe that the widespread discrimination against pre-civil rights blacks was rational behavior? If not, why did it persist for so long? Where were all of those entrepreneurs fixing the system through competitive adv
537.
by icambron 13y ago
Let's assume that a) he thinks companies will continue to be systematically discriminatory despite their best interests and b) he cares less about the competitive advantages of Apple and more about the overall health of the economy.
538.
by icambron 13y ago
They're not prisoners until they're captured and put in prison. Thus lobbying for more prisoners is a way of exploiting more people, especially the poor, young black men who are most likely to end up in prison. Similarly, lobbying
539.
by icambron 13y ago
Do you think that discrimination against blacks and women was good for business? I submit that it was not, but companies did it anyway, because they were not rational. I'm not sure we should expect them to be now. I also submit that if
540.
by icambron 13y ago
Manipulating the laws to generate more captives so that you can force them to work for you so that you can make more money is...totally exploitive. That you've thrown in higher pay doesn't change that; it just means they'd tr

More ›