This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

What got you into coding ? (aside from money)

To give some context, I’m a developer myself and once I had a conversation with someone who has not “tasted” programming, but was wondering about passion and career. I was asked what I like about programming. My answer was that my interest in it came from writing small scripts when I was young to automate things....

jasory,

Reading Goldwasser’s paper on elliptic curves, got me into math and then automating math calculations.

jasory,

Case law established that police do not have a responsibility to act, (because nobody has a responsibility to act and making an exception would cause problems). This does not mean that there isn’t an expectation to act, or that being armed would make individuals more willing to act.

jasory,

Except that wasn’t the commenters actual argument. It was merely a premise, upon which they argued that LE should be unarmed. I accepted (and clarified) the premise, but pointed out that premise is not actually sufficient.

“It will also be used to subjugate the citizen”

All power can be used for immoral purposes, even citizen militias (like naively extolled by anarkiddies) are perfectly capable of abuse.

The problem therefore is to minimise abuses and the solution is to implement immediate repercussions for immoral actions. Not disarm the police. That does nothing but mean that as long as you have enough bullets, you can run your own unaccountable government.

jasory,

They are not legally required to, they however are expected to.

Just like you are not legally required to do your job (with rare exceptions), but you are still expected to and would certainly like the equipment to do it safely.

“It seems as though”

Things are not always what the seem prima facie, perhaps you should be studying more English.

jasory,

You realise this has already happened? Plainclothes officers attempted to arrest someone without identifying themselves, one was shot and it was ruled as self-defence.

Police get killed all the time, and nothing happens. I’m not exactly sure why you think this specific situation, that has already happened, will suddenly change things.

jasory,

Already pointed out by myself in this thread. I sure hope you aren’t relying on the literacy skills you’ve demonstrated here when treating your patients.

jasory,

Poor hygiene, teeth grinding, and accidents (from being neurotic on meth and falling, running into things).

jasory,

“Third guy has a sensible idea”

Not really, if you don’t charge for services at some point it’s simply going to be exploited. This why even government services that don’t turn a profit aren’t free.

jasory,

Obviously it has to be paid for somehow. My comment was clearly referring to the fact that charging the user reduces frivolous usage. There can be an argument for providing a set small amount of services for free (at point of use) and then charging for everything above, but that’s not what was proposed.

jasory,

“Where all the jobs are?”

Jobs are not going away, this myth needs to die. It will simply shift to whatever people are willing to pay for, just like it has done for the last 100 years.

Just like how forklifts didn’t replace human labor, AI will not replace mental labor. It’s simply impossible, with the scope of the problems we have any additional mental computation is advantageous no matter how minor it may be to an AI.

jasory,

“Real myopic”

Says the person who is ignoring a characterisation of long-term trends and fixating on short term affects.

“Who’s going to pay to move these people who get displaced out of there jobs”

Nobody, because they don’t need to. This is simply leftist conspiracism, people simply aren’t suffering from mass unemployment, the median wages have steadily gone up (especially considering PPP per capital).

Just because you get displaced from your industry, doesn’t mean that jobs don’t exist or that you can’t make just as much (or more elsewhere), all doing relatively unskilled work (I.e minimal or zero training).

“Gig economy jobs”

Proof that you literally have no idea what you are talking about. Gig economy jobs exploded during a competitive labour market people choose to work them primarily for work flexibility (often as additional spending money). They had tons of stable job opportunities and they still do.

Complaining about the “gig economy”, is inanely out-of-touch, but because one or two idiot journalists whined about it as being some sort of dystopia, everyone jumped on it as some sort of valid critique.

jasory,

“I love how you skipped right past”

Second paragraph addressed that this simply isn’t an actual issue.

