Your comment's not backed up by evidence. I can think of more right-wing (Koch, et al) and left-wing billionaires (Soros, et al) with much more influence than...who exactly?
Also worth noting that libertarian != objectivist. There's many who espouse only one of those. Religious gun-focused libertarians for example.
And nutty propaganda is just mud slinging. How Diogenian of you!
What seems the most likely is that, effectively, memory is like very lossy, probabilistic compression spread with redundancy across a billion analog storage nodes, similar in some ways to a Bloom filter. It’s not binary though, it’s analog. After all, there’s no value in perfectly “unlearning” or destroying a specific memory, just “free” it up by gradual deemphasis of its parts and perhaps it may effectively go away.
Also, the interplay between short-term and long-term memory formation in order to make some approximation of the short-term memory (also an approximation) somewhat permanent.
Granted, recall is imperfect and different every each time.
Yup. Think of C as a rusty straight razor and Fortran as a barn full of rusty implements about ready to fall at any time. C++ maybe a rusty safety razor.
Originally, Fortran had manual memory management, as per the times. Thankfully, the language progressed.
Overall, the evolution of languages from assembly/raw instructional to procedural ones needed early languages like Fortran on which other higher-level languages, tools and OSes could be later built/bootstrapped.
I knocked out a bunch of lower division CS classes at a JC (taking 5 at a time). I think I went to the first class and a few before midterms and finals. Just got the labs and handed them in the next day.
Hurray for attendance-optional JCs! :D
Most of it transferred to an UC and then the fun began:
- caching http/1.0 forking select() proxy server as the third project in a networking class, circa 2002
- Java subset to MIPS assembly compiler
- Reimplement most of the OpenGL pipeline in C++, quaternions and write a trapezoid (scanline to scanline) engine (on which a triangle engine could be built). Oh and then model the interior of the building.
- Pipelined, microcoded, simple branch-predicting processor. Bonus points for smallest microcode and fewest microcycles. (I Huffman mapped the histogram of the sample assembly programs’ executed instructions to the user-defined binary macro ISA (students had to write the assembler too), and then used progressive decoding in the microcode (43 micro ops long microprogram IIRC). Blew the doors off the extra credit in that class.)
In the late 90’s, I helped port a nuclear reactor simulator to Win32. It was around 20 million lines of Fortran and was actively developed by physicists and engineers (none were really software engineers). And, at that time the codebase was around 40 years old. Apart from disabling virtual memory, it worked on winDOwS nearly flawlessly on an COTS PC and ran about 50% faster than the fastest *nix test lab box.
It’s done mostly for historical tradition reasons, and it costs nontrivial time and money to switch.
Don’t get lost barking up the partisan tree, most Americans aren’t the enemy. Both parties are different flavors of corrupt (Gore Vidal’s Property party): one ignores their base while taking corporate money and the other panders to extremists and also takes the same blood money.
It's a sliding scale, but it's not close to balanced right now. Saying things along the line of 'different sides of the same coin' does not make sense.
Well, mirtazapine isn't scheduled in the US so you can probably get some precursors with relative ease. You can find the synthesis info online [1] and at least some of the chemicals used in the synthesis are available online [2], though for the price it seems like it might be more economically feasible to just buy a pill from a pharma company.
People often conflate nebulous “evil” with more specific rational self-interest, good investments and cheating/underpaying/stealing from people.
There are a lot of middling rich people whom do underpay people because it works and don’t care about long-term views of themselves or of the relationship... this can sabotage greater opportunities later on or current income streams now (it’s a small world and a hyperconnected one). There are many whom don’t because it also reflects poorly on them and their associates, and it turns off their friends, potential customers, investors and partners... also some people have integrity and wouldn’t dream of it.
In fact, the more connected someone is, the less likely they are to screw people over because it’s a bigger risk. The big headlines of harassment or scams are the exceptions. Certainly, there are instutions like many banks whom obscure their wealth extraction from less rich and transfer it to their investor/owners. They are culpable but may not believe or realize they are.
Wealth is a spectrum, as are integrity and personality. How is squishy “science” going to “measure” take those nuances or mentally-compartmentalized/hidden wealth transfer into account?
> Wealth is a spectrum, as are integrity and personality. How is squishy “science” going to “measure” take those nuances or mentally-compartmentalized/hidden wealth transfer into account?
By measuring on a spectrum of wealth and integrity, and choosing a sample size so as to to ameliorate personality to p < .05. They have graphs of socioeconomic class vs. unethical behavior. A few studies also included priming the subjects to think in "greed is good" ways and measure the impact.
Spectrum isn’t an axis. There is much grey in the world statistics can’t capture. Looking for data to fit a narrative is political science, not science.
Lets say you work hard and with some savings you go ahead and buy an iPhone, that iPhone is produced by workers in the third world who make much less than you and costs much more than they will make in a month.
Now lets say we add a few zeros to your income to move you from the top 1% globally to the top .1%. Jobs that pay this kind of money are difficult, so you work really hard as well. Instead of an iPhone made in the third world you buy a yacht or sports car made in the first. The first world workers make much less than you do, but have a pretty good standard of living globally speaking (but not compared to you).
What is fundamentally different about those two cases? Can it really be said with a straight face that one is greedier than the other? In fact, it seems the "wealthy" person actually created better outcomes for the people creating his luxury product as compared to the first example.
This is a glass house sort of situation when you really consider it.
