That is golden advice! Also, be careful with power screwdrivers, they offer speed and the illusion of power, but much less control and feeling, increasing the chance of wrecking the screw head and/or screwing too tight or not tight enough.
Someone recently suggested this book [1] to me. I'm still reading it, but enjoying the ride so far.
The 'shift of power away from the government' argument is just one of the arguments made in the book, and author Linsey McGoey discusses it much more thoroughly than the article does. See quote /a/
/a/ The second concern is that philanthropy, by channelling private funds towards public services, erodes support for governmental spending on health and education. Outspoken observers such as Michael Edwards, a former executive at the Ford Foundation, point out that private philanthropy is no substitution for hard-fought battles over labour laws and social security, in part because philanthropy can be retracted on a whim, while elected officials, at least in theory, have citizens to answer to.
Kind of painfull that you link to Skinner's (pretty much) only ill-done research; See J.E.R. Staddon for a nice refutation of 'the superstition in the pigeon' experiment.
I do not find procedural code unreadable, nor is that what I meant to say. Rather the contrary: I said that OOP is only better if the same problem solved in OOP is more readable, which holds only true for a subset of problems.
Regarding the redis source code: Beautiful, truly. I wish more code was that clearly and extensively documented.
I was also disappointed by the atricle's end: Pretty much only the Dijksta quote was worth reading. The title promised to backup the claim with a real-world experience of OOP, but alas, it did not deliver such.
OOP is better where you code more readably(in comparison with procedural) and where it makes you enjoy coding more. The conditions for when it does that differ from persons to person and from project to project.
I personally like OOP because it helps me focus on different abstraction levels at the same time, and it helps me stay in the flow.
Saying that all systems have intelligence == anthropomorphizing all systems IF AND ONLY IF you consider intelligence to be a uniquely human trait.
A more useful distinction for the realm of intelligence could be 'designed intelligence vs. grown/evolved intelligence' instead of 'artificial intelligence vs. natural intelligence'; however, stuff like reinforcement machine learning is then neither, or perhaps a hybrid form of intelligence. In the end the pragmatic value of the concept intelligence is low, both for systems as for humans.