anarchotroll

6 ms·

1.
by anarchotroll 11y ago
Oops! The high density of comments criticizing capitalism made me misinterpret what you had said. My bad.
2.
by anarchotroll 11y ago
Do you believe we would be better off if we destroyed/prohibited all the technological innovations you mentioned in your comment? Stop for a moment and think about that. Then, read the article below: https://en.wikipedia.org
3.
by anarchotroll 11y ago
If the so called "evil wealthy people" control all the machines that produce goods and services, what would they use those goods and services for, since the rest of the world is miserably poor? Apparently not even Stephen Hawking
4.
by anarchotroll 13y ago
Copying with pentadactyl using Y shows exactly what has been copied on the status line at the bottom of the screen.
5.
by anarchotroll 13y ago
Lockheed had been working with D-Wave for a while. If they decided to actually buy one of their computers, this probably means that they liked what they were seeing.
6.
by anarchotroll 13y ago
Is there something that prevents you from starting your own company?
7.
by anarchotroll 13y ago
He says he dislikes a private system but, at the same time, indirectly acknowledges that what makes the system at his district work is the fact that it is partly private. It is partly private because people actually raise money voluntarily
8.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
*hate himself
9.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
I really don't understand what makes someone do something for 4 years that he or she clearly dislikes. He must hate his himself.
10.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
Humans will always figure out a way to combine the resources they have to generate additional value. It doesn't matter if these resources are wood, sand, oil, water, steel or software. In the example given above, the owner of the business b
11.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
Seems like the big confusion about the controller is that it is closer to a ViewModel (think MVVM) than to a Controller itself. Potatos, Potahtos.
12.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
The bottom line is: everything that cannot be scientifically proved acquires this sort of "religous" attributes. No wonder religions and politics are like that
13.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
What he wrote about Microsoft is completely unrelated to the rest of his post. It says nothing about the company's culture and software development processes. He could have saved himself the embarrassment of writing that.
14.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
The cons mentioned in the article above aren't Ruby cons per se, they are shared by all dynamic languages.
15.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
It kinda sucks that you still have to declare an interface in order to pass functions around.
16.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
Do you guys know a productivity application that monitors app usage and keystrokes?
17.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
C#, the language, is not windows centric. The framework released by microsoft might be, but the language itself is decoupled from windows.
18.
by anarchotroll 14y ago
I also feel like "Funcs" are a work around. What I like the most about C# is the fact that it keeps evolving and incorporating new paradigms (closures, lambdas, LINQ, etc)
19.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
You shouldn't be proud of having 1 gazillion tests if all you do is rewrite/fix regressions on them.
20.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
Bottom line is: test code is code and you have to maintain it. If you write code that does not give you anything in return, or gives you more headaches than anything else, you wasted your time when you wrote it. When you are writing any cod
21.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
And how often did you have to rewrite those tests because you were drastically changing the architecture of your code? Do you think the effort of maintaining all those tests might not have paid off? This question is very tricky to answer.
22.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
Exactly. The computer will just repeat what you tell it to do. There is the chance that you will tell it wrong (a bug in your test code), and the chance that what you told it is not true anymore. An automated test basically saves you the wo
23.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
You can never actually guarantee anything even if you have tests. The tests will only increase the likelihood of catching regressions.
24.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
How many of those 17% are illegal immigrants? Do you have that data?
25.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
In other words: you have no _freedom_ to pick insurance yourself. The current system gives benefits to employers and not to individuals. I sincerely don't understand why people call it "free market".
26.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
I am sorry but the logic above could be applied to anything. "Part of the notion that suggests people should be forced into sharing those risks is that nobody can rationally rule out future unbounded <whatever> expenses; you can't
27.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
It just doesn't make any sense for a health insurer to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Insurance is all about risk; if you have a pre-existing conditions, there isn't a risk involved anymore, since you already know you have a pro
28.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
If you can opt out of public helthcare, then it is fine. But if you can opt out, I wouldn't call it "public" anymore. If you can't opt out, then choosing private basically means paying for both.
29.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
That's cause most of the people are insured and there is no pressure for lowering rates for the uninsured.
30.
by anarchotroll 15y ago
Individuals can opt into an insurance plan. That's sharing risk. What "society" (government) can do is force everyone to share THE SAME risks single-payer insurance == monopoly

More ›