“Go write an op-ed on all the great profits to be made”

Seems a little an unusual that someone who thinks profits are somewhat immoral (unless redirected towards beneficial goals), is characterised as hyper-capitalist or “management type” simply for pointing out that the narrative of people becoming impoverished due to an increasingly exploitative labor market simply isn’t true.

jasory,

“Instead of positioning themselves as research leaders”

Why would they? If researching new ways of replacing oil is in everyone’s benefit then why does it fall on oil companies to do it? And not also everyone else?

jasory,

If this was truly what Carter envisioned, then he was an unbelievable moron. “Sunsats”, are not practical or environmentally efficient. The mere fact that you have to place and maintain them via spacelaunch is a huge penalty, then you have to account for radiation loss to the atmosphere.

jasory,

We can imagine as much as we like. The technology and manufacturing processes simply didn’t exist back then.

jasory,

If the building was in fact “boarded up”, then it might be hard to argue that it was someone’s home. At least in bankruptcy law inhabited places do have special protections against seizure.

jasory,

It’s okay. The thing is when running an attack are you going to permutate through every combination of characters, or are you going to use words from a dictionary first? correcthorsebatterystaple (not a dictionary word) is better than antidisestablishmentarianism (a dictionary word) but in a realistic attack concatenating dictionary words is going to be the next step.

jasory,

Probably not. The majority of users are just there for entertainment and commentary, they aren’t the same niche that occupies Lemmy communities.

jasory,

So what’s stopping two Kevorkian’s from just signing off on everything?

You can pretend that safeguards will prevent undesirable deaths (like say patient manipulation, or informed consent which Canada has stopped pretending to care about), but the permissibility alone makes it inevitable.

jasory,

It’s unfortunate that people want to die and they physically can’t kill themselves at that moment, but there is no moral obligation to grant desires that people can’t fulfill themselves. (There is also the autonomy objection, even if the patient has perfect decision making, killing them now derives then if any future decision making).

We do have an obligation to prevent unreasonable deaths, especially if we are the one’s actively killing them as is the case with MAID.

Therefore a system that potentially (or rather inevitably) causes moral bad without any moral good, is not a morally good system and has no benefit to existing.

The reality is that unreasonable deaths will happen, and expanding it (and lowering the thresholds) will increase the percentage of assisted suicides that don’t meet some metric of moral permissibility.

There is also the societal harm objection, if illnesses/conditions are treated by euthanasia, and euthanasia becomes a popular way of death (like it is increasingly so in Canada) the incentive to improve treatment of those conditions is weaker. It does not result in a improving society in the long run if euthanasia is an acceptable option to certain conditions (note, this refers to more than just medical health but also living or social conditions).

jasory,

Is it really a quasar when you use no actual physics calculations?

jasory,

Well it was a disappointing post. This is the sort of thing you keep as a novelty program that you run once a year.

I did seriously expect some modeling that wasn’t just rotating points.

jasory,

Federal employees are immediately terminated if they strike, so the unions are basically just workplace clubs.

Government agencies simply pay more and have good benefits because they don’t want to deal with turnover.

jasory,

No, because there is way more to life than just emergency medical leave.

For most people they’re not going to be using that leave, they’d much rather have the money instead of it being taxed from them. Additionally it is much easier to get a job in the US and it generally pays better.

I don’t know what country you live in, but ones that have extensive labor protections often have very high youth unemployment (people with little experience can’t get hired), because businesses are unwilling to take risks on potentially bad employees if they can’t terminate them or have to pay out a lot of money to do so.

It’s popular to demonise America, but there are also a lot of problems the US doesn’t have.

jasory,

This criticism is dumb.

Carrying over sick days is fine because the employer already alloted pay for that. Sick days are no different than vacation days from a fiscal perspective, the only difference is you don’t need to schedule them and/or there may be specific laws about them.

You then claim “accruing sick days will make people want to use them”-

  1. No. In fact the converse is true, sick days that don’t carry over pressures employees to take them. Because you are basically losing a vacation day, you would be an idiot to not use all 5 days each year. (In case you are confused, no you don’t actually have to be sick to use sick days, many companies have a “don’t ask” policy.)
  2. This doesn’t really matter since in the US virtually every employer will cash out the sick time at the end of employment so it costs the same anyway, because as already mentioned the money has already been allocated.
jasory,

You have it backwards, are you under the impression that you are allocated X amount of days until retirement?

Sick days are accrued each year, if you can carry them over then every sick day you didn’t use gets added to your current year.

