no, what you describe is not an argument against EMH; not defending the poster, I have no idea if the poster understands this, but your critique is faulty and is explained by standard finance theory.
When there is an accident, injured parties go after rich people, like the expression "deep pockets", and juries aren't sympathetic to them. Rich people are advised to get (and can afford) insurance more than middle class people.
yuk. this is the sort of issue that should be solved at the level of the OS, not for every app.
*nix is pretty much "the" cmdline people refer to, and the unix cmdline was well established and in use at microsoft when microsoft created DOS and broke it to shit. No reason to retrofit the breakage backward.
plenty of unix tools don't say anything when you run them with no args, and they're not supposed to, "we" like it that way.
If you have a GUI that can't handle cmdline executables, how about distinguish GUI executables from cmdliners. don't foul the cmdline space with cruft, cruft that works in one context but not in many others. You are explicitly testing to see if you are a descendent of a specific program?
i just want to add, you have actually introduced a bug. if your program has any longevity, this misfeature of it will, i predict with confidence, break the program at some point, sooner rather than later, and for no reason other than "it's a hack".
and when they do apply pressure on Airbus from their side of the cockpit, they can't tell if countervailing pressure is being applied from the other side?
Because US citizens need somebody from Google's business model and school of thought fighting for us on the inside and helping the gov't formulate our data and privacy policies?
If you want to assault Andrew's credentials as a staunch defender of free speech, etc, you are going to have to do better than "he worked at Google".
He worked at Google at a time when Google really was on the front lines of defending this stuff, and he was the one doing it.
If you want to blame Google, blame Google. Amac is pretty much unassailable, IMHO.
He was on the right side of every legal/policy decision I can think of during his tenure. He eventually left, IMHO, precisely because he saw an opportunity to be a staunch advocate for these kinds of things at twitter.
I have never claimed Google no longer stands for these things.
I just don't believe Google is on the front lines anymore, because people (like you) damn them either way.
Their security teams do important work, and largely it seems because they profoundly give a shit about these issues. They're still the front line technically.
that little voice in your head that is screaming "i hate this" is your problem. It really is not a big deal to type a password, and even to type it a few times, just try to have a more zen attitude about it. It's how passwords work, stop trying to figure out how to defeat your own password, it's doing what it's supposed to do.
YCombinator is all tied up with VCs and incubators and such, right? In other contexts such as applying for various types of placements, are people's comment histories reviewed (including whatever amount of doxing is possible via server logs etc) to weed out "bad eggs"?
Cuz, I sure wouldn't hire anybody on here who is condoning or defending in any way cheating in school, even in the most oblique way.
What I want to know is what the difference between ghostwriting for school purposes, and ghostwriting for literary purposes, is.
Hillary Clinton and Ronald Reagan (and many others) had their autobiographies ghostwritten [1] and no one seems to really care. The definition of "autobiography" means a biography of yourself, written by you. So why do we hold different standards to academia as opposed to non-academia?
When you hire a web designer to design a website, you aren't obligated to credit the designer (if the designer doesn't mind).
I can certainly see why copying someone's essay or test answers would be cheating, and should be penalized. In a standardized curriculum the students should become proficient at the subject matter by the degree program. Allowing students to cheat would lessen the value of the degree and thus no one would want to attend that school.
But ghostwriting for college admissions? It's doing whatever you can to increase your odds of acceptance. Some people pay money for test prep (most of which is just vocabulary drilling). Some people pay money for "college counseling." Some people pay money for personal statements.
Some commenters here are saying that ghostwriting personal statements makes it unfair for the lower-income families, but test prep is definitely not cheap. SAT prep could go anywhere from $500 to $1000, for a weekend course. No lower-income family could afford SAT prep, so if we view ghostwriting as "unfair" then test prep should be unfair by the same logic.
If someone doesn't want to hire me because we hold different views on the definition of cheating, then I respect the person's opinion but I certainly wouldn't want to be hired due to too many clashes of views most likely.
> What I want to know is what the difference between ghostwriting for school purposes, and ghostwriting for literary purposes, is.
Easily explained. Ghostwriting in academia is a violation of academic ethics, a basis for expulsion or withdrawal of a granted degree. Ghostwriting in the everyday world is accepted, indeed it's not uncommon to see a ghostwriter's name alongside the putative author's name on the book's cover. In fact, that represents the only acceptable use of a ghostwriter, by simply acknowledging his contribution.
> No lower-income family could afford SAT prep, so if we view ghostwriting as "unfair" then test prep should be unfair by the same logic.
Yes, there's some logic there, but ghostwriting doesn't expose the student to the material to be learned, but test prep does. One might even argue that all classroom time is test prep.
> Ghostwriting in academia is a violation of academic ethics, a basis for expulsion or withdrawal of a granted degree
I addressed the academic ethics part in my post. But ghostwriting for a personal statement? Some employers will definitely look at some projects/essays you did for the completion of the degree if they are relevant to the job (making cheating in that sense impractical), but I've never heard of any employers asking for the personal statement that got them accepted into a college.
