It really depends on the type of trust you're talking about. You're right that in many places in the US, people generally act honestly. But that's not always true -- porch pirates are still a huge problem in cities, for example.
Policy-wise, I would not describe the US as "high trust" relative to the rest of the first world. Virtually all of our non-senior welfare programs are means-tested or require some proof of virtue (e.g. "I am actively looking for a job" to collect unemployment insurance), meaning that society broadly does not "trust" people to collect benefits honestly unless they're seniors.
The addictive design is in service of ads. Instead of regulating software, tax ad revenue to disincentivize building a business model around user profiling and tracking.
For these types of incidents VAR protocol is expressly to not offer the referee a slow-motion replay and to only let him see it in real time. Everyone knows that when you slow this stuff down it always looks worse, so the protocol is designed with that in mind.
That's why this was a misapplication of VAR. The on-field decision was not clearly and obviously wrong, and the manner in which VAR intervened was against their protocols for reviewing this type of incident.
The US had no procedural route to get Balogun reinstated. That doesn't mean FIFA can't wave their magic wand to make it happen.
Had FIFA implemented an appeals panel for the tournament, it would've looked at the incident, deemed it a misapplication of VAR and a wrongful red card, and the world would've moved on. Instead because of their incompetence, the only remedy was via their magic wand, which is arbitrary and capricious.
Yeah I think that there's some serious over-indexing on university political indoctrination. I can buy that kids adopt far-left viewpoints in college after being exposed to them for the first time just due to novelty.
But college is not the be-all and end-all of someone's political evolution. Buying a home and having a family also influences someone's political opinions, broadly in the more conservative direction.
What I think sounds plausible is that the rise of women pursuing post-graduate degrees brings down birth rates. If a woman isn't done with her academic pursuits until she's 30, she'll unquestionably be less likely to have kids as a matter of biology.
Moreover, if it's extremely difficult to buy a house and start a family until you're in your mid-30s, that's going to keep people more liberal for longer.
So I don't think the basic dynamics have changed, but the timelines have. When people have a house and family, they have things to lose and act more self-interested. When they don't, they don't, they're much happier to entertain proposals for vast societal change.
This is broadly true, but there are performance-based layoffs sometimes. The trick is to know whether the next round is going to be a decimation or a restructuring.
If it's a restructuring, nothing you do will save you or condemn you. The decisions are made via spreadsheet, and it's unlikely anyone in your management chain will be involved. In fact, if you're a high performer who's accumulated a lot of compensation, that might paint a target on your back. If you're a protected class, you might get passed over to minimize the risk of legal action.
If it's a decimation, you'll probably have a good idea whether you'd survive.
The takeaway is keep your ear to the ground, maintain some familiarity with where your company spends its money and how executives make decisions, and you might be able to tell what kind of reduction is in the cards and prepare for it. And also, keep relationships up with recruiters.
Democrats in 1994 were a very different proposition when compared to today. They had the union vote locked up, and the greatest generation benefited greatly from unions.
"Crack the hash"? Does this mean you were employing some novel hashing algorithm and relying on its secrecy? If so your employer were never serious about security in the first place. Hardware attestation is more or less a solved problem, and that solution does not involve secret algorithms.
C programmers aren't complaining about the "magic" being tens of thousands of lines of code. They're complaining about the magic including bizarre side effects that brazenly violate the principle of least astonishment.
In C++, you can overload the comma operator to do shit. I've seen it done. There's no reason to do it, and no reasonable person would ever expect it in a code base they're unfamiliar with. To find bug in that ultimately roots back to that implementation, you have to go eliminate every other whack-job possibility before it even occurs to you that maybe the weirdo who wrote this code chose to overload the comma operator.
I'm not going to argue with anyone who wants to use C++ in their own projects, you do you. But let's be real about what C programmers are complaining about. It's not line count. It's syntactic obfuscation. I don't just level this criticism at C++ either. Basically every major new language has its own byzantine syntactic constructs to some degree.
God Plex sucks now. The mobile Photos app is basically abandonware that threw out 80% of the functionality from when photos were handled in the main app. Still glad I snatched up the lifetime pass when it was $150, but they're doing their best to make it money wasted.
I can't take anyone seriously who equates "six figure income" with "upper-middle class". That was true in the 80s. But the median household income in the US is about $80,000/yr. That extra $20,000 doesn't push you into upper-middle class.
If there's a trap for the upper-middle class, it's for the W2 earners. The federal tax code essentially disqualifies high-income W2 earners from virtually every deduction. Both parties wind up soaking these taxpayers because they
- make a lot of money,
- don't own a business, and
- don't have an organization like the Chamber of Commerce to lobby on their behalf
When Republicans get into power, these people are likely to vote Democratic and are therefore okay to stick with the bill after cutting taxes for dentists, lawyers, and corporations. When Democrats are in power, these people are (as ever) not "paying their fair share", so they need their taxes hiked to pay for free stuff for people who don't vote for Democrats. And then they'll also be disqualified from taking advantage of those new benefits/entitlements.
This is a tragically misguided view. There are tons of code bases that aren't going to be rewritten in safe languages for various reasons, be it political or technical. You may or may not agree with those reasons, and you may or may not like that these code bases are important, but the fact remains that these projects exist. Giving them a toolset to adopt a broad set of bounds-safe behavior can only be a good thing.
I just haven't tried it on a BSD. No reason it wouldn't work though. Might require a couple of fixes here and there, but generally the library sticks to standard C stuff and uncontroversial POSIX (in the POSIX target).
C does not need to be completely safe. But it should be safer by default than it currently is. And I think that "it's a low level language, you just need to be smarter" is too often a cover story for bad design decisions.
I don't think that the choices should be "self-driving cars" and "cars with no seatbelts, airbags, or crumple zones" with nothing in between.
Policy-wise, I would not describe the US as "high trust" relative to the rest of the first world. Virtually all of our non-senior welfare programs are means-tested or require some proof of virtue (e.g. "I am actively looking for a job" to collect unemployment insurance), meaning that society broadly does not "trust" people to collect benefits honestly unless they're seniors.