Sadly this is the exact behaviour I have come to expect from these types of people.
Rather than actively work towards fixing the big issues in gender inequality (which requires society as a whole to change, and consequently will take decades of slow improvement), they choose to take the easy route and fill themselves with self-righteous indignation over an open source maintainer who reverted a commit for a trivial documentation change that he thought violated commit procedures. Obviously he is a rampant misogynist and needs to be crucified.
The real irony here is that the people with the pitchforks are generally more sexist than those they choose to lambast, seeing as they feel so compelled to defend poor defenseless women from all aggressors (real and imagined).
From my experience code is either 'done properly' or 'shoehorned in'. But really, 'done properly' means 'you have time to organize everything satisfactorily at a high level', typically only when you are writing a new module from scratch.
Everything else is trying to shoehorn something new into an existing framework, and you don't have enough time to get it 'done properly' because your product manager has a heart attack when you tell them how long it'll take to do a proper refactoring job. This is where you will quite happily cut corners, and the chance that you'll inadvertently break existing functionality in the process increases exponentially. This is the mechanism that, in my experience, causes balls-of-mud.
And of course, no matter how good you are at planning every required use-case of your code over its lifetime at the 'done properly' stage, you can never think of it all, so at some point or another you are forced to shoehorn stuff in everywhere anyway.
Schools need to empower and educate young people as to how to create wealth, and not just how to fit into a predesigned hole the labor market has ready for you.
Until that happens the relatively few people that 'get' wealth creation will always have the biggest slice of the pie.
Mining boom. There are legions of cashed up FIFO (fly in - fly out) bogans that have more money than sense, and so the price of everything has gone up.
Not just that - mining only accounts for 2% of our GDP. It's that our dollar was worth 50-60 US cents, and so all of our prices normalised to that. Then it strengthed quickly from the mining boom (somewhat abnormally) and achieved parity with the greenback. Local prices did not fall, of course...
Apart from housing, which saw some years of 30-40% increase in the late noughties, the cost of living hasn't risen much at all - inflation has been reasonably low for a while.
The housing market commentary has been pretty funny. The years of 30% increase had people going "this is pretty good". Now faced with a year of low single digit deflation, the newspapers act like the sky is falling...
I think one reason for this is that rent, especially in shopping centres (malls), had kept pace and didn't drop away even though their tenants were facing tougher competition from abroad. Another is that distributors were less than keen to give up their slice. So, even when some retailers might've wanted to drop prices to compete, they were facing pressure on the cost of floor space as well as product.
Neither of these arguments stack up. COGS went down went the dollar went up. That meant gross profits went up. If rent stayed the same, retailers had more flexibility to cut prices and they chose not to.
Business is extremely competitive. How is that any different from a car race? No entrepreneur starts a business to fail and lose all their money; they start a business to succeed, just like a competitive racer races to win.
Why is it okay to dismiss his example as "just another privileged rich guy" and then you give an example of a friend who started a business. Being in a position to start a business is extremely privileged compared to most people.
I'm not in the financial position to start a business, can I dismiss your example as "just another privileged rich guy (relative to me)"?
In practice a conservative government will end up selling off and privatizing the company. Subsequent governments will still act like they own it though, because that one company now controls 99% of the country's infrastructure. The share price will then stagnate forever.
Can a conservative government also privatize public roads and pathways? I mean, nowadays it can be argued that broadband/communication is as important as the transportation network. It's at the core of our day to day communications. Although if public roads can be sold to be managed by private companies, then we're screwed in both situations. But I'd rather have my tax money going to pay for infrastructure and innovation than to bailout this or that bank.
Pretty much. More mass to lift = more fuel = more mass = more fuel etc., plus burning fuel isn't the most efficient way of getting kinetic energy into the thing you are lifting.
I would say it is unsuitable for atmospheric engines because of the way it runs. Earth to Mars in 30 days will need you to be travelling at almost 90 km/second. The engine has to fire for 3 days straight because the delta v you need is retardedly high, so it pulses the engine once a minute so that the passengers don't die and the ship doesn't break up due to huge g-forces.
Lifting something into orbit needs to be done fast, because most of your energy is spent counteracting gravity, not air resistance. A slow pulsing engine would not be enough to get you up.
Once you hit a population of 50,000, you start to get bad traffic. Density then ramps up pretty quickly from there. Quite soon you'll have a population of 200,000, and the traffic is quite a lot worse, but not terribly bad.
The real horror comes when you start a region's great work. A significant number of people will leave the city in the mornings to work at the great work. If you are making a great work you are probably sending dozens of trucks with resources to it as well. The end result is you get easily 10x more vehicles leaving/entering the city. The queue to get in through the single lane off-ramp from the highway then ends up stretching all the way to the next city, and it takes a good 24 hours for the cars at the end to get in. It then ends up stabilizing, taking maybe 4-6 hours for someone to get into the city.
Also, a large number of cars 'just passing through' will use your city entrance as a 'quick' way to do a U-turn on the highway, blocking traffic even more.
Rather than actively work towards fixing the big issues in gender inequality (which requires society as a whole to change, and consequently will take decades of slow improvement), they choose to take the easy route and fill themselves with self-righteous indignation over an open source maintainer who reverted a commit for a trivial documentation change that he thought violated commit procedures. Obviously he is a rampant misogynist and needs to be crucified.
The real irony here is that the people with the pitchforks are generally more sexist than those they choose to lambast, seeing as they feel so compelled to defend poor defenseless women from all aggressors (real and imagined).