“Dave” could have saved up sick days, from the past years to get more full-time pay. However the fact that he didn’t, does not mean that he gets less sick time accrued this year.

jasory,

“More like 70 percent as to not reduce lifespan”

Lifespan doesn’t matter, it’s total output from the input. Machines generally are run at 100 percent (whatever that is), because it is the most efficient.

jasory,

You literally claimed yourself that 5 days a year is plenty for yourself (via stating that you don’t use that many days). So this supposed acknowledgement “that this isn’t enough”, doesn’t appear to be true. You apparently think that it is enough and would even be able to save up days just from your normal behaviour.

“I understand the reason to minimize the liability for the employers”- the liability? Do you mean the expenses of paying for indefinite leave? Where does liability come anywhere into this? Do you know what that word means?

You seem to be arguing for indefinite sick time (which is actually paid by taxpayers because businesses can’t pay people who produce nothing), but doing it by attacking a more beneficial system for employees (apparently because you have no idea what you are talking about).

jasory,

Literally proving my point, Denmark had all these problems and then they privatised it, and created incentives for employment.

“Don’t have to worry about homelessness”

Neither do Americans. The vast majority of Americans will never be homeless, the vast majority of people who complain about it are rich kids on social media trying to get sympathy.

“There’s also way more to life than work”- The biggest factor in quality of life (in a wealthy country) is your job ( or less commonly your parents money). Also if you make more (and pay less in taxes), all those benefits can be provided from your savings. And your savings account is far more flexible than earmarked money from the government.

There is a reason why people want to work and live in America and not … Denmark. The ease to make money and the flexibility to spend it to maximise your quality of life is far greater than most countries.

jasory, (edited )

“I think you are missing the point”

Nope, you specifically complained about having more flexible days by allowing people to carry over sick time. Now presumably you think that it’s better to have unlimited sick time, but at no point have you ever actually said that. All you have done is whine about carrying over sick time.

“A fixed quantity of sick days will ensure that people show up sick for work when they run out”

Of course sick time is necessarily equal to or less than total employment time (eventually you will have to work at some point, so clearly any set number of sick time can theoretically be insufficient). Now having 40 hrs of sick time each year is by your own admission plenty for you and plenty for most people. If companies were actually losing appreciable amounts of money on their sick time policy (like you claim ) they would change it. It’s easy to see that “Flu costs 12 billion $/pa” and forget that the US economy is larger by a factor of 1000 ( so less than .1 percent economic loss), as well as workplace transmission only comprising a fraction of that.

“And it doesn’t stop sickness”

Of course it doesn’t. Much of sick time isn’t used for communicable health issues and people tend to contract communicable diseases elsewhere anyway.

“Call it paid time off or holiday”

You literally have no idea what this discussion is about. You whined about carrying over sick days and how it “doesn’t make sense” (because you’re an idiot), and I pointed out that fiscally sick time is identical to vacation time, so if it’s okay to carry over vacation time then why is it not permissible for sick time?

“Don’t pretend that this is a better system”

A better system than what? Fixed amount of sick time each year? Because that’s the point of comparison. I can’t compare it to whatever you are advocating for because you flat out refuse to say it. (Again I strongly suspect you want indefinite sick time, but despite having multiple opportunities to elaborate you have failed to do so).

“By having a fixed account … {bunch of irrelevant nonsense}”

You realise the distinction you need to make is not in fixed days, compared to zero days. But fixed days compared to carried over days. If you are going to try to make a fiscal argument (again) actually try to understand what you are talking about.

Edit: You did misuse “liability”, or are at least fiscally inept. You claimed that carrying over sick time was somehow reducing liability, so either you have no idea what that word means or you don’t know how basic finance works. (It actually increases financial costs because you often have to pay out sick time at a higher rate if the employee pay increases.)

jasory,

Nope, not “not able to”. They just want there nice cars and homes. You can easily save money in the US, it’s all just rich kids who want to live the same lifestyle there parents raised them in after they (the parents) worked for 20 years.

