Programmers actually hate working on the same thing for longer than necessary. They like new problems and new challenges, as your identifying in your misguided take on always wanting new libs/frameworks. If you are finding that you actually believe this, you've somehow cultivated a very toxic technology environment where your developers are hiding necessary tasks from you and attempting to make up the difference wherever they can. You have probably browbeat them and cowed them from speaking about their ideas in the past.
I've been getting paid to write code since 1998. The last few years in management. So I know something about actually being a programmer.
I hired someone who was awesome from a technical knowledge perspective. Friendly, personable, smart, driven, etc. Loved talking tech with him and he had really great ideas.
Anyway, the problem was, I'm running a startup and every single project he was on he tried to model it as "the perfect open source project". So instead of doing something simple in a couple of days he would build this really well abstracted, over engineered (but pretty damn good code!), "beautiful" thing that would take 3 or 4 weeks to deliver.
In the end, it didn't work out for him.
Anyway, my point is that it is not true that programmers hate working on the same thing for longer than necessary. I do. You do. Many others do. But some just love being architecture/purity astronauts and refining that 3 line method into a 7 class inheritance hierarchy.
It's become popular to regurgitate that bit about police and slave patrols but it has no real basis in reality. That isn't to say that there isn't some example of a slave patrol that was pressed into service as police, but Police are a concept that all of America inherited from the English roots of our governments.
You are incorrect. Not all police departments started as slave patrols, in fact many of them did not. But to deny that it was a widespread event is counterfactual.
The first American police dept was founded in the 1850s, well after the split from England. The first police department in England was founded in the 1830s.
Prior to that, our communities either took collective action to regulate themselves and the 'spirit of the community', insisted on night watch duty as a rotating responsibility, paid a constable or sheriff (a word whose roots are 'shire reeve', meaning 'shire official'), or hired private guards to protect property.
In the 1850s, around the time of the first police departments in the US, the Fugitive Slave Act was enforced as law -- requiring officials to hunt and 'return' runaway slaves. This was adopted to a greater or lesser degree depending on the area, but it absolutely was a role of law enforcement across much of the US, and it's without a doubt a part of the roots of many police departments in the US.
I'm not denying slave patrols existed, I'm denying this rumor of them being the root of modern police because it's straight up not true.
The very simple historical trend that brought us the police we have today started with the King enforcing the peace, was delegated to sheriffs who enforced the peace among other things, was inherited in the colonies where the sheriff took on a primarily peace officer role in early states, and as the population grew and cities got bigger were augmented with more specialized and local peace officers. Slave patrols being the root of police is just propaganda.
It's absolutely not just propaganda. The KKK was formed in the 1860s and there are many accounts of reconstruction era patrols being perpetrated by or with the aid of police at the time.
Enforcing the law required acting as slave patrols for well over a hundred years in the US. In 1757 Georgia, for instance, the colonial assembly required white landowners to be slave patrollers, and this continued well past the civil war.
There is over a hundred years of law enforcement, particularly in the South, acting as slave patrols. It's absolutely reasonable to trace the roots from modern departments back through the nation's unique history.
Not all police followed that path, like I mentioned above, police in the North were formed more out of an interest of protecting property and landowners. Places like Boston founded their police to try and prevent crime, rather than simply exact justice post-facto. That's a different historical root of American policing, and it did not involve slave patrols.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. Th US and the Caribbean have a slaver and white supremacists culture that didn't exist in the UK.
Your sources very accurately reflect the history that slavery was enforced by the legal system and peace officers upholding it. They don't lend any credence whatsoever to the notion that slave patrols morphed into modern police departments. The actual history is that police have slowly become more localized and detached from central authority (like the Kind or his officials - sheriffs, etc) over time as populations increase.
Keeping the peace was a concept in both countries when they split and was the duty of the sheriff which still exists in both countries and is actually still very functional in the US. That some localities with very large populations evolved an even more local office for keeping the peace is entirely consistent with the evolution of police tracing back to England before it existed as a modern concept. The simple fact is that slave patrols just did not morph into the general-purpose peace keeping organizations that today we call police.
Police did not exist in England in the 1600s. The first professional police in England dates to the 1800s. Even in the 1700s, up until the American revolution, there were only patrols of citizens organized as the night watch, and only in big English cities.
