See I am not American and don't care about American culture war, Republican Democratican, or whatever you guys are using as an excuse to burn down buildings.
It's plain wrong to put banner ads in third world countries like Brazil and India, sounding like wikipedia doesn't have money to run their servers.
It's plain wrong to funnel that money to executives.
People who make wikipedia great aren't even involved with this. They have enough money to run servers, and a potential donation doesn't create additional content. They are trying hard to hide that fact with some clever wording.
This is textbook example of __dark pattern__ which highly privacy focused people love to point out when a bootstrapped startup collects telemetry data from their little application.
The Wikipedia fundraising effort is sounds like a metric driven C suite executive desperately trying to make charts "stonk".
Yes. An intrusive list puts the pointers to next & prev in the struct itself. IntrusiveList<Member>::iterator is a Member*, then member->next points to another Member*. An extrusive list puts the pointers in a separate node structure, which then has a pointer to the actual member type. ExtrusiveList<Member>::iterator is a ExtrusiveListNode<Member>*, node->next points to another ExtrusiveListNode*, and you access the actual Member* with node->data. Basically it's a double indirection.
The advantage of extrusive linked lists is that you don't need to modify the data layout of Member at all. All the linked list manipulation happens on ListNodes, which have a pointer to the actual member, which can be accessed with just a cast. That's why they're so well-suited to class libraries: you can easily write a generic ExtrusiveLinkedList that works with any data that can be represented with a pointer, hide all the traversal (and the existence of individual ExtrusiveListNodes) in accessor functions, and present a simple API with no codegen or modifications to Member.
The advantages of intrusive linked lists are 1) performance 2) no heap allocations 3) easy traversal when given a Member*. It's only a single indirection rather than a double, and usually that indirection is necessary anyway to avoid copies. Insertion and deletion are just pointer manipulation; you don't need to allocate new space for the nodes. Oftentimes your functions will take Member* anyway, and it's nice not to take or traverse the container if you just need to peek at the next element coming up.
The point of this subthread is that intrusive linked lists have very clear use cases in the kernel & embedded spaces, where these advantages are often critical. Extrusive linked lists, however, have very few advantages over vectors (which also require heap allocation but are more cache & locality friendly). In a common business app responding to user input, the difference between O(1) amortized and O(1) is negligible; you can eat the occasional pause for a vector resizing, because the user isn't going to care about a few milliseconds. They both require heap allocation. The vector will give you much faster traversal, because subsequent reads all hit cache. The vector takes less memory (1 pointer per element, with a max of 50% overhead, while an extrusive doubly-linked list is 3 pointers per element). There's just little reason to use an extrusive linked list because the use-cases where intrusive linked lists are not better are precisely the same ones where vectors are better.
Not so sure about that, with a certain clickbait coverage of solarwinds story creating bad PR for Jetbrains, (perhaps among the least controversial tech companies).
That's what happens when liberal arts people think they're too delicate to understand anything more nuanced than US political thing of the day.
So they steal them. Sometimes you need to do what you need to do in order to survive. I'm just saying you shouldn't try to argue that it's "not stealing" if you decide the reward is greater than the risk, or the net benefit exceeds the transgression.
It's obviously not exactly the same as stealing, since you are only denying the person one very specific use of their "property" (which only recently has been artificially made property, through copyright laws). That specific use you are denying them is not the right of sale even, but the right of a monopoly on distribution. Of course, if it starts materially affecting the person's capacity to live a reasonable lifestyle, then it becomes a different moral issue, and there is still a moral judgment to be made regardless, but that is not the same thing at all as conflating unauthorized copying, which widens possession in a way that could potentially have averse effects, and the absolute of theft, which changes it in a zero sum way, and necessarily has averse effects.
As one example, I know a guy who pays for online streaming subscriptions, but still pirates to not be forced through a crappy experience because people are attempting to extract the last penny and get as rich as possible through spying and ads, tiers of resolution, device restrictions, etc. I see no reason why there is any moral issue with bypassing their chosen distribution monopoly, especially because they are not starving. I strongly disagree with the tenet that extreme capitalistic gain is a right, and thus cannot consider intellectual property rights as such an absolute. Now, if one is to download something that someone earning a modest living made, and which has a real material impact on them providing for a reasonably comfortable life for themselves and their family, personally I consider that a problem, but that is quite rare (not least of all because smaller content producers are usually being exploited and making very little from distribution). It's not the likely case even with just a modicum of awareness in what and when you decide to download something.
