> I believe you have the right of opportunity, but not of outcome.
I may be assuming too much, but in most don't really believe this.
For example, I'd wager you firmly believe you have the right to a safe and secure society such that you are relatively confident you will no be randomly murdered in your sleep with no consequences for the murderer.
This is exactly a right to the outcome of a minimum level of security in your person and property.
If you do hold this belief then you believe in right of outcome in society. Though you may not agree with others what outcomes we should be guaranteed.
You have a right to not have violence initiated against you (e.g. to not be murdered in your sleep). In order to keep this right, you just can't initiate force against someone else.
Do you have a right to a "safe and secure society"? I'm not really sure precisely what that is or how it is achieved, but that sounds an awful lot like a privilege.
For example, you most certainly do not have the right to be guarded in your sleep by armed guards. Nor do we all possess the right to be guarded in our sleep by armed guards.
> You have a right to not have violence initiated against you
This is a right of outcome. The outcome of not having violence committed against your person or property.
Rights of outcome vs rights of opportunity are a false dichotomy. All rights are a right for some specific outcome and are considered violated when that outcome does not occur.
The problem isn't the subsidies. The problem occurs when the proportion of solar users increases such that the utility's margins become low enough to threaten the minimum budget required to maintain the infrastructure.
If you want to subsidize solar users to bootstrap that market and as a general social good, that's fine. But you have to structure it such that the utility still recoups the cost of maintenance. If they're paying market instead of spot, the paid price is not taking into account the cost of transfer and storage to the utility.
> I've seen people with PhDs from top schools who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag
A computer science PhD, in my humble opinion, does not teach how to program anymore then having PhD of Architecture teaches you how to build a residential home. If it did, there'd be much more time spent learning about tooling and practicing programming instead of reading papers and generating novel research.
If I were hiring C.S. PhD's, I would not be judging them on the quality of their code or proficiency in any particular language.
This is true, and the unfortunate effect of treating all software engineers as equal. However, if PhDs are not expected to write code, don't call them software engineers, call them "researchers".
>This is true, and the unfortunate effect of treating all software engineers as equal. However, if PhDs are not expected to write code, don't call them software engineers, call them "researchers".
Generally, they aren't called "engineers". They'd be computer scientists. But I say that as someone who lives in a place (Canada) where "engineer" is a protected term, of sorts. You can't just slap the title on anyone.
Fair, but not relevant—all the alternate titles (programmer, coder, computer "scientist" without the science... whatever) would also be just as ill-fitting.
I consider the ability to perform practical programming a skill of software/computer engineering...In the same way that someone can be brilliant in chemistry and yet have little clue how to perform the kind of chemical engineering needed to efficiently produce chemical reactions...being a great mathematician/computer scientist doesn't necessarily relate to building. It's not that they don't have the intellectual capacity to do it, it's just that building/engineering requires its own experience and field of knowledge.
> Lots of interview processes today deal with culture fit at the end, but should it be item 1 and then coding skill item 2?
Culture fit should be focused on areas of professional interest, general preferred work modes, and possibly professional ethos (e.g. you're a big open source shop, are they an advocate?).
Many interviewers and companies think culture fit applies to non-professional aspects like do they like bicycles, wear the same clothes, like the same music. Unfortunately, this is easily filtered through unconscious and unintentional racial, gender, and age biases because what the interviewer is really doing is determining if the candidate is "like me".
It's the second interpretation that annoys and intimidates candidates and is probably a root cause to much of the diversity issues faced by the tech industry.
USAToday is covering the story without paywall. [1]
Quick read indicates they aren't 'throttling' they're serving lower quality (e.g. smaller) videos to mobile users so as not to use up their data plan as much while they develop a feature allowing users to select their own stream quality in app.
Seems reasonable enough.
They should have been more up front about it though.
Edit
Ok, now I'm confused. How does this story relate to the existing feature to lower your streaming quality? [2]
> It seems like many people on this forum would be considered by many psychiatric professionals to be suffering from delusions about the government,
The way the OP framed the therapist's response, sure. Of course, they're telling their perspective on what the therapist responded.
Having worked with therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and studied it to some degree in my early college including internships the more typical concern of a therapist is not the veracity of your beliefs (they're largely irrelevant), but the degree to which they are causing distress and if that distress is to a level that it interferes with your ability to function in society and form meaningful relationships With 'meaningful' defined by your personal satisfaction with the relationships and the satisfaction of those you have relationships with.
This is the criteria for all behaviors in the DSM that causes a spectrum of behaviors or beliefs to shift on the continuum of 'normal' to 'abnormal' for the purpose of diagnosis.
In practice, that means they could care less if you think the government (or God, or FSM, or Xenu) is watching your every move...but only if that keeps you from leaving your house or causes you significant distress. Or kept you from forming relationships because you thought they were government agents.
For example, here is the definition of delusion from the DSM V
Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture* (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.*
Emphasis mine. The point is by virtue of most people in the subculture of hackers believe this way means that, by definition, it is not delusional.
But again, if it keeps you from getting to the grocery store it would likely be worth considering medication. ;)
