Cutting people off because you disagree politically is new. I remember having friends in different political parties when I was younger. (20 years ago)
I disagree with that analysis. It strikes me that a parent is denying a child access to something that the vast majority of other children have access to while that child is forced to live under a structure that prevents them from generating enough income to obtain their own device independently.
As that entire structure is illegitimate, the actions of the child are understandable.
Exactly. And what worries me is that they are essentially greasing the groove for these synapses, growing the neural network around deception and dishonesty. If they get into gambling in 5 years or so and happen to have a partner, they will already be somewhat adapted and practiced in hiding this activity quite effectively rather than seeking and accepting help. It's worrying. It's all foundational to very self-destructive habits from my perspective.
It’s missing the time taken to instantiate a class.
I remember refactoring some code to improve readability, then observing something that was previously a few microseconds take tens of seconds.
The original code created a large list of lists. Each child list had 4 fields each field was a different thing, some were ints and one was a string.
I created a new class with the names of each field and helper methods to process the data. The new code created a list of instances of my class. Downstream consumers of the list could look at the class to see what data they were getting. Modern Python developers would use a data class for this.
The new code was very slow. I’d love it if the author measured the time taken to instantiate a class.
Instantiating classes is in general not a performance issue in Python. Your issue here strongly sounds like you're abusing OO to pass a list of instances into every method and downstream call (not just the usual reference to self, the instance at hand). Don't do that, it shouldn't be necessary. It sounds like you're trying to get a poor-man's imitation of classmethods, without identifying and refactoring whatever it is that methods might need to access from other instances.
Please post your code snippet on StackOverflow ([python] tag) or CodeReview.SE so people can help you fix it.
> created a new class with the names of each field and helper methods to process the data. The new code created a list of instances of my class. Downstream consumers of the list could look at the class to see what data they were getting.
I went to the doctor and I said “It hurts when I do this”
The doctor said, “don’t do that”.
Edit: so yeah a rather snarky reply. Sorry. But it’s worth asking why we want to use classes and objects everywhere. Alan Kay is well known for saying object orientated is about message passing (mostly by Erlang people).
A list of lists (where each list is four different types repeated) seems a fine data structure, which can be operated on by external functions, and serialised pretty easily. Turning it into classes and objects might not be a useful refactoring, I would certainly want to learn more before giving the go ahead.
The main reason why is to keep a handle on complexity.
When you’re in a project with a few million lines of code and 10 years of history it can get confusing.
Your data will have been handled by many different functions before it gets to you. If you do this with raw lists then the code gets very confusing. In one data structure customer name might be [4] and another structure might have it in [9]. Worse someone adds a new field in [5] then when two lists get concatenated name moves to [10] in downstream code which consumes the concatenated lists.
But hidden in this is the failing of every sql-bridge ever - it’s definitely easier for a programmer to read customers(3).balance but the trade off now is I have to provide class based semantics for all operations - and that tends to hide (oh you know, impedance mismatch).
I would far prefer “store the records as plain as we can” and add on functions to operate over it (think pandas stores basically just ints floats and strings as it is numpy underneath)
(Yes you can store pyobjects somehow but the performance drops off a cliff.)
Anyway - keep the storage and data structure as raw and simple as possible and write functions to run over it. And move to pandas or SQLite pretty quickly :-)
It depends - most likely that’s storing as a language specific data structure (dict in python then serialised to disk). At this point we’re walking into harder to turn around decisions and might as well do it properly. It still really “it depends” …
There is an advantage because occasionally you find the second block while the first block is still secret, then you release the two blocks in quick succession. That’s the edge.
What advantage does it provide vs not withholding? If you don't keep your first block secret and find a 2nd block, you get the same rewards.
On the other hand, if someone finds a block while you're keeping yours secret, it's very likely you'll lose the reward of your block.
So, you get a chance to discard the block of another miner, but you have to put your own block at risk of being discarded. Maybe there's a gain here, but it's not clear.
