A jury is a very restricted case. There is a supervising judge and two (or more) competing advocates. The process for choosing those advocates is very formalized (defendant selection and public official).
Every one of these other participants breaks the analogy enough to make it useless.
The problem with these examples of verbose functions is not that they're verbose, it's either that they encompass too much functionality or poorly describe what they do.
And no, I don't believe you. Making your variable names more descriptive does not make your code less readable. Even when it's not strictly necessary, it's not harmful to comprehension UNLESS you refuse to move from a completely outdated line width.
Some people argue that it takes longer to type and edit. But as we all know, we spend far more time reading than writing code, and modern editors (like vim!) have solved this non-problem anyways.
Including class variables? Their context is far larger than the immediate code you're looking at, longer/descriptive names seem basically required there, as they have essentially similar scope to functions. (Same logic applies to making them longer) You'll note... that was my original example.
NHS and ACA really have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
The NHS has serious problems related to accountability, the typical problem with huge multi-level government bureaucracies. Honestly, the NHS has similar problems to the American public education system, for mostly the same reasons.
The ACA has the serious problem that it was explicitly sold as a way to contain costs both at an individual and aggregate level. That has pretty much been exposed as a lie.
The ACA has been good for the narrow band of people who were included in the expanded medicaid coverage, but it's not too hard to imagine a separate (and much simpler) bill that accomplished that part of the bill, without the massive rework of healthcare for the middle class.
> Or when they oversimplify something you know a lot about.
In fairness, I've literally never seen an accurate media report about one of the topics I know far more deeply than the average technically educated person (a particular NASA project, a certain narrow specialization in physics, and a language/culture I have spoken/lived-in for much of my life).
Not even "oversimplified". They are literally always wrong or misleading.
80 is an _awful_ width for code in a programming paradigm encouraging long variable names. If you're comparing two values from class.accessor, you fly right past 80 characters if you have any indentation at all. Namespace hierarchies pretty much put you over the limit if you use named constants in your constructors.
If you actually use long/descriptive variable names, you can mentally process much wider text quickly, invalidating the research the "80 character optimization" was based on.
Personally I use a 145 character width, because that fits nicely on my portrait-oriented monitors, with room in both left and right margin for the editor to highlight/mark. 80 character wide limits on a modern project is like an adult riding a "Big Wheel".
> The difference between "social/political" and "economic" is superficial.
If you're including all issues that have economic effects, perhaps I'd agree with you. But I'm talking about the decision-making process.
We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm. It's a moral question.
The same is true of slavery from the North's perspective in the US civil war. (You can make an economic argument for the south, but it's still a stretch) Fundamentally it's a moral/social/political question, that has tremendous economic effects.
----
I'd actually argue the contrary. There are almost no "economic" arguments when it comes to regulation. Any argument worth having is fundamentally moral or social.
* How much taxation is "fair"
* What level of economic inequality violates "justice"
No, you're discussing your narrative... which doesn't have much to do with the post you replied to.
Greenspan is rather heavily implicated as one cause of the problems. But he's attempting to shift the blame to the political side, rather than the economic side he was responsible for. He may actually be right, but I wouldn't take his word for it just because he was there. He's joined by political hacks pretending to be economists (like Krugman), and a few genuine economists. But it's far from agreed-upon.
This is rather silly. You've altered the definition of "free market" to the scope of things on the market, rather than the regulation of the market itself.
Although some free marketers (and many others) argue that things like prostitution should be "liberated" from prohibition, that's generally tangential to the arguments.
Usually, legal arguments about what can be bought or sold are settled in social/political terms, economics isn't really all that relevant.
Uhm... no. Him being from a wealthy family is not an example of hypocrisy. Nor is his family business being fed with government contracts. You've _badly_ misunderstood the issue if you think that's hypocrisy.
The question is... has he been a strong proponent of extra licensing requirements for government contractors. Licensing requirements that his family is able to easily handle, but will push out smaller competitors. That would be hypocrisy.
Has he supported legislation against subcontracting or legislation that artificially limits who the government (or private industry) can hire?
It's not hypocritical to offer services to the government. You're confusing neoliberals with anarchists.
> You're blaming government regulations! That's absurd given many people at this point have said that
1) That's not actually what he said. He said that the regulatory apparatus is currently working to assist rent-seeking and pushing wealth to the "1%". Regulation has been used to protect the wealth of the wealthy from the consequences of a free market, at everyone else's expense.
2) Argument from consensus isn't actually a valid argument. Most of the people in your consensus have been journalists, not economists. (economists are mostly trying to get people to understand that the causes are way more complex than the journalists want to believe)