We just have to be careful so that "the cure doesn't become deadlier than the disease": in case some magnetic particles are left in it could cause greater issues perhaps than plastic. We can't just assume that "yeah don't worry bro the magnets will surely remove all magnetic particles".
The magnetic particles are iron oxide, it's fairly common in nature. Adding too much of it to water will turn it brown and cause issues, but small quantities shouldn't pose too much of a problem.
Excess iron in seawater can cause huge imbalalances by seeding algae blooms. Any large scale application of this would need to take that into account or risk disrupting ecosystems.
To be honest if you know C#, Java or ObjectiveC you already know the core 90% of C++.
The main thing left is understanding pointers vs references vs stack vs heap allocation (egthe instance.x vs instance->x difference) because C++ has those explicitly different pointer vs non-pointer intances of "instance", while C# or Java hide that difference (so if you know C# you can slightly think of it as struct vs class in C# difference since struct is copy-by-value while class is always a reference (a pointer).
Moving away from objects doesn't make sense: objects are perfectly fine and usable. It all depends on the context. Anyone who says "don't use objects" is a religous zaelot who does't see the forest for the trees anymore.
For certain extreme performance cases objects can be bad, but in ~95%+ of cases objects are perfectly fine.
We are again starting to enter "it all depends on the context" territory.
IMO C++ got some very bad rep for no reason at all: it got mythologized into a "very difficult arcane language that people makes meme about".
So because of this people think C++ is some boogey man, while it's really not.
Unless you are making life-critical software like avionics it honestly isn't much more difficult than C# or Java.
Ironicaly you already understand the difference between pointer and non-pointer since you know instinctively that an "int" type is will get fully copied while in Java a class object is a reference (pointer). C++ just makes this even more explicity since YOU can decide if a class is a copy-by-value or a reference on the fly (assuming the class doesn't have complex sub-fields inside of it that require their own complex copy-by-value vs reference rules).
Also due to C++ being mythologized as an "super difficult language" you get some extra XP on resumes if you state that you know it.
> To be honest if you know C#, Java or ObjectiveC you already know the core 90% of C++.
If we change 90% to about 20% then this becomes a true statement. Yes, you can get toy code to compile and apparently work by pretending C++ is Java with some low level stuff that can be ignored, but that's nowhere near proficiency. The language is full of seemingly obvious concepts like static initializers that function unlike what you'd expect from working with C#, Java, or even C.
> IMO C++ got some very bad rep for no reason at all: it got mythologized into a "very difficult arcane language that people makes meme about".
It got that reputation on account of having an 1853 page standard that even members of the committee admit no one of them fully understands.
> C++ just makes this even more explicity(sic) since YOU can decide if a class is a copy-by-value or a reference on the fly
And this is why it's such a kitchen sink standard. The C++ community is so large and has so many stake-holders relying on diverse problem domains and programming paradigms that the standard has to permit the developer much greater control than higher level languages like Java.
In closing, to speak to the original poster's question, becoming proficient in C++ is in no way a career limiting move, and will definitely open up some opportunities. However, becoming an expert is a very deep rabbit hole to go down. Even a level of proficiency that will allow you to work on a large project will take some serious intellectual commitment. One way this is apparent is how the C++ community has its own large and distinct conceptual lexicon that for the most part has not worked its way into the general programming community. I personally found working on large C++ projects intellectually gratifying, so I would recommend helping out on the project for a year or so to start. That's enough time to get a very basic understanding of the language and see if it's something you really want to become an expert at. And even if you don't, you'll learn a lot.
This guy is giving you the best advice. They are considering the fact that you already know Objective-C.
One thing: I use Objective-C and I really like it. I don’t feel the same way about C++. If you feel the same way, honor the feeling. Still, I think you can learn C++ and have it be useful for you.
Due to the complexity of the real world we can't even predict weather for 2 days in advance and you they think they can predict the world...
The sad part is that they will then use this model and its result to create policies not knowing that you can never rely on such a "copy" because even the smallest difference will create an insane amount of divergence even 1 day down the line of future simulation let alone years...
Not all middle class workers are salaried. My electrician/plumber/etc own their businesses but they're closer to the middle class than the 1%. And while I have a salaried job I probably make twice their salary.
"Owning a company" is much broader than the SV startup scene.
This is the most important part that needs to be understood:
Don’t back down. Don’t apologize. Don’t make clarifications, and don’t try to appease the mob. All of these will only be taken as concessions, and embolden the mob to demand more.
Also forgot to add, as he also writes:
"Mock them mercilessly". This is the keypoint also.
Backing down never works, you have to mock them and attack them back.
Exactly. You can't negotiate with a mob. You can negotiate with individuals in the mob, but that is pointless because when you make concessions / compromises, the rest of the mob just smells blood.
And what if the other guy is wrong and he is attacking me and trying to get me fired regardless of the fact that he is wrong?
You fail to understand that these people cannot be reasoned with.
It doesn't matter if you are wrong or not: those people cannot be reasoned with so you do not really have a choice but to go on the offense regardless of the means you use.