On day one the UKs porn ban was used to censor political speech.
Discussion and images of the protests around migrant hotels were age restricted because they contained adult content (racist content, fighting and burning things).
This age restriction meant that only logged in, age verified, users could see the content. Loads of adults are not age verified.
This is censorship of the news and political speech.
When people say they have nothing to hide I like to remind them about fraud and criminals.
All law abiding citizens have data that they want to hide from fraudsters.
Fraudsters often get their hands on government data through breeches and bribery.
Also fraudsters pretend to be government agents to get data from big tech companies. So any channel that governments use to get data from tech companies is abused by fraudsters to commit crime.
Fraud is a very big deal. The UK economy loses 219 billion per year to fraud. Our national deficit payment is 93 billion per year and we spend 188 billion on the NHS.
If we improved privacy of all of our citizens then the savings from fraud reduction would cover our entire government deficit
> All law abiding citizens have data that they want to hide from fraudsters.
Nobody is completely law avoiding when the books of laws and regulations get thick enough. Especially if the government decides to take an interest in you.
You don‘t need fraudsters just a run of the mill bully is enough. I remember a phase in my life where I had to do some high visibility reporting. I showed all underlying facts, methodology and conclusions and every week the bully tore into a minor detail devaluing my work and distracting from vital tasks. Only when I started shielding data and my reasoning as private and just delivering high level summary results I was able to put an end to it.
Not wishing to join the bully's side, but I think making something private to prevent discussion/criticism has a bad smell about it. It's possible (to someone who knows neither you nor the bully) that the bully had some valid suggestions and that you became over defensive in allowing that to become a distraction rather than saying something like "okay, but can you make these suggestions after the meeting and we can work through them later".
Personally, I don't like the idea of someone hiding data and methodology just because of not wanting feedback.
Well, it's a judgment call. Is this critic operating in good faith, or not? The reporter is not necessarily in the best position to judge. On the other hand, they have the best grasp of all the details of the interaction with this (alleged) bully.
"You don't want continuing abuse" is quite different from "you don't want feedback".
Quite - I fully admit that I know nothing about that particular situation.
However, I have personally seen people get overly defensive when someone has pointed out a major error in their methodology and they have then gone on to hide their working rather than trying to fix the issue. Often it's because they are not particularly expert in that field and don't really understand the issue that needs to be fixed.
I've also seen plenty of bullies in the workplace too.
It seems surprising that IQ would not be heritable. Literally everything else is heritable.
Height, skin colour, sporting ability, body weight, eye colour, cancer risk, most disease risk, beauty.
Why would IQ be mostly random when other things are very heritable?
Occums razor says pick the simplest hypothesis that explains the data. The onus is on the blank slate crew to find some good data to demonstrate that IQ is not mostly heritable.
IQ is not "mostly random". It's highly correlated with the quality of your education. Kind of like how height is highly correlated with childhood nutrition, and sporting ability is highly correlated with practicing sports.
The article is about how hard it is to tease these confounding factors apart. A highly intelligent parent is likely to prioritize their children's education. A hypothetical study that concludes "intelligent parents raise intelligent children" could easily be construed in favor of either the heriditarian or blank-slatist perspective.
Then be surprised, because we have comparative numbers (across a variety of different methodologies) for basic phenotypical traits like height and complex behavioral phenotypes like intelligence and educational achievement, and they do not line up. You're not supposed to use that razor to blind yourself.
I think we need a law that government agencies must support out of band identity proofing.
The root of the problem is that government agencies can request personal details and if the tech company fails to comply then the tech company is sanctioned. However the government agency forces the tech company to provide details in an insecure way often over email. If the tech company tries to demand reasonable security then the law enforcement agency views this as non-compliance and starts the sanctions.
Somewhat pointless given that for most of these companies this would have to be an international effort. Google will hand over your info if the "authorities" from Azerbaijan request it.
reply