I personally know many homeless people and have been homeless myself. We are in the far minority, even most poor communities aren’t in danger of being homeless. Homeless people tend to be drug addicts or violent people that others don’t want to help (for obvious reasons).

jasory,

Well you keep making all these claims about how America is a hell scape, when it’s actually a more desirable country than the one you are promoting.

jasory,

At some points it was “superior”. Elements was used as a textbook throughout Europe and the Arab world, because it was one of the first and few books with rigorous proofs. If course it was probably compromised of previous works, but there was really nothing else like it.

jasory,

So you are accelerating?

jasory,

“Cops often plant evidence to get convictions”- Police don’t prosecute, get your conspiracy theories straight.

“This was a targeted killing”

It almost certainly was, the victim was involved in drugs and probably knew violent people and kept in touch with them.

The real case is far more likely to be “reformed drug addict killed by former acquaintance”, than “journalist killed for reporting issues”.

jasory,

Is it because they interviewed the aunts and uncles as their primary source?

jasory,

“A targeted shooting a deliberate murder… that does tend to be more rare”

Accidental fatal shootings are well known to exceed intentional ones.

It’s rare to get an article on individual targeted killings, but they do in fact comprise the majority of killings. So no, this is not a rare form of killing at all, it’s simply being reported because it’s another journalist.

jasory,

Well, homeless may refer to people who don’t legally possess shelter, while unsheltered or unhoused refers to people who don’t reside in any shelter. I think it is a useful distinction because you do encounter people who consider couch-surfing to be homelessness, even though the physical circumstances are quite different from living on the street.

jasory,

They randomly accused people they have no evidence of for commiting a crime. So yeah, they are being a bigot.

jasory,

Theocratic Christians are such a minority that the risk of this is nil. This is like conservatives fear-mongering about the US going Stalinist.

The US has never had a biblical law system and never will. (Certainly not in the near future, although with infinite time anything is possible).

jasory,

Again, no. Cops can detain and investigate without making a formal arrest or bringing someone to jail. If it is questionable circumstances, then they will simply take statements and go for an arrest later.

There actually is a circumstance where police are incentivised to plant evidence, and that’s if you have a problematic individual (someone who gets the police called on them regularly), and planting evidence of a more serious crime would remove them from the street.

jasory,

“so it does seem like the power to do this is electoral branch power and not in the legislative branch”

Quite poor evidence for your conclusion. FDR tried to pass legislation to expand the SCOTUS, and was interpreted as trying to manipulate the court by his own party, which is why it was blocked.

Court expansion has always been done by Congress, it’s interpreted as an extension of it’s power to create courts.

jasory,

“It’s also a bad thing”

You realise you can change laws? Congress does it regularly. The Constitution primarily restricts the type of laws that can be passed. Congress has huge leeway otherwise.

jasory,

This patently false, compared to the world as a whole the US is quite liberal. Only in certain aspects, compared to certain European countries is the US “right-wing”. US for instance has way more liberal freedom of speech and religion than most countries. How many European countries have a state religion?

jasory,

“Assume ultimate legislating ability”- Unless you are whining about Marbury v Madison, what on earth are you talking about? SCOTUS doesn’t write laws, they rule on the permissibility of (a small fraction) of them.

“Impractical supermajorities”

Did you just discover what checks and balances are? One should want supermajorities because you don’t want laws based on shaky public support. Do we really think the cycle of each president overturning the previous presidents policy is practical?

jasory,

CamelCase directories and snake_case files.

jasory,

Again, no. As long as you can replenish water and electrolytes, you’re not going to die. It doesn’t take a few hours to kill someone by heat. If you are actually unable to regulate your body temperature, your core temperature will increase much faster than “taking a whole day”. It’s the loss of water and electrolytes that inihibits your metabolism and cooling that makes you die, not the heat taking several hours to permeate through your skin. (Human metabolism generates a lot of heat, so this idea is even more absurd if you think about it).

Read a physiology textbook, or even basic evolutionary biology if a human couldn’t survive 40C with humidity, humans would be extinct.

jasory,

Literally so ignorant. Sweating is not the only way to lose heat. How much heat does the body generate?

The fact that people may die from a certain temperature, does not mean they will die which is what every person here is claiming. Again read a physiology textbook, humans aren’t that fragile.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines