Systems programmed by humans typically have coding standards. The human body on the other hand has been haphazardly developed over billions of years by the principle quick hack on top of quick hack on top of quick hack.
It's a complete mess of spaghetti code where anything that happens is the result of dozens of sub-systems trying to invoke or override each other.
I like to keep that in mind when I consider what kind of solutions machine-learning will bring us, what kinda processes will be going on under the hood.
Hillary is more war eager than Donald. Look at her mails regarding Syria. Also, she hates Russia (meaning that the proxy war there would continue) while Donald do not (meaning he may work to find a solution).
> I remember meeting a guy who had a degree as a food chemist. I asked him what jobs he was after, and he said ... food chemist.
Could someone explain this to me? Like I assume lordnacho had expected that guy to apply for a wider category of jobs, but which jobs? And what is the advantage of that broadness?
Say you have a degree in maths. What jobs could you apply for? Just "Mathematician"?
I think you could do a whole range of things. Anything from quantitative trading to traffic management. Or something that doesn't even require math, like project management.
The advantage of broadness is you have a wider choice about what you do. If one kind of work turns out not to appeal to you, you aren't stuck. That has some economic value as well. If you have the watch industry collapse, you don't have a bunch of watchmakers sitting around on benefits who could be doing something different.
I suppose the example is poor, then. Food chemist are pretty much trained to do a rather narrow range of jobs, pretty much all called something with "food chemist". A mathematician (and most other academic degrees[1]) isn't really trained to do any particular job at all (except research, I suppose), so they need to cast a wide net. A better example might be a "Java Programmer" not even considering looking at job postings in the .NET section?
1: Plenty of vocational training takes place at universities and have degree-titles attached to them. That doesn't make them academic pursuits. I say this as a polytech-rebranded-as-"university"-trained engineer and I firmly believe that I shouldn't hold a degree that implies that I have an academic education.
Maybe I'm overthinking this, but wouldn't a better solution be to say that server1.localhost doesn't have to be loopback, but that it must be resolved by asking the DNS server at localhost (or alternatively defined in the hosts file).
edit: I don't really have any expertise or experience with this at all, just a thought.
I think people already hosting their own DNS server at localhost don't need to worry about real domain allocations as they can spoof whatever they want for development.
I think reserving .localhost for loopback would be great for my workflow. Maybe it would check hosts for overrides before going straight to loopback?
The marginal utility you could get by fine-tuning the trade off is low.
It's another type of bike-shedding essentially.