You are the tool. We are the tools. Our job as programmers is to "manage complexity". To take a complex problem and mangle it away into a layer of abstraction so that we can comfortably work with it. Of course, some programmers take that too far and make 50 gazillion layers that shouldn't be there, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Or pretty much any news site or network. Make no mistake about it, they will try hide as much as they can in order to drum up outrage/page views.

I tried that too. And all I got was an empty comment section that read:

"Shazbot! We ran into some trouble getting the comments.
Try again... na-nu, na-nu!"

Sigh.

And this is what's wrong with society. Some people supposedly lie/exaggerate the truth/say something objectionable, and immediately some douche from who knows where decides that they only did it because "they must be neo-cons/tea*" Or however the fuck you interpret that positively awful sentence of yours. That's as bad as a racial/ethnic/religious stereotype being attributed to some random trait or action.

But then again, I don't blame you because I know you're doing it as an act of intellectual desperation. You, and people like you, will use any opportunity or example to try to reinforce your ridiculous partisan politics and the hatred that comes along with it. People like you are why we can't have nice things as a society.

I thought that was long ago proven by PHP? If you even want to call it a programming language, that is.

That's just silly. "This is my only project in language A. Therefore I won't get any tools that help me program in language A". If you're too lazy to download a free IDE and install it for the single project you are working on, then you deserve to suffer trying to use that programming language. Right tools for the right job, and if you can't bother to work smarter then you're just screwing yourself over.

Because he's part of the ruling class. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can have the "free and just" society that statist people incessantly drone on and on about.

How about you add a disclaimer to the top of your post? "Warning: Post contains my anecdotally-proven religious and racial stereotypes."

Of course... But to me that sounds like "spend more on things that I think will benefit me/society/my descendants." You can sugar-coat what you say with all the good intentions in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that what you think and what others think could be two completely separate things because they're based on opinion. And the only way to resolve that is by forcing your majority will, or special interest group powers onto the rest of us who happen to be part of the minority.

Ah yes, that old re-hashed tripe. Bet you think you sound all hip and cool using the word "corporatist", huh? Channeling the inner hippy, eh? I suggest you go and re-read your statist manual on "how to dismiss those pesky free-thinkers before they convince enough people of their own inherent rights".

On a more serious note, here is an actual definition of "corporatism": "the control of a state or organization by large interest groups." By that definition, you could say that society is already controlled by large interest groups. And the state then gives them power to wield their beliefs over the rest of society.

And that is better than those that say "spend more on things that benefit me"? That's a race upwards; to add bloat. Whereas the other one you mentioned is more of a race to the lowest amount of funding possible. What I'm trying to say is that it's all too easy to "spend more on what benefits me" because the cost of that is spread across the entire population and no thought is required. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult to justify and prove the need for items that require us to take away funding from other items, or to simply justify a reduction in spending on a certain wasteful/unneeded item. And that's one of the big traits of the political system: practically no one dares to be the bad guy that rocks the boat by saying or trying to reduce unnecessary funding. Because _some_ group, doesn't matter which one will proceed to tear that politician a new one in the media. This is democracy, this is populism.

No, I'd say they are idiots for blaming others for the things they themselves are partly to blame for. I'm referring to the building and property zoning laws. Hell, you know democracy, I'm sure. If majority rules, then everyone shares blame. That also means not singling anyone out, like these cretins are doing to some random engineer who happens to work for a company that they currently find fashionable to hate or are be jealous of.

If the value of the currency was rising, then yes you could say that the "value" that you have to pay off is increasing. However, you can't look at it in isolation. The interest rates will be different, probably higher. Not to mention people will be less inclined to borrow money precisely because of what you mention. It may make a lot of economic sense in a deflationary scenario for people to rent + save until they can buy their own property. As opposed to borrowing + living in the same apartment as they slowly pay it off.

In the end it's up to the individual people to decide what their priorities are, how risk-averse they are and what course of action to take as a result of that.

What an absolutely ridiculous way to butt in your opinions of "stand your ground" laws. Completely off-topic to both the article and the AC comment you responded to when you initially brought it up.

I wasn't talking about the "inefficiency" of the code. There's more to code than just how fast it runs. That has it's place, but most of the time, it is dwarfed by more important factors to consider.