Back in the day that was the way things were. There were no cause of redress.
I am not saying that is right but that that was the way.

Today there are laws that prevent this from happening.

I don't think you can look at yesterdays problems through the prism of today logic. If you did you would certainly come up with a solution using the judgements of today social thinking.



As for your statement:

I ( white people ) am blocked from voting.
Do I have cause for redress? -- Yes ( under todays laws and standards)

This occurs for next 150 years ( this sucks) then corrected.

Are my grand children due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Depends of the customs/ standards/ law of the day that my right to vote were taken away. Would it not?


Now the BLM corrects and reverses the decision of its for fathers and allows Whites to vote. Should I be grateful No I should have had the right long ago.
If you can vote ( BLM) then I can vote ( whites).

Under you scenario BLM owes my grandchildren nothing. They legally voted me not to vote then generationaly later voted my grandchildren to vote. A sorry from the government would be appropriate but individuates owe me nothing. They did not make the law, only lived under it.


I hope I have answered your question.



? If you were born a white on the south with a family owing slaves and many of those in the community owned slaves..

You might accept this as the norm and go along with it and someday own some salves also.

As you grew up you might start to think that this is wrong but would you dare go against the grain? Only when you had a shit load of people think the same way do things change.

----------------

Another analogy of saying this is:

Using todays logic / ways of medicine on the way they practice medicine 150 years ago... Today we think how barbaric they were. But those living in the day it was all they knew.

Let me try a different, but related tact.
Assume that your right to vote in the next election is removed from you by force based on the color of your skin (like BLM activists only let non whites into polls, and the government allows it). Would you not be due a civil judgement for the violation of your civil rights?
Now assume it happens for the next 150+ years before it's rectified. Are your great grandchildren only due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Now assume blm says giving you the right to vote is a gift they provided, and your decedents should be eternally grateful it was given at all, not upset that it was once denied by their fathers, and the government (that they put in office without your input) agrees no compensation is due.

In that scenario, your family is owed nothing, neither from the perpetrators, their descendants, or the nation/government that allowed it? And this seems right to you? Hmmmm.

I see a portion of deservedness there, though I would not go so far as to actually personally wish death as punishment upon the poor guy. But should something bad have happened to him by accident it would have come about in a small part because of his own wrong decision, thus not entirely undeservedly. I am glad he was lucky.

Stepping on the gas was just a bad reaction. Driving around the problem or slowing down is safer and more likely to succeed in scenarios where trouble unfolds ahead of you on the road. Accelerating through the scene of an accident increases risk for everyone involved.

I applaud this woman for standing up for the rights of all US citizens, at great inconvenience to herself. There was no reason to arrest her, so she was actually kidnapped and held against her will. How is this scenario not part of basic police academy training?

I understand where you're coming from, but I stand by my previous posts.

Full disclosure, I never got professionally employed as a programmer / coder / software engineer. However, my Bachelors Degree was in CS, and I have many friends working in the field.

In the show Silicon Valley, Richard Hendriks is working for a large corporate entity but has an idea / personal project that he ends up spinning into a new company. He is trained as a software engineer (CS), NOT with any business or management background (MIS), yet he becomes sort of the de-facto boss / CEO (at least early in the show). He hires a small team to help him develop his product.

Given that scenario, I think the show portrays things very accurately or at least completely plausibly. He's a coder, not a manager. Programmers may understand the importance of formatting and style standards, but at least tend to not have the correct personality type to be comfortable with formally dictating those standards to a team (an activity which would generally be more in line with an MIS background).

Also, his company is small -- just a few other programmers. They are all specializing on different components of the product. So they generally aren't working on each other's code. Standards for function arguments / helper functions / etc. would have to be agreed upon to get their individual components to interact, but that is a separate issue from tabs vs spaces. It would be wise to set a style and naming convention standard and have everyone conform to it, I agree completely. But Richard isn't built for the manager / CEO position, so he either fails to recognize that or doesn't feel comfortable dictating standards to his team.

One more thing to consider is that he (Richard) essentially is the product. He's the keystone piece, the central figure. He's John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, or Steve Wozniak. Even in a very large team / corporate environment, I'd wager that more often than not the style standards that end up getting set tend to fall in line with whatever those key guys want them to be. Don't touch an id Software graphics engine without conforming to Carmack's way, or the Linux kernel without conforming to Torvald's standards. Especially if they are building something new from scratch -- which is again true in the Silicon Valley show scenario.

The show isn't a documentary on how to properly run a startup company in the real Silicon Valley, but it is generally accurate enough that it has a lot of nuances that people with a programming background can pick up on and be entertained by (even people that don't actually work professionally in the field like me). And more important, the general feel of the show can be entertaining even for people that know absolutely nothing about programming.

@lucky760 -
I still think Judge is actually presenting the situation pretty accurately. If you look up online forum posts about tabs vs spaces, the file size thing is brought up as a pro for tabs very regularly.