Those people want you gone, fired. You will either do something about that in any way you can or you will lose your income.
There is no "rational" way fighting against someone like that. The person who is attacking already is irattational. Thus neither logic, nor common sense nor good will counter arguments will help you.
That person is like a rabid dog, once it sees you backing down it will only go in for the kill.
Stop thinking that you can "logic" or "talk" your way out.
An offense from your end, regardless if its rational or irrational is your only way of keeping your job.
Would you try to reason your way out when attacked by a mentally ill person? Obviously not, you'd know that there is no way of reasoning with someone whose world view is so warped and who is full of irrational hatred for someone who hasn't directly harmed him.
Stop thinking about logic and arguments, they will be your doom.
Going on a severe counterattack against them is your only option. The bully will only attack you harder if he sees you backing down.
But show the bully that you will punch back and he will lose his power. This might sound like a cliche but people severely underestimate the wisdom of this statement.
Also note that there is no "moral high ground" here.
The person who is trying to make a stranger jobless obviously doesn't care if you or your family will starve.
So the cancel culture proponent already ignored any an all morals since he obviously doesn't know your life situtation and is trying to cancel you anyway.
So really the only "moral" thing to do here is to destroy them back.
No, he said "these people are like rabid dogs", which is not the same as "these people are dogs". In one case it's a simile, and the accent is on the compulsive aggression of a rabid dog. In the second case it's just an insult. Please don't stretch what other people said in order to make it sound as bad as possible.
What motivates you to reply that, when you know it isn't true? There's been news media for more than a century now, and it is not known to cause addiction and depression in teenagers.
We cannot do this in isolation because we never know if that would eg affect bird population or if we geneticaly modify mosquitos that can have unintendend consequences that no study can predict.
Do not fool yourself that you can "make a study" for everything: you cannot. You can never predict what will happen if you mess with nature on a genetic level.
This was already proven to be true when they released some GMO mosquitos which were not being able to reproduce.
BUT WAIT!
They were able to reproduce sooner or later again!
How shocking! Who would have thought!
And those scientists then said "this was not supposed to happen".
These scientists got the problem completely wrong, up-side-down: they believed that they "studied" the problem enough. The believed that they "knew enough" that this "should not have happened".
But they won't ever learn that complex system (which is pretty much everything in nature) cannot be "studied and come to a conclusion with a high degree of confidence".
"High degree of confidence" and "complex system" are opposites that cannot appear in the same sentence.
Everything has unintentional consequences, because nothing exists in isolation. Arguing that doing nothing is the only moral thing to do, because one can not perfectly predict all that will happen when one does something is absurd. As is your mockery of science, that ostentatiously dissing of a straw-man. We all know the scientific method, please don't claim it is about absolute truth and certainty.
The GMO mosquitos are a good path because the direct consequences affect mosquito genes. If it is not effective enough, then we are back to poisoning the water with delta-endotoxins, where we know the consequences on things that are not mosquitos are far more severe.
>If it is not effective enough, then we are back to poisoning the water with delta-endotoxins, where we know the consequences on things that are not mosquitos are far more severe.
This is a good point, and probably has more harmful actions behind it. "Don't do $NEWTHING" is not the same as "do nothing." Think of all the things humans already do to reduce the harm from mosquitos:
- Bug zappers (which aren't even good at attracting mosquitos)
- Draining marshlands
- Dumping standing water (toads also use this for laying eggs)
- Insect repellent (i.e., spreading harmful chemicals in nature)
- Introducing predators
Mosquito nets are, AFAICT, the only method without collateral damage.
The scale of consequences of changes to mosquito DNA is far more predictable then that of chemical water treatment, which, among other things, can and does influence the mosquito genome.
If you want perfect knowledge of everything in all details, then all consequences of every action are unpredictable. Limiting that to only the technology you dislike is unreasonable.
I'd be interested to read a paper discussing what appears to be a previously unsuspected failure mode of sterile insect technique.
Granted, I have to assume that that's what you're talking about under all the absurd hyperbole, because all the absurd hyperbole gets in the way. But if that is what you're trying to get at, do you have a cite?
The hyperbole is not absurd and is there for a reason: it is meant to show people the arrogance of scientists and their inability to comprehend that messing with complex systems has unpredictable consequences that cannot be studied.
You are implying you can mimic all the required processes and not end up with too much or too little macro/micro nutrients.
This is not possible due to nature's complexity. Until we will be able to use nanomachines to analyize individual proteins and cells we won't know how the body works on a global scale so you will end up with incorrectly guessing how much micro/macro nutrients the meat will have.
Over time artifical meat will be a disaster as far as nutrients go, saying that you can "grow good meat that can compare to natural meat and has all the required nutrients as natural meat" is arrogant and shortsighted, but I don't expect anything more from modern scientists.
>Over time artifical meat will be a disaster as far as nutrients go, saying that you can "grow good meat that can compare to natural meat and has all the required nutrients as natural meat" is arrogant and shortsighted,
indeed. then we will do the rational thing and learn to live without an excess of animal protein. it is simply not necessary to consume so much in excess as we do right now.
