sopooneo

I fully agree all your logic. But then I see a counter of "public sentiment" where I bet most citizens would be outraged by million dollar salaries.

> Some see a university education as an example of this: it costs cleverer and more conscientious types less to get a degree than stupider and lazier ones, allowing employers to distinguish between the two.

Wait, how? If two people both have a degree, how does that help distinguish who is stupid?

Could it be kinder, at times, to play to the cultural norm? If people have been raised to say "sir" to their boss, could asking them to do otherwise cause them discomfort without benefit?

I have struggled with this myself, as I don't believe work hierarchy should convey any fundamental difference between people, and we are best off treating each other as equals.

As an American from a region with an atypically dry and reserved culture, the Australia attitude sounds nice.

I was about to say I thought you might be mistaken because you can always use some variant of "group concat" to get sets of fields to show in comma seperated form...

But then I realized even with that, I couldn't get the output under discussion without subqueries. And I don't consider that a win for me.

Agreed completely. Sometimes I've worked hard to put the finishing touches on side projects to make them usable by others and have been pleasantly surprised by the interest. But in most cases, even when I finish, almost no one cares.

And while finishing is an important lesson early on, just so you know how hard that "last 20%" is, it's grueling and not typically very informative or unique after that first couple times.

So I'm now squarely in the camp of do what I want and finish what I want on the side, with no guilt. If I enjoy the journey I call it good. Finishing is for the day job.

Crud I think you're right. I had it in my head that in steady flight, the plane had zero change in momentum, whereas, the air, collectively, gained net downward momentum. So to balance it all out, the earth must be gaining upward momentum (though of course spread over such an enormous mass as to make the velocity term imperceptible.)

You clearly know more about this than me, because I'm currently Googling to understand what "diametrical corners" are. But in a simple implementation, wouldn't the x and y velocities both be reversed at once with a corner hit, both side and top/bottom collisions having been detected "at once" in the same part of the code between updating positions? And then the logo would just bounce out exactly the way it came in?

One other weird thing needed if you want your momentum numbers to balance: every plane in the sky is pulling the earth up towards it ever so slightly.

Honest question: if wing's cross section has a big curve in front, how do determine which point exactly constitutes the "leading edge"?

Exactly. At $500 or $1000 per record, PII starts to look highly radioactive. Companies would be avoiding it's collection with a passion. And those that had to hold it would be compelled to do so less stupidly.

Completely agree on this. A company-killing level of fine, based on number or records exposed, is appropriate. Then the insurance companies would not ensure companies unless they passed stringent audits around best practice and data hygiene.

I would argue that, in practice, they are not completely separate. Too much abstraction makes it hard to tell what the underlying algorithm is. And even if you can figure that out, makes it hard to optimize.