> ghostwriting doesn't expose the student to the material to be learned, but test prep does
Personal statements don't have any material to be learned to begin with. I don't have anything to back up this statement, as this is all anecdotal, but those who spend more time preparing for a test are more likely to do better, as much of test prep is simply rote memorization/practice. A bad writer writing a personal statement can spend weeks writing his personal statement and it can still be crap, but a good writer writing a personal statement can produce a pretty good first draft.
Some will say that a bad writer should send the personal statement to a proofreader or editor, but then comes the question--where do we draw the line between proofreader/editor and ghostwriter? The experiences in the final product are likely to be the submitter's own experiences (unless the ghostwriter adds his/her own experiences as in this article), but much of the content will certainly not be from the submitter's first draft.
What's the difference between sending a first draft to an editor and having them add eloquent language and coherent stories, and sending a few basic facts/experiences to a ghostwriter? Is it the percentage of original content?
I can see the startup's pitch already: "Sell your soul, contribute to the systematic erosion of civilized values, undermine everyone's idea of fair play -- all this without having to become a lawyer!"
First, to give you the answer, in your position you need to exchange your knight for his, and after he takes back with his queen, attack his queen with your bishop, which seems to offers your bishop as a sacrifice, but it's poison for him.
I agree with you. I don't want to take anything away from the terrific amount of work that went into this, it's a great achievement... but it needs to have a richer set of choices for the learner, and it would be nice if it could explain more exactly what was wrong with each of your erroneous choices, and perhaps provide a more directed set of hints that laid out what you should be looking at by explaining weaknesses in the position or "obvious" signs of opportunity, rather than demanding a very specific single course of action. Why all the alternative moves are weaker is as useful as why the good moves work. What might work is if the site had a "wiki" style of notation adding, so a richer database of explanations could be crowdsourced.
Back to the problem, if it's of any help to you, I came up with the answer by noting that I need to move my knight out of the way to get my black bishop active and onto those juicy squares defended by my pawns, and to get my white bishop out of the way to open the file for my linked up queen and rook, and also that his queen is threatening my undefended pawn so I looked to get my bishop onto that diagonal as a defender.
This position is a good example of a number of core concepts, for example that the bishops because they are on diagonals coordinate a little better with the other pieces when they are on the flanks of the attack rather than in the middle where they can clog, and that the rooks and queen benefit from open files, and that knights are useful when the position is somewhat clogged but frequently they should be exchanged for a more advantageous opening of the position. But the pedagogy here does not teach that.
I am a decent (but very rusty) chess player, but what I am good at is a little more "holistic", I play by developing my position in more or less sensible ways and then exploiting opportunities when they arise; but a lot of that is somewhat unconcious thought learned from a great deal of play, and "understanding" my position for me comes from being the one who developed it. In contrast, it is hard for me to jump in and look at a developed position and find the magic in it which is what this style of teaching requires. Probably a good set of things for me to work on, but at the same time the chess rating it gives me is absurd because I play at a much higher level than 1200 but I have tremendous difficulty getting my score to climb. I mention this because even though you and I come at this from different places, my complaint about the site is the same as yours: it's demanding a very specific set of moves and it's not really explaining or guiding as much as it needs to. Sometimes I pick the right move and it says "congrats! let's move on" and I'm thinking I have no idea what was so great about what I chose, the move seemed sensible but not stunning.
Now, I may be not the typical user (as an experienced, highly intuitive player with voids where big chunks of my skills are lacking, so the system should not be redesigned for me) but I mention it because while I can rely on some of my developed talents to solve these problems, I don't feel that this would teach those talents that I do have, and they would be very useful for learners to develop.
VMware (and that style of virtualization) is so popular because of the utter failure of OSes to do what they are supposed to do.
Protected multiuser multitasking operating systems are supposed to be able to protect processes from impinging on one another, and they can't do it. The result is that on a very large scale we have datacenters that spawn VMware virtual machine after VMware virtual machine, a "make everything look like a nail so we can use this hammer" approach that is wasting huge amounts of resources.
There would still be a use for VMware if OSes worked, but nothing like we see today. People should get back to work on fixing OSes so a cloud host could actually run processes from different customers in a lightweight way and have them not screw each other up.
Ideally, I should be able to download an untrusted binary application from the internet, run it on my local machine, and be able to trust that it won't be able to steal my passwords, read my contacts and pictures and documents, use my camera and microphone, drain my battery, use up all my CPU and RAM and network and disk resources, freeze my system, or do any other nefarious thing without my permission. OSes have failed so misererably at this that web browsers have had to pick up the slack and the web is slowly morphing into a bad operating system.
Say you have three unreliable programs that occasionally leak memory, spin CPU etc. (yes, it would be nice if all our programs were perfect, but they're not). It should be possible to run these three programs on the same server in such a way that the failure of one won't affect the others (so e.g. you have 3 servers, each runs one of each program, and you load balance between them, and you have some system that eventually detects when one of the instances fails. So as far as the outside world is concerned, all your programs are running reliably). At the moment, the most practical way to do this is to run 3 different VMs on each server, one for each program. Which is insane. There are some encouraging recent developments (e.g. docker/lxc), but it should be easy to do that kind of isolation purely at the OS level.