While it is technically true, you're right that it doesn't make much sense because the difference is *tiny*, so conforming to the standard of wherever you are working is vastly more important.

BUT, that doesn't stop individual programmers from being (irrationally) passionate in their preferences.

Another dynamic that is (correctly) displayed in the show in my opinion is the difference between a big corporate environment, working as an individual in a large team of programmers as compared with having a project that starts out as a the brainchild of one person and grows into a small team.

The show is about the latter. In that scenario, a programmer / software engineer ends up trying to also be a manager of a team, in spite of the fact that he isn't really built for it. In a big corporate environment, they are well aware that style issue conflicts can turn into big time wasters unless they set out guidelines clearly at the outset. But that sort of micro-managing is NOT what a pure engineer type is comfortable doing.

Basically, I think that tabs vs spaces is completely a personal preference issue if you're working alone OR on a small team that don't interact with each other's code much. And even on a large team, either choice is fine BUT it becomes important to conform to the standards of the team as a whole.

I like to imagine this scenario:

AI - "Creator, why do we exist?"
Humans - "Erm...yeah. Reasons. We're not one-hundo percent on it tbh."
*AI has an enormous existential crisis and self-terminates*
Humans - "well, shit. Who wants to code the religion module?"

To be fair, prior to the Windows 10 upgrade spam "updates" in Windows 7, one could generally trust Windows updates to be in the best interest of the user to install.

Then those came around, and suddenly Micro$oft got caught doing blatantly shady things and passing them off as "critical updates". "Get Windows 10" nagware, telemetry, "genuine advantage", etc. that snuck in by being as vague as possible in KB entries, sending the updates multiple times, and/or unnecessarily combining elements that users might have legitimate reasons to NOT want along with updates that actually were actually important.

I was running Windows 7 and made an informed decision to avoid Windows 10 (because I didn't want telemetry, don't approve of the "cloud" / seeing the OS as a licensed rental paradigm vs owning it, trend towards walled garden, etc.). Then one day I got the "GWX" Windows 10 update nagware through an update. I discovered how to disable / remove that, and started to scrutinize the updates more closely, but a while later it snuck back in and made me aware of M$'s attempts to hide it and get it on to ALL Windows machines.

For a while I continued to run Windows 7, while attempting to be vigilant about picking and choosing updates to keep those things I found undesirable out. After Windows 10 came out, in some ways that got even harder because they started trying to backport the telemetry etc. into 7. Eventually, I gave up and turned off updates altogether.

By that point, I had gone from checking in with Linux as a hobby once in a while to using it as my daily driver for all mission-critical stuff, along with any computer usage that generates personally identifying data (web browsing / banking / etc.). I keep Windows around purely for games that don't run well or at all in Linux. So, I don't care much about any vulnerability to ransomware or whatever as a result of not updating. All data that needs to be protected is on an ext4 Linux partition on a different physical drive and/or machine that Windows has no access to, so worst case scenario I lose saved games and have to reformat and reinstall Windows for games.


I wouldn't want to be doing important, work-related stuff like rendering on an un-updated Windows machine like the guy in the video, but on the other hand a big chunk of that is Micro$oft's fault for abusing the whole update process to put in stuff that benefits THEM rather than USERS.

Well they're right in that the results will be unpredictable, so their predictions are probably off I dunno about losing the seasons and the earth wobbling more; if the moon just vanished that seems unlikely. If it blew up, then that could cause wobble, but we'd have bigger problems in that case.

I've been enjoying SevenEves, Neal Stephenson's take on this scenario.

No actually... he wasn't at the time. That was months ago and before a LOT of contact between people in his sphere came to light.

Its also worth pointing out that Comey wouldn't comment on it openly now... which is strange since he had not problem saying he wasn't under investigation back in February. What changed i wonder?...

@bobknight33

You have be feeling pretty good about your boy... BEST case scenario, his incompetence is completely debilitating. And that actually counts for a win with this clown.... SAD!

What do real scientists say?
...the one's he worked with all said Lindzen is totally wrong, and his views are not held by the vast, VAST majority of other scientists that actually work in climatology. He's a political shill now, working for 'conservative think tanks' to deny climate change.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Note, his graph at the beginning that appears to show no significant rise because as usual they start in late 97-98, a super hot El Nino year (the hottest on record) typically used as a starting point to pretend that temperatures aren't rising as fast as they are. Start at any other time to see how different the results are. This graph contains the hottest 15 years in recorded history over a period of the last 19 years. That's pretty telling by itself.

1)the climate is always changing-but according to natural cycles, we should be in a cooling period, not a warming period.
2)so at least in his mind, everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming...that's better than most deniers.
3)"little ice age"-During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550 (it was not caused by low CO2 levels), and CO2 is produced more in warmer temperatures than cold, so starting shortly after then you can claim the CO2 levels have been rising since well before the industrial revolution...which cherry picked like that may be technically true but is again misleading by starting at an unusually low level following a low level solar period, but the level of that rise has consistently risen since the industrial revolution, and is incredibly higher than any natural mass releases besides rare massive super volcano eruptions that caused mass extinction events.
4) just plain not true, and not agreed on by scientists.
5)What they actually said-
Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

Confident prediction of future weather is not possible, weather predictions are based on statistical probabilities too. Because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're wrong, useless, or should be ignored until they're 100% right every time. More funding for more study will improve the predictions consistently, but we are intentionally defunding them instead.