Police in england are an evolution of how the King's peace has been enforced, starting, very simplified, from when the King himself enforced it in very early days to delegating it to members of his court and his sheriffs, and ultimately to localities and special departments of the modern day. Cities did not generally have a "police department" but they had the sheriff and whoever the sheriff commanded into service to enforce the peace. As populations have increased the enforcement of these duties have evolved to be taken on by more local organizations that are modern police departments.
Sure. And the King's peace itself was only really the Crown's personal police force until around the late 1600s, but this was not the case in America. Even well into the 1600s your only shot at justice in the majority of cases was revenge.
So called social housing wasn't a huge success in other countries either. However the failures aren't because of the housing per se. What a lot of those schemes did, was simply getting a large piece of land and building large, soulless housing estates and filling them with often poor people with a lot of challenges.And then everyone says: OK, this isn't working. But housing is only a part of the equation: the location, access to education,work,and health services. How dangerous and antisocial behaviour isdealt with in such estates.Can people be simply kicked out for poor behaviour instead of semi tolerated for years?
Why is this the only other option? How about removing rent controls and other regulations around building smaller low cost units and then charging a 15% vacancy tax on any unit that is empty for 3 months?
This way we are increasing supply and not encouraging hoarding.
"regulations around building smaller low cost units";
I think this is a fundamental problem for dealing with low cost housing issues. Many cities have building regulations mandating minimum sizes for apartments, and requirements for a minimum number of parking spaces, even for apartment complexes close to public transportation. This makes it impossible for builders to build low cost housing. The problem of low cost housing has been around for a long time; the pandemic is just making it a much bigger problem.
Unfortunately, building an apartment complex takes time, and if the pandemic crisis is resolved (for some definition of resolved) in a year or 18 months, the low cost housing problem will just go back to what it was before the pandemic.
I mean, to some extent, what you're saying is, "Cities require apartments to be better than prison cells, and it's hard to make massive profits making genuinely livable housing that can be provided to people who don't make much money."
Which...yeah, the purpose of low-income housing should be to provide housing that people can still thrive in, no matter their income, not to make massive profits for the real estate or construction companies.
The cities themselves should be footing the bill to make sure their people are well-cared-for. It's already been proven in multiple instances to cost less than dealing with homelessness and its consequences, even if the people they're providing housing for can't pay a single cent (at first).
The current CEO was appointed in January. It is currently the end of May. I guess we could still count that in weeks, but most would use months at this point.
It's not a forgone conclusion that the ships will be there. In liquidation those ships have valuable equipment and scrap metal that could be broken down and sold, returning value to creditors and investors.
sure, but the ship might suddenly become worth less as a working vessel in the absence of a functioning cruise line to operate it. my guess is that a operating a single cruise ship is considerably less profitable than each ship in an n-ship fleet.
Honestly since I discovered the Stylus plugin for Firefox (Stylish for other browsers) powered by https://userstyles.org/, I have dark mode everywhere and more.
No, the data is always coupled to how it is intended to be processed and useless otherwise. Integration is always a giant headache on projects that don't capture intent clearly with a good API.
There are no sure things. We don't like the current situation because its risky. But no risk no reward. If we wanted less risk our only option was to have done it way earlier - under Bush 1 or Clinton.
I'm fine with risks, so long as they're calculated from a position of expertise. I don't trust Trump to take smart risks, given his business history, narcissism and well documented disdain for expert advice. Someone who ignores intelligence briefings because he thinks he's too smart to need them shouldn't be acting like a maverick on the world stage.
Simply doing something, anything, for the sake of having something be done is even worse than the status quo.
I think this is why ppl (msm) should tune out the "Obamagate" nothing-burger, cos it's potentially less dangerous than anti-asian sentiments given the population demographics in the US. Who's next after; Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, Jews, Asians??
In no way does it make sense to blame the courts for doing their job. The authority for these stay at home orders is by and large derived from temporary emergency powers granted by legislative authority in the first place. If the legislatures want the governor to have this power, they will grant it. It is trivial to do so. Legislatures are not doing their job, blame them.
In fact, blame the governor as well for not acting within the clear boundaries of their power. By trying to cloak themselves in authority they know is not legitimately theirs, they are actively contributing to the problem. The one party blameless in this is the courts.
