Grocery stores are directly selling things to you, and they cost different amounts based on their costs to the grocery stores, handling requirements, etc.
ISPs are like mail services: a letter is a letter is a letter. A package is a package is a package. And a packet is a packet is a packet.
-pedantic-errors -Wall -Werror isn't used in the wild because it breaks whenever a new compiler comes out. New compilers often come out with new warnings, new cases for old warnings, etc. It's not forwards-compatible to make warnings errors.
You should release your code with no warnings on the current compiler, but new warnings shouldn't break everything.
-Werror is used only when building on the continuous integration servers, not in the released code. That way, you get the best of both worlds. Your code wont break on new compiler releases, but it also wont have neglected warnings.
I think the key thing for people to realise is that none of what you just said has anything to do with women.
Meet your direct manager. Make sure you get along with them. Make sure people give off 'good vibes' i.e. you get along with them. Talk to people, get to know them.
This is just basic people skills. The interview is about you evaluating them as much as it is about them evaluating you.
Youre right this matters for everyone, but there are additional benefits if you are a woman.
Your manager in many ways is your advocate and prescreens his job responsibilities to trickle down to yours. He/she is the one giving your feedback.
if they are inherently biased towards women, youre life becomes more difficult.
Furthermore, people are NOT stupid. they know whats what. People will know if your manager is going to take action if another employee acts against you, and support your through the HR process, or look the other way and ignore it. If your manager is a good person, then its a signal for everyone else to treat you well.
It should not have to be like that, but it is.
When it comes to being a woman, then this translates over to a layer of protection against sexual harassment or other forms of biased based on your gender, in most cases preventing you from ever having to deal with it, and knowing you have support if you do.
Believe me it makes a world of difference I've had experiences with managers who want to date every female employee they have to very good professional ones who screen me from the usual suspects and delegate my work in such a way to minimize my interaction with them and we never even have to have a conversation about it. One manager makes my life a living hell, the other one makes me able to focus on my job.
Both managers can be competent and good at their job, and so can you in both cases, but the only difference here is how much one follows policy and respects your right to focus on your job in the work place, and knows that dealing with that stuff in the workplace is, at the very least, distracting and in all cases an emotionally frustrating experience.
It's generic good advice but some people need it more than others.
Large companies may be a problem though. The interview process is generic and you probably won't meet your direct manager; you're just evaluating a somewhat random sample of people. But asking to meet them later (before accepting the offer) might work.
Other than Google or for new grads, what companies do not have the team with the opening do the actual interviewing? In both I have worked for, and every one I have interviewed with except Google, candidates interview with the people they will be working with, including their manager.
No pressure to socialise with coworkers? What kind of law firm is this? Lawyers are by a huge margin the most social people I know. I know a lot of lawyers, and not one of them doesn't go out for social drinks on a Friday at 430...
I think that is very different to the "Tech Happy Hour" and what feels like contrived events you see in "open office, culture (or people?) first" tech world. I have found, personally, that I formed more authentic relationships in those "stuffy", "formal" settings. Because you know what. When I go out on a Friday with my work mates, it's because I like them. Not because when I don't I'm viewed as anti-social or stuck up. I'm a lot of fun. Just don't force it down my throat or I'll give you the middle finger and show you just how unfun I can be.
If you run them as a different user from yourself, maybe, but who does that?
The idea that software is secure if it only runs on your own user account is stupid IMO. I'd rather that software had access to everything on my computer EXCEPT my personal files.
It's about restricting access:
One is protecting others;
The second is protection within your own realm.
Both are needed (Unix was just like: At least don't touch the data / system that other users have)
Not ironic. Just very fitting. They're using a failed system (patents) to try to monopolise their (probably very obvious) method of enforcing a failed monopoly system.
Sorry for the harsh language, but that's fucking ridiculous in this context.
Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments like 'taking comments from the public into account when making policy is mob rule'. Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.
You're wrong too --- but only in my opinion. What free speech really "exists for" is hard to pin down[1].
It's actually an interesting legal perspective. These are unelected officials, appointed by an indirectly elected official (albeit confirmed by directly elected ones) interacting directly with the public. It's a bizarre reversal of the Jeffersonian republic, like a direct democracy nested deep inside a republic. The fact that the poster is totally wrong does not alone make the idea worth censoring.
If you don't listen to people who disagree with you, how can you hope to engage them in debate? Case in point: you got downvoted so many times you were [flagged] and [dead], and I vouched for you. 1) You didn't deserve it. 2) I wanted to bring you back so I could make the point that, under your idea of free speech, you'd still be [dead].
> Free speech? Free speech doesn't exist so that people can make ridiculous comments like 'taking comments from the public into account when making policy is mob rule'. Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.
You are flat out WRONG.
Free speech exists for all sort of speech including mocking, ridiculing and being outright stupid and retarded too.
> Free speech exists so that people can make those comments on policy and have them heard.
Free speech has nothing to do with policy, government, state or laws. It is an independent right that exists for no specific purpose other than itself.
And in this case it appears to be "free speech for you as long as you voice your support for me".
Good example of something (although it's perhaps a bit trivial) that is a puzzle that seems to make even non-mathematicians curious is the 'justification' for greco-latin squares.
The idea is that you have 6 files of 6 men. Each is of a different regiment, each is of a different rank. Is it possible to arrange them so that no row and no file have two men of the same rank or from the same regiment?
You can mention this in your first lecture on algebraic geometry (or, for that matter, combinatorial geometry i.e. matroid theory) and then come back to it when you talk about projective geometries.
ISPs are like mail services: a letter is a letter is a letter. A package is a package is a package. And a packet is a packet is a packet.