One In Ten Americans Thinks HTML Is a Type of Sexually Transmitted Infection
How are we going to inform the other 90% of the dangers of HTML? I am sure they also don't understand how dangerous PHP can be, and don't want to vaccinate their daughters against it.
Teaching Calculus To 5-Year-Olds
In the real world, when you get to anything even mildly complicated, you don't look at symbolic representations, and instead use numerical methods anyway. The geometric representation of those numerical methods is often pretty simple too.
Now, for something complicated, look at graphical representations of a matrix's dot product. We use it all the frigging time in computer graphics, but it's far harder to 'see' how it all works than it should.
Whole Foods: America's Temple of Pseudoscience
Except monsanto is not only the other company making GMOs. It's not unlike avoiding all pharmacies because I hate Bayer. Or asking for especially labeling on everything because I hate BASF (who also do GMO work, BTW)
If the issue is informed consumers, what are we trying to inform them of, and why? If it is about safety, you don't have to treat GMOs as a 'flag', but go into the genetics of things. If it's really about knowing which companies are involved in producing something, so we can discriminate against them, then why do that just with food?
US War Machine Downsizing?
We could solve that problem, and have major savings by replacing medicare with a 'free meth and oxycodone' program.
Does Relying On an IDE Make You a Bad Programmer?
If your IDE is producing much scaffolding, the problem is not the IDE, but writing in a technology where said scaffolding could be seen as desirable to anyone. For instance, look at the state of Java circa 2002. You have EJB 2.0, full of boilerplate. Then there's Spring's ginormous xml configuration files, which you have to get exactly right, and in line with the code. Talking to a database? There's this tool called hibernate, which reads this finely crafted xml files, that have to exactly match both your classes on one hand, and your database on the other. In that environment, you'd be NUTS not to use and IDE, but you could argue that you'd also have to be nuts to subject people to such a development environment, full of finely crafted configuration for applications that, in 99 percent of cases, only change a few database connection strings in the configuration, while the rest is just code written in XML.
More modern version of the same technologies minimize the use of that silly boilerplate. Completely newer technologies just cut the boilerplate down to so much, IDE scaffolding doesn't even exist, because there is no boilerplate for the IDE to generate. Who thought having to explicitly create all getters and setters was a good idea anyway? Why create rituals where, to make a change, I need to change 3 files in unison, or the whole thing will break?
If I am writing library, and I am even tempted to write some little IDE extension for it, it means I did something wrong with my library design.
Riecoin: A Cryptocurrency With a Scientific Proof of Work
That idea of value was nice, in the 19th century. While one can come up with a concept of value, that value is not the same for all actors: Value is not really cost of production, but utility. And we also have to consider marginal value: Water is extremely valuable, but we have so much, the marginal value of producing another glass of drinking water is pretty low.
Many things will never be sold for how much they cost to make, because their actual value, their utility, is far lower than the cost of production. And since values and costs of production change over time, it's not difficult to find items for sale for less than the cost of production.
Then we have stocks and bubbles. The price of a stock doesn't just reflect how much it's worth now, but how much it's expected to be worth in the future. This does cover speculation too: There is a utility in holding something if you expect to be able to resell it for more tomorrow. So I'd not say that what people call bubbles has that much to do with being far from fundamentals, but with information being propagated that shows that the current estimate of future value is very different from the current price. If a pharma company is on trials to cure a major kind of cancer, its stock will go up. If the trials are unsuccessful, it might go all the way to zero. But that doesn't mean that there was a bubble. This is especially true with stocks, where, if you really think a price is way too high, a hedge fund can make money shorting it.
So, when calling something a bubble, we have to have some very strong reasons to do so. You could claim that the Efficient Market Hypothesis doesn't hold, even at the weakest of levels, at which point you are very, very far from mainstream economics. You can instead claim that the problem is that the market is being manipulated, and that might be the case with Bitcoin, for instance. Maybe a company is committing major fraud, and most people don't know about it, but you do have insider knowledge. That'd not be much of a bubble, just plain decepcion. You could also claim that there are major amounts of risk baked into the price, so you can expect volatility. Many would argue that the financial crisis, for instance, was really all about the Fed just not making any sense, and not reacting to a sudden increase to the demand of money.