> Inability to earn adequate living: indeed just 57% of full-time published authors derived 100% of their individual income from writing-related work in 2017, and much of that writing income comes from activities such as speaking engagements, the teaching of writing, editing or translating the works of other authors, ghostwriting, etc. rather from book advances and royalties. Only 21% of full-time published authors derived 100% of their individual income from book-related income.
In terms of income:
> Median incomes of all published authors who were surveyed—including part-time, full-time, traditionally published, self-published, and hybrid-published authors—for all writing-related activities[1] was $6,080, down 3% from four years ago. This is down from a $10,500 median income in 2009 according the Authors Guild’s last survey[2]. Worse still, the median income for all published authors based solely on book-related activities[3] fell from $3,900 to $3,100, down 21%, while full-time traditionally published authors earned $12,400.
So effectively, not paying for a book has a high likelihood of taking a decent percentage of a writers income.
Like I said, make an educated decision. However, the largest reason that authors make so little is that the publishing houses overwhelmingly give them next to nothing. So no, downloads are not the problem. Anecdotally, I have never had an author not send me a digital copy of a book I requested from them (generally because they were hard to get). At the same time, it is pretty obvious which authors are smaller and would thus fall into the category of "people to look out for" I indicated in my first post. And again, I am not here advocating for downloading, simply pointing out that it is quite different than strict theft (which is pretty obvious), and those who claim otherwise, by using a simplistic argument, lose a large part of their audience immediately.
And these are the people who post on LinkedIn as if their understanding of esoteric Leetcode string DP problems is essential for scaling Amazon and Google.
They may not quite understand their development or deployment environment but their knowledge of writing segment tree as a single dimension array in 15 minute is somehow essential to scaling the internal CRUD app these people end up working on.
Now everyone being interviewed by this person has to know by heart or magically derive on spot how to find minimum steps to obtain maximum length palindrome subsequence of even length from a string consisting of lower case letters, because apparently it's the gist of all computer science knowledge a developer will need.
I wonder how much the culture of standardized testing has contributed to this pattern. The idea that it's somehow unfair to test relevant skills and knowledge because previous exposure comes down to simple chance. That for a test to be "objective" it should only ask about abstract matters no one would ever reasonably encounter. It strikes me as sort of essentialist.
It also seems sort of contradictory... if experience in the field is one of the most important criteria, why are they implicitly avoiding testing for that?
Many of these young CEOs are really brilliant folks. They deserve to be given a fairly free rein.
However, there's a big difference between brilliance, and good judgment.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.
When a CEO makes a mistake, there's usually only one strike, and you're out (we won't talk about Steve Jobs, though -that SOB had nine lives). When lower-level managers make mistakes, it's often recoverable.
Until recently, it was fairly common for corporations to be run by folks (usually men, but that's another issue) in their fifties.
These folks had no problems considering older folks on their merits (which often included price). If they discriminated against older folks, it was usually because they didn't want to pay for something. It wasn't really personal (but that doesn't make it any less reprehensible). Younger folks, on the other hand, bring in the younger generation's resentment against their elders, so it is personal.
Many folks think that only younger folks are creative. I'd not argue that youth doesn't have a great deal of creative energy; mostly because they haven't encountered limitations, imposed by things like the laws of physics.
Creativity, however, does not equal results. What SpaceX has done with reusable boosters, is awesome. I do not know the details, but I'll bet the team that developed it was not just a bunch of enthusiastic kids. I'll lay odds there's a lot of well-coiffed grey pompadours in that team.
IBM is in hot water, because they adopted a "cargo cult" mentality, that, if they hired enough younger folks (and got rid of their "olds"), they'd magically transform into a startup unicorn.
I don't think that strategy has actually worked out too well.
> the university would be dominated by a minority who were simply good at tests/human calculators but lacking in the customs, morals, and values that contribute to society.
Relevant excerpt from "Why nerds are unpopular" [0]
> I mistrusted words like "character" and "integrity" because they had been so debased by adults. As they were used then, these words all seemed to mean the same thing: obedience. The kids who got praised for these qualities tended to be at best dull-witted prize bulls, and at worst facile schmoozers. If that was what character and integrity were, I wanted no part of them.
It's plain wrong to put banner ads in third world countries like Brazil and India, sounding like wikipedia doesn't have money to run their servers.
It's plain wrong to funnel that money to executives.
People who make wikipedia great aren't even involved with this. They have enough money to run servers, and a potential donation doesn't create additional content. They are trying hard to hide that fact with some clever wording.
This is textbook example of __dark pattern__ which highly privacy focused people love to point out when a bootstrapped startup collects telemetry data from their little application.
The Wikipedia fundraising effort is sounds like a metric driven C suite executive desperately trying to make charts "stonk".