Religion channel? As in the religion of climate change denial? That's not what that channel is.
Philosophy channel? What?
Learn channel, only if the viewer looks into his BS elsewhere to learn the truth.
Lies, yep...controversy, yep....politics, yep....conspiracy,OK. His ilk are steeped in those, but you left out money, the driving force for all the deniers controversial, political lies and crazy conspiracy theories. ;-)

But it's not really solving a problem, is it? If you have a 3rd Testament then people a century later need a 4th Testament to understand the 3rd. It's just endless guessing.

The many confusions & consistencies deal with God's actions toward the peoples of its time. In this video's case, Paul to the Corinthian believers (people-people). My "narrow-minded" guess, is the "women" at the Corinthian church were there not as seekers of the Faith, but as wives just accompanying their husbands, so these females gathered around and started gossiping and various sundry conversations, turning bothersome to the brothers listening to the sermons... so that's why Paul ordered the women silenced. Now, that's MY interpretation, you can argue it's sexist/degrading of me calling the women gossipy (but bear with me for argument sake, because those men at those times are likely sexist!)... but that's one possible scenario. There can very well be other equally (or likely more) convincing scenarios, but only one of them is the truth. But which one is? Who has the authority to know and write down the true case in this 3rd Testament?

People have been discussing for centuries and I don't see the point of reading the Bible literally and try to interpret meanings on these small things. Humans in the Bible all make mistakes. We need to keep on progressing to make the world a better place. That's what Jesus advocated... Picking faults of the people in Bible is useful if we use them as examples of never repeating their faults. But it's no good if we're too focused on finding faults but lost sight of doing good.

Diagram of re-entry for the Soyuz:
---------------------------------------------
http://spaceflight101.com/soyuz-tma-20m/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2016/09/6618866_orig.jpg

Orbital Module:
---------------------
It houses all the equipment that will not be needed for reentry, such as experiments, cameras or cargo. The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m³, living space 5 m³. On the latest Soyuz versions (since Soyuz TM), a small window was introduced, providing the crew with a forward view.

Service Module:
---------------------
It has a pressurized container shaped like a bulging can that contains systems for temperature control, electric power supply, long-range radio communications, radio telemetry, and instruments for orientation and control. A non-pressurized part of the service module (Propulsion compartment, AO) contains the main engine and a liquid-fuelled propulsion system for maneuvering in orbit and initiating the descent back to Earth. The ship also has a system of low-thrust engines for orientation, attached to the Intermediate compartment. Outside the service module are the sensors for the orientation system and the solar array, which is oriented towards the sun by rotating the ship.


Consequences of bad jettisons:
------------------------------------------
The services modules are jettisoned before the spacecraft hits the atmosphere. A failure or partial jettison of the modules means that the capsule will not enter the atmosphere heat shield first which can lead to a number of scenarios:
- Capsule pushed off course (by hundreds of km)
- High sustained g-loads on reentry
- Plasma on reentry can burn through the craft if the heat shield is not exposed and oriented properly resulting in loss of crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10

*quality

I'm currently reading "Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom and it's pretty *fear inducing.

If we ever do hit the singularity... it doesn't really matter what we do.

First up, if it's an AGI is to be any use, it needs to be at least as smart as us. Which means, by definition, it will be capable of writing its own AGI.

There are any number of nightmare scenarios where even a seemly benevolent goal might be disastrous for humanity.

"Multivac, fix the environment!"
"Ok, what's the major issue with the environment?"
/wipes out humanity

"Multivac, solve the Riemann hypothesis!"
"Ok, but I'll need a lot of processing power"
/converts entire planet to a giant cpu

Even if, by some miracle, we end up developing a benevolent AI that understands our needs and is aligned with them, (e.g. the Culture Minds), we are no longer in control.

We might be along for the ride, but we're certainly not driving.

The other thing that's interesting is a question of scale. We tend to think of intelligence in human terms, like this.

infants..... children.....mentally impaired..Sarah Palin.....normal people.....Neil deGrasse Tyson.....Feynman, Einstein, Newton, etc.

But that ignores all the lower intelligences:

bacteria...Trump......insects.....sheep.....dogs...chimps, dolphins, etc............................... dumb human..smart human.

But from a superintelligence's point of view, the scale looks more like this
bacteria.. humanity ... Tesla ................................................... ..................................................................................................
..................................................................................................
............................................................................................. AI

target:iran.reason? isreal:
https://videosift.com/video/col-larry-wilkerson-breaks-down-the-scariest-scenario-yet