goodrubyist

it's basically the American mindset vs the European one (or anyone not in the US?).

He's very likely being defensive.

I approve every command myself, and no, it's still much faster than doing it myself.

But I like the general fallacy behind this that people fall for all the time: taking the past value of a variable as a complete predictor of its future value (applies to other stuff like investment returns e.g.)

yes, it's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

If you're using a heuristic, it can be fine, but only if you also know that it's only a heuristic, instead of thinking that it's truth and lambasting anyone who suggests otherwise.

They really don't have any money.

Yes, and he is not a president.

*typo, I meant SSRN.

That's not the argument for textualism. You can read law review articles and papers on SSRI to find more.

You should really look into how judges interpret laws (rules, basically). There are two schools I know of: purposivism and textualism (I agree with the latter and it doesn't take into account intentions. That's the basis of how the recent case Van Buren v US was decided, I would recommend reading it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf). But in both, you have things like canons of interpretation and background principles and so on. It's always awesome to see how people who have to deal with the problem have thought about it, because they have usually invested a lot of time into it and come up with insights. See also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

so many butts!

Were those startups that went out of business did so because of their stacks/architecture, or are you confusing correlation with causation? And, there is a good reason people shy away from PHP, and it has nothing to do with trying to be "flashy." There should be a name for this kind of fallacy.

Do you have any evidence that "Most people who word things that way don't use the term "males" in a similar way". I think it's highly likely that you do not have enough (anecdotal) data to legitimately make a claim like that. At most you could make such a claim about "most people in my experience" but then, you wouldn't have monitored them for quite long either, just for an internet convo or so.

Trying to influence the racial make-up of a class is, let's admit it, loathsome racial engineering.

That's not how it works at least in the US, but I don't know about Germany. SCOTUS claims that the judicial system is not for reviewing all the acts passed for constitutionality, but (as per Article III) only addressing specific harms brought up by individuals (the requirement for standing). This is from a 1992 precedent:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent 2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court 3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

Talking in advance about what law is constitutional would be perverse under such system (I love the standing doctrine, btw and so does the Chief Justice).

It’s AngularJS being killed, not Angular, which is the framework that’s current.

I, for one, love the people who would be proudly installing this because they have "nothing to hide" while chiding those who are (appropriately) concerned.

Yes it has been around, but it's quite jarring to see anyone actually use it.

I also think it's broken in the way you describe, but also find it amazing that it can remain broken for so long given the costs associated with it.

But, how are you qualified to make that determination (as in whether a person is decent enough to work with)? Isn't it likely that you either get a skewed impression of this from an interview or that you are biased yourself? The person you reject for lacking decency could be your interviewer in another situation, and reject you for the same reason.

* not trying to imply that there is no objective way to define/measure decency

Exactly, this heuristic doesn't work all (or even most?) of the times. A more accurate approach is to rely on the terms you agree to when you buy/use software (if you don't want to read them, then you can depend on faulty shortcuts instead).

It's a news piece, not an editorial.

I can't believe how many took a margin call as some nefarious conspiracy. Kyle Kulinski, just as an example, said that Robinhood was given a billion dollars by hedge funds to disallow transactions of GameStop. https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1355573696119889921

It's quite unfortunate that so few lawmakers take lead on opposing mass surveillance (Ron Wyden and Ran Paul come to mind). This issue is without doubt way more important than most issues politicians choose to demagogue about ("cancel college debt", e.g. Sigh).

I stumbled upon this while going through the orders yesterday. Note that, Justice Thomas is talking in terms of how the law has been interpreted wrongly by providing concrete examples (his statement is definitely worth a read). The issue basically arises from previous judges trying to enact and enforce what they believe Congress' subjective intentions to be, not the text of the law they passed.

Unlike what many might fear, this is not a case of a Justice trying to enforce what he wishes the law were.

Okay, so let's say some people can't afford to buy digital goods. How does that, by itself, explain a general belief that the few who do that are stupid because they "don't realize" that they are available for "free"?

Now, you or I might say that they aren't really available for free (they're stolen/pirated), but any thoughts of that kind just don't appear in many people (amoral, not immoral).

I can attest to this. In fact, in India, it's considered very stupid and laughable by a very large number of people to buy digital books and music, because they are available for "free" on pirate websites. Read that again: I'm not just saying that people pirate stuff, instead, I'm saying they consider it unimaginable and stupid to spend money because it's available for "free." Ethics never enter the picture, I promise you.

Also, it's considered acceptable and clever to order clothes, use them at an event, and return as "defective." Quaint concepts like morality are not even considered relevant.

Yeah, I found to read that part dispiriting too. The fact that practicing on leetcode has such a substantial effect on one's chances, to me, shows that it's very likely that either employers don't know how to select candidates, or maybe, they're just trying to track the best proxy they know for job performance.

I, personally, think that the ability to write "clean code", to think and care deeply about decisions related to code when it spans multiple fiels, is way more valuable in many jobs (not all!). Yet, unsurprisingly, I see that very few give any serious thought to it, given what companies care about is leetcode.

You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? And, thank God for 1A, given the enormous amount of interest people have in limiting speech.