So when it comes to bitcoin, how do you explain the bubble? My favorite is a combination of price manipulation from actors that control way too much bitcoin for a market to be all that efficient, tied to a high amount of variance in possible outcomes. If through something strange, Bitcoin actually happened to become important, then its current price is very low compared to what it should be. If it is not, then the current price is way too high. So what we see is a market that is mostly known by people who are just spending a few dollars hoping to make millions, so for them, it's a lottery ticket. Buying a lottery ticket, hand having it lose, doesn't mean that there was an asset bubble with the tickets, does it? :)
WhatsApp: 2nd Biggest Tech Acquisition of All Time
It''s not just facebook: There's plenty of large companies out there flush with cash that are not investing the money on their own base operation, but buying other people's.
It always seemed silly to me, given how bad a track record there is on acquisitions. More often than not, it's not just that the merger produces no value through synergy, but value is actually destroyed, as the bought company quickly loss independence, then talent. All you get is a brand.
In the only places where I've seen good successes is when purchasing very small organizations, where all you are really doing is paying a few people very large amounts of money to come work for you, instead of being independent. But then, why not just bite the bullet and do whatever it takes to make the right kind of candidate to come work for you?
Your 60-Hour Work Week Is Not a Badge of Honor
Don't forget the major advantage in natural resources. America has historically been seen as an industrial powerhouse, but the US's can crush anyone in agriculture and resource extraction. And all that, with very low population density, so the resources per capita are insane.
Your 60-Hour Work Week Is Not a Badge of Honor
Many careers have been made by fighting fires caused by one's shoddy engineering. At a previous job, a top developer was hailed for his abilities to work 48 hours straight to fix problems. Those problems were on his code, which was very poorly written in the first place. He was the firefighter, but also the arsonist.
If emergencies are not very rare, time is better spent preventing said emergencies than just fighting them.
Good Engineering Managers Just "Don't Exist"
2 hours of meetings per day, minimum? I've worked at places where that's the bare minimum for programmers! 30 hours of meetings a week seems closer to the average.
Boom Or Bust: The Lowdown On Code Academies
So, those experienced programmers are knitting while they are waiting for fair compensation? No, they are coding somewhere else. And if you raise salaries, guess what? That company gets to hire people, while another has open positions. It's not really an issue of not paying enough, when you look at it on aggregate.
If you want to look for a problem, it's that hiring young devs out of school is a lottery. You'll find some amazing ones, which will quickly deserve great salaries, and many crappy ones that are not really providing a good ROI even at entry level salaries. I'm sure you've seen developers that hindered more than they helped, even without taking their salary into account. So why hire someone out of school, when you can just have positions open to people with enough years of experience you can make a better guess on whether they are any good? Not that experience guarantees skill, but it's far easier to judge a 5 year resume than a 0 year resume, especially in a small enough market that you are well aware of the typical skill levels at each competitor.
Getting Young Women Interested In Open Source
But that's not how programming works. At least, not programming that is even remotely effective. Most development out there isn't really about coming up with cool ways for a computer to do a complex task, but defining what the task should be in the first place. After the workflow is defined, the actual programming is rather mundane. In those environments, a good percentage of your time is talking to people: From gathering requirements to just tasking out a large pile of work into smaller, more manageable pieces.
If anything, the main trait that was shared by all the worst programmers I've seen in my career is that they were poor communicators. And yet, when it comes to actual work environments, most programmers I've known are male, while females drift towards other software jobs, like business analysts, DBAs, testers, tech support and such. A shame, really.
Eclipse Foundation Celebrates 10 Years
Depending on the kind of development you are on, maybe. There's plenty of people moving to shinier things though, mainly due to Java's excessive verbosity and lack of support of functional features. For insance, you see Fortune 500 companies placing ads for Scala developers. And people don't move to Scala because they have nostalgia for the C++ era's compile times. There's plenty of growth out there by other second tier languages who people choose to increase speed of development. And there's of course C#, which actually attempts to evolve at a decent rate.
