rverghes

Pre-regulation gambling was often for much higher stakes. Gambling in modern times is for fairly low stakes in comparison. Legalized casinos are supposed to control the amount that people lose and keep it to reasonable values.

Second, that was a time where households relied on a single male breadwinner. If that man became a gambling addict, it destroyed not only his future, but the future of his wife and children as well. So much the same as the Temperance movement, anti-gambling laws were aimed at protecting the entire family.

Yes, but right-to-work is generally a reaction to involuntary unionization, as in it came after the involuntary unionization phase.

It's generally to prevent free-riding. Let's say the union negotiates benefit X, and the company then provides benefit X to all employees including non-union employees. An example could be safety features that the union is pushing for. The non-union employees have benefited from the actions of the union without having to pay the cost.

To balance this, involuntary unionization usually requires a majority vote from the employees to unionize.

What would you want your boss to do?

Let's say this is a perfect, magical world where your boss will do everything possible to help you. What actions would she take? Would she switch you to another team? Reduce your workload? Allow you to work from home? Let you take a month off?

Basically your boss can't make your burnout magically go away. Figure out what you'd ideally want her to do. Then figure if that's even possible. If the concrete action you want is within your boss's power, then you may as well ask. But understand that your boss may say no, and you may end up quitting to get what you want.

I bet a modern common space would be filled by people looking at their cellphones.

Perhaps it would have worked before smartphones, but I don't think it will any longer.

Failure to understand Non-Profit 101. If you rely on unpaid volunteers, you can't afford to enrage them. It doesn't really matter if those volunteers are right or wrong.

Consider that each line in a conversation is a separate text. So if you have a 5 min conversation with a friend, each of you spends 15s on a reply, then you have 10 texts in that conversation. And that was just a short conversation.

If you phrase it as "the average teen says 94 sentences to his friends each day", that doesn't sound so extreme. And a good portion of those sentence will come in a few much longer conversations.

I wonder if Amazon actually A/B tested this, or just dropped it because of pressure from activists. If they did A/B test it, and found it increased sales or search efficiency, they should tout the finding.

But part of me wonders if they didn't just end up making their website worse for people actually trying to search for a present.

I wonder if this is a way to get around backwards compatibility issues. If it's a new brand with a new name, maybe there won't be expectations that it will work like previous versions of IE.

Not really, because db is not static. In my example, that Database.write() method would itself be static, and thus you can't pass it in as an argument.

Basically, this concept means that it's static all the way down, from the top layer to the bottom layer.

He's assuming that the static method has a dependency on something. That it's not purely functional. For example,

  public static doSomething() {
    Database.write("Did something")
  }

Makes testing hard because Database is hardcoded.

You're right, my mistake. That "five higher" should have been "four higher".

The thing is that your solution is the algebraic solution. You're simplifying an equation by balancing both sides, when you subtract four. Just from our perspective, you simplify to a still difficult state, instead of the easiest possible state.

Algebra is just a way of formally stating what you did, and then offering some simplifications that speed up the process. Or offering more powerful methods that making solving more difficult problems easier.

You'd probably see something similar when looking at a C/C++ project. I would expect significant coupling between header and source files.

The solution there was for future languages to combine the two. Maybe we'll see a future language combine unit tests and source into the same file.

Heh, maybe such a language would refuse to compile if public functions did not have an associated test.