This opens a lot of possibilities for genetic manipulation, especially in connection with CRISPR. I imagine the X and Y bases are being kept secret for proprietary reason
This is an interesting article, and its position is a bit surprising, coming from The Weekly Standard. I want to go out and get that Bio now, for sure.
I work for a software company very much like Valve in structure, who has been operating this way since the 70s.
Support still gets done, because when you hire you specifically hire people who love doing support. Those people exist, and they get tremendously emotionally involved in the quality of their work, just like anyone else.
In every department there are people who struggle with the flat hierarchy and free range to work on what you like, who have a strong emotional need to know who is in charge, and to be told what needs doing. Those people struggle, but they are by no means relegated to any one department -- plenty of them are engineers.
Python has all of the constituent parts of an OO language, save explicit types, but it is never written in an OO style.
Using classes != OO.
Generally, Python programmers treat objects as structs with associated methods, basically the Go model. Python programmers rarely encapsulate at all. At best, they use a bunch of accessors (which is not itself OO). Implementation details are rarely hidden.
That's because dynamically-typed languages, the interpreter, and the Python culture, lend themselves more to exploratory programming, rather than a UML-design, with objects that relate to real-world entities, that are implemented after careful planning.
If you can show me a Python program where objects are really encapsulated, and aren't chock-full of accessors, I'll stand happily corrected.
It acknowledges that some people think it is a problem, but it does not itself make any statement about whether or not it's a problem.
For those of us who believe economic inequality is both good and natural, this is a great rhetorical device for undermining the left -- "in this time of great economic inequality, life is better than it has ever been for the general populace."
A person on the left may use the opposite rhetorical device, "in this time of great economic freedom, people are increasingly poor."
As this is written, there is no way to know which rhetorical device they were using.
You'll have to take that up with the public at large. We use "internet" to refer to the world wide web. Try to sell someone a computer that has "the internet", but won't do tcp/IP, you'll get punched.
As for the infrastructure, that's a rather more esoteric concern. It needs a distinguishing term.
I ran into this recently on a video chat with my brother, he was trying to pin a mustache on his face but the algorithm couldn't see him. Fortunately, he didn't know why. I don't know how I would've reacted had he understood.
Monarchism and capital enterprise may be similar in their internal hierarchy, outside of some corporate structures, but they are rather unlike monarchies in one very important way.
A capitalist enterprise (outside of a handful of extremely inelastic markets, like defense, catastrophic healthcare and public safety) require that people choose to purchase their product. That is Democratic in nature.
Anarchy is not free of coercion. Fortunately, free markets are not anarchic. Ballot and autocratic are not the only forms of government. Capitalism is itself a form of government -- the left intuits this, but are clouded on the internal forces.
The nature of ballot-organized government, even direct democracy, is less democratic than that of dollar-voting markets.
Ballot government has much more in common with monarchy. Generally -- you're choosing a single person,and that person makes choices ostensibly on your behalf for a number of years. Additionally -- you may get to choose on some issues once in a while, and watch as your choices are undone by the courts and legislature.
Conversely, in dollar voting, everyone is making all of the choices all of the time.
As a result, unencumbered capitalism is a purer form of direct democracy, which measurably produces a more responsive form of government.
It allows the public to vote directly for specific desires, producing an organizing impetus which is more respondent to the will of the public than any other form of government, even direct democracy.
What the left intuits as misrule by business, is actually the result of the votes of their fellow dollar-voters. It is the wisdom, or folly, of the people.
There is a lot of confusion -- no doubt. This has to do with the new usage of the term "liberal" to describe Democrats or people on the left, when historically, liberal meant people on the right, like Libertarians or Republicans. As a result, we now describe free-market liberalism as "classical liberalism", to distinguish it from modern "social liberalism".
To further complicate things, pundits on the left have attempted to associate the uglier side of left politics (namely, fascism) with the right, so you have a lot of people calling neo-nazis "far-right", when in reality, National Socialism was a leftist movement. Hitler was a "liberal", in terms of being a believer in large-scale government intervention in the markets.
Conversely, the USSR was and China is "conservative" in the classical sense. That is, they believe in government intervention in markets, which was called conservatism 100 years ago, and is called liberal today.
There are examples of more difficult media which don't get mass-media popular, not because of their quality, but because of their difficulty. These types of works make up part of the 'secret handshake' of the upper class -- it is how they identify each other.
France has the noble, but mistaken, idea that they can force lower and middle class people to take in high culture, and in so doing, will be able to make their country more egalitarian.
Sorry guys, cultural class isn't something you can just legislate away.
The upper classes (culturally, not economically) have spent generations training themselves to be very critical connoisseurs -- you're not going to undo that with some government-funded arthouse flicks and a Netflix tax.