So while Java is still a very used language in industry, you won't see any language getting any uptake today if they replicate Java's love for boilerplate.
We could also talk about the tools that are often used with Java that just promote the mindless verbosity. We all remember how terrible EJB 1.0 and 2.0 were. But then we got Spring and Hibernate, which are only slightly better than the disease. You can choose between monstruous XML formats with no real type checking, leading to a whole lot of runtime errors, or annotations that are slightly less verbose, and yet are just as prone to runtime errors. You end up needing such high test coverage to double check for those 'helpful' technologies that you might as well have been using a purely dynamic language in the first place: It's not as if the compiler protects you from careless mistakes in annotations or XML files. To offset this, we need an IDE and some complex configuration, raising the bar for building even the simplest application. No wonder people found Rails so refreshing when it first came out.
They don't always make it: Many do not make it at all. Survivor bias and all that.
Microsoft Relaxing Xbox One Kinect Requirements, Giving GPU Power a Boost?
There's plenty of weird, inventive games out there... They just happen to be mostly indie, so they are released for the PC Master Race.
Big developers are the ones sitting on their asses, and that has more to do with the fact that modern graphics are expensive as hell than anything else. Hard to sink 50-200 million on a game that you don't expect to have a very broad appeal
K-12 CS Education Funding: Taxes, H-1B Fees, Donations?
It's hard to look at European employment figures as an aggregate, because the economic situation in say, Germany and Spain has nothing to do with each other, and even though people could theoretically move from one country to the other and work, language and cultural barriers make it far harder for a Spaniard to work in Germany than for someone from Mississippi to move to Washington.
And no, southern Europe has no problem with tech workers: They have plenty of unemployed tech workers already. Their problem is that employment quality has all to do with your friends, and very little with your actual skill set. Anyone that is any good over there is doing their own thing in the app store, as corporate jobs just don't pay.
So if Europe has a tech problem is one of worker mobility.
Code Is Not Literature
Code should be easy to read, and it should be easy to find what you want. Therefore, while it might resemble a book, it will not look at all like literature.
The best code out there deals with extremely complex problems, and turns them into something so simple, anyone that approaches the problem by reading the code must think that the problem was trivial. So trivial that most simple enhancements pretty much write themselves. Only after maintaining a codebase like that for a while, or seeing the same developer do this over an over again, your typical reader realizes how much skill was put into making the extraordinary look ordinary. If anything, this is the opposite of literature.
How Can Nintendo Recover?
Apparently Nintendo has been opening up to indies quite a bit: For instance, the requirement for an actual commercial address is gone. However, you'd have to be mad to make the WiiU your main platform, if just because as an indie, you will not get enough exposure to warrant the gamble. That's why everyone and their mother tries to develop for PC: If you get on Steam, you will get plenty of visibility.
U.S. Teenagers Are Driving Much Less: 4 Theories About Why
8 for gas? even if you claim gas is 4 bucks a gallon (which it isn't in most of the US today), that's still 2 gallons of gas to go out. Say you drive a pretty inefficient car, 20 mpg. That gets you to a destination that is 20 miles away and back. Here in middle America, I count 16 multiplexes that are closer than that.
So, are you going to a movie theater that is 2 counties away or do you drive an H2?
How Reactive Programming Differs From Procedural Programming
Like every other question about software development, we should always start with The Mythical Man Month. In this case, the relevant chapter is There Is No Silver Bullet.
Now, the interesting thing about that chapter is that, while it was right, it was the least right of all the good predictions Brooks made. No technology is a silver bullet, but many produce noticeable improvements that, when put together, can give us an order of magnitude in productivity over older tech. It's not as if OO has been abandoned. Case tools were replaced by the far more sensible powerful IDE. GUI builders are not used a lot nowadays, but we get many of their gains by having dev environments with tighter feedback loops. And there's of course the mother of all improvements, which is the creation of large, powerful libraries. How many of the things that people did for business applications 15 years ago are, today, just replaced by libraries?
Not that this denies your final thesis though: Hire bright programmers with people skills, and do your best to keep them. No technology will allow bad developers to make a good application.