No, it isn't. There's a difference between McCarthy's "Maxwell's equations of software" and the full-blown Common Lisp standard, which was designed by and aimed at industry.
>The problem was that the Chavista regime bungled the state-owned oil company so badly that it didn't have enough money even when crude prices were high, and really doesn't now that they're low.
Naturally, the problem is but a mere implementation detail.
That sounds like most western economies of the world.. unable to function without running a deficit, and they'll be worried when interest rates go up and wonder where that massive budgetary hole came from.
Yes, it's sensible to take on some debt to invest in actual projects, such as infrastructure. Those have a positive ROI.
But: low growth in western countries is here to stay, and it's not sensible to borrow billions every year without reducing structural expenses. You're borrowing from the future, with no money to pay it back. That's just pushing the bill to the next generation, e.g. look at what happened to Greece.
Greece is a bad example because they're not monetarily sovereign.
The harsh fact is: As long as there are leaks in the circulation of money, you either have to plug the leaks or increase the in-flow. If you do neither of these things, the economy shrinks and people suffer.
Western countries have leaks in the form of people saving (in part it's fair to blame the rich, but the whole emphasis on private pension funds is also a huge contributor to the problem reaching all the way into the middle class) and companies accumulating money. You either have to plug the leak (by taxing the rich and/or companies to drain all those savings, and returning to public pension schemes that are pay-as-you-go out of taxes) or increase the in-flow (this is what budget deficits are doing[1]).
Reducing the in-flow is pretty counter-productive: it increases incomes of people without addressing the structural problems that cause the leaks (like pension systems, ridiculously wealthy companies and individuals, etc.).
Also, the whole "pushing the bill to the next generation" rhetoric is pretty non-sensical, because government debt is never an inter-temporal problem, but always an intra-temporal one: If government debts are high, so what? It just means that assets are high elsewhere. You can be worried that assets slushing around are a problem (I am), but myopically focusing on the debt side of the equation without looking at the asset side is pretty dangerous.
[1] This is also what central banks are trying to do by decreasing interest rates etc.; here, the in-flow would come from private debt. The problem is that it's not a very reliable tool.
>You see a lot of mixed-income neighborhoods in Houston - places where people are building $700,000 homes where 80% of the same street are 1000 square foot shacks with people living in them making $20k a year. Luckily for them, their lots are worth half a million dollars. I don't know if this is the result of the lack of zoning, but I don't see this happening in other cities in Texas, so I have to think it's somehow related.
This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of thing. If neighborhoods are income-segregated, there is no end to opinion pieces about this awful late-capitalist crypto-apartheid. If neighborhoods are mixed-income, then the hand-wringing is about rich people living behind walls next to a shanty town.
There's clearly a correct answer here: repeal segregation laws. Why on earth is my government forcing lower income families out of neighborhoods they want to live in?
Replacing malloc/calloc/free etc an application-specific xmalloc/xcalloc/xfree is seemingly a fairly common pattern. There's one example in libiberty[0] (-liberty, get it?) where, for instance, the return value of malloc is checked for NULL and the program terminates if so.
The included header file uses the macro system, among other things, to bring C99 up-to-date with more modern programming techniques, using what we've learnt in the past decades since C was conceived.
In fairness however the short POD type names are purely cosmetic.
Agreed, there is nothing as distracting to me as an open floor plan. I take every opportunity to work at home that I can get, because my productivity is so much higher when I am out of the office.
depends who you work with. I've been working with really immature loud new grads at my current company and the open floor plan is awful. I just want to work and they yell across the room to talk.
I really only have one coworker like this. It's more that I get easily distracted myself, so if I have nowhere to hide from distractions I will be affected by them. I don't usually do well listening to music and working at the same time, so headphones don't help either
better than open floor plan sure. I'd still prefer something that doesn't have my back out facing the open. I think there are multiple studies that show that sitting with your back facing away from people causes significant anxiety.
The only context where Argentina can be in the same sentence as Australia is in a list of countries in the Southern Hemisphere, or countries whose names start with an 'A'.
