I have a friend who is something like a 6-hour marathoner and has run Boston a couple times for charity. The experience is pretty subpar to hear her tell it. The college students are pretty intoxicated by that point, the organizers are starting to clean up the course and move the runners to the sidewalks, and the course is full of trash where they haven't cleaned up yet.
The porta-potties don't have a lot to recommend them either once 30-something-thousand people have come through ahead of you too.
I used to live on beacon st in Brookline. Every year the marathon was a nightmare. Drunk people on my stoop. Trash everywhere. It was wicked cool to see the old timers and charity runners running even after it got dark. Would always give them a big cheer as they came by.
There is consensus documenting why you did something is good (which is what root comment is talking about). Documenting what you did is commonly thought to be a crutch for writing unreadable code.
I hate the second thought, because not documenting is clearly not stopping people from committing the unreadable code. Instead we get "my code is self-documenting, I'm not going to write documentation".
And as for the third opinion of "the documentation becomes out of date when the code changes", I would prefer slightly incorrect comments to decipher code rather than no comments to decipher code. Doubly so because I can compare the comments to historical revisions.
While I _absolutely_ agree with those sentiments, I have seen nothing like consensus on them myself (in mostly tech startups, but also fintech, and financial (yes, those are different things)). If I limit it to programmers I respect, the percentages go up, but to _maybe_ 75% tops.
This is sometimes called "leapfrogging" and one example was cell phone technology (when countries that came later to the game adopted newer and better standards).
Surely he must mean implementation in the overall infrastructure. From my time in America is seems that overhauling systems is not popular policy at all. Unfortunately as an African myself there are larger issues than AI that need to be solved before that can even be in the periphery of something near that statement.
- Kenya has a dominant electronic currency, M-Pesa
- South Korea rapidly developed into a globally competitive developed country, despite being poor in the middle of the 20th century (same applies to Japan, just slightly less so).
Disclaimer: also not a lawyer, not giving legal advice.
In the soundcloud recordings he says he is residing in texas which is one a party consent state.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer. The California Supreme Court ruled essentially that the stricter state's laws take precedence, in this case, California's Two-party consent law [1].
I can't believe this is a published article. 3/4 of the paper is essentially crackpottery (e.g. Proposition 5 proves that the composition of surjective maps is surjective), while the final 1/4 is a "proof by picture" (see Figure 6) that you'd see from a mediocre undergraduate pset.
Proposition 5 proves that the composition of surjective maps are _necessarily_ surjective only when the second map is monotone continuous. Based on the definition of surjectivity given, you can have a composition of surjective maps that isn't surjective.
The figures ("pictures") aren't part of the proof, they're part of the presentation, and Figure 6, as stated in the paper, is included as a reference to an analogous work.
If you read the last 1/4 of the paper, you'll see that Figure 6 is an integral part of the discussion; furthermore, nothing in the discussion is proven rigorously --- they all appeal to the picture.
They are providing people who do not have internet with internet. They are giving people a useful service they did not have before for free. They aren't making people use the service or pay anything for it. I don't see a negative.
They are not providing the Internet to people who do not have the Internet. They are providing a couple of websites in a walled garden.
They are not giving people a useful service that they did not have before, they are giving people a deliberately broken and compromised system.
They are not giving it to people for free, they are making people pay with their data and security.
As for not forcing people to use it, there's a pretty strong push to get people to use it and a commercial monopoly in a given market is often a disincentive to new entrants.
This is not the internet. This is facebook $\pm$ other big company's sites.
The problem is that this will not be until the real internet arrives for poor people but instead. For millions, maybe billions (potentially for the majority of the world's population) the internet could forever be only facebook/yahoo/${big corps website}...
