The USDA defines[1] food insecurity to include the following:
>Food Insecurity
>Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.
People in other countries would scratch their heads at the very concept of "food insecurity without hunger".
>I believe the more common proposal is to resolve the contradiction the other way: remove taxes on corporations, as the individuals comprising the corporations generally already pay taxes.
Without a wealth tax that would just make tax evasion even easier for the ultrawealthy in the usual manner of borrowing against the equity of the stock they own.
Unspecified behavior[1] is used in programming language standards for a very similar reason: to provide the freedom to interpret in the, uh, spirit of the code, rather than the letter, when it would be overall beneficial.
>Even if you limit it to the most egregious cases that just shifts the problem. What's egregious and what isn't?
It implicitly shifts the undertone of everything that isn't fact-checked on the platform from neutral to true. This is not a bug but a feature, as it provides the plausible deniability by blurring the line between "no tag since we can't fact-check everything, duh" and "no tag because we tacitly agree with the narrative presented here even if it is untrue".
It depends on how much control the host system has over the output (can consciously drown out the signal). Suppose you just show YES and NO in big flashing letters while asking your subject the questions you already know the answers to and measure the output when training the device. Then it boils down to whether it can pick up what you "really think" over what you "try to think" better than the current generation of polygraphs (which is very bad at its job). So these technical specifics would decide where exactly it falls within the range from "comically unreliable" to "dystopian nightmare".
>France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035. [1]
according to the target set in the "Energy transition for green growth" bill.
>you end up in situations where it's suddenly justifiable to let developers use technologies unsuited for the situation because they're "fun" and "interesting" to use and keeping them happy means they're more "productive"
Well, companies already do that and justify the practice as something that selects for more passionate developers and makes job postings seem more attractive. Exhibit A: YC's very own Paul Graham wrote "The Python Paradox" [1] back in 2004.
>Any large HashTable in Java starts to yield the problem of duplicate keys, it's just a weird situation, like you can 99.999% trust something ... but can't ever fully trust it so that over time, you're guaranteed to have something wrong.
hashCode() is a prehash function the outputs of which need to be mapped further to the (typically much smaller) number of buckets in a hash table of certain size (which would depend on the number of objects currently in the table), those "duplicate keys" are not a problem, they're how hash tables work in any language. Objects' hashcodes are used to find the relevant bucket, then this bucket is properly examined using equals(). HashMap and Hashtable are backed by arrays which have the max size of Integer.MAX_VALUE (minus some change) in JVM anyway, so those would need to be indexed by an int. I hope this helps to overcome the trust issues you have with Java data structures.
This thread is clearly about comparing the probabilities of getting into FAANG vs getting into the Olympics. The situation with varying relative competitiveness of the local "scene" in a particular country is the same in both cases, despite the fact that even the 1% figure for FAANG engineers would only work under the assumption of the global pool of candidates (~20 mil software engineers worldwide), all willing to relocate and prioritizing FAANG above all other employers (a lot of assumptions). Tldr: no, being kinda good at leetcode is not an Olympic-level feat, try the ICPC.
The whole Olympic roster for the US is ~500 people. There's half a million people who are current NCAA athletes, that's an order of magnitude off right there, even after excluding football and before counting in the actual pros.
This seems way off. The number of engineers working at FAANG is in the hundreds of thousands, an athlete that is 100000th best in the world is basically a hobbyist rando.
>But by definition, “engineering” has traditionally entailed the completion of an Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)-approved 4-year degree.
>Engineerwashing entails a shift from the noun to the verbal sense of “engineer.”
I urge the author who describes himself as "the Ivan Allen College Distinguished Chair in Media Studies" to stop engaging in blatant chairwashing until he has four legs and, ideally, a soft cushion.
I don't see anything mentioned in the article that would make one think it has such customer base. Do you?