> But statically typed complied languages do not provide an inherently better programming paradigm than dynamic programming.

For any large long lived project with multiple contributors, statically type analysis definitely adds value by eliminating an entire class of errors at compile time.

Did you even read the article?

> Germany's economy minister announced the seizure in a statement on Monday. The move came after the ministry of economic affairs learned that Gazprom Germania had been acquired by JSC Palmary and Gazprom export business services LLC — but it wasn't clear who the owners behind the two companies were, per the statement.

> Germany's economy ministry justified the takeover by saying it had not granted permission for the Gazprom Germania acquisition. Permission is required, the ministry said, if the investors are not from the European Union and "critical infrastructure" is involved.

Are we still trying not to offend Russians?

You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.

The Russians knew of this rule, so I doubt they are surprised. If the new owners are approved they will get control back.

It's a very simple example and knowing that addition is commutative, it's obvious that there is no ordering.

Prefix sum depends on associativity, not commutativity.

I usually go about it differently than hold off coding. I do try to understand the problem fully before I implement anything. I try to figure out what abstractions make the most sense and what to optimize for. Then I write a preliminary implementation and almost without fail I learn something new that changes the parameters of the "problem". Scrap it and do it again just with more knowledge. No amount of analysing and understanding up front have produced a better or faster result for me.

I suppose we can only accurately define a problem when there are no big unknowns, so I wouldn't prescribe readme based development in every scenario - a quick and dirty exploration of the space which can then be scrapped is more important sometimes.

> The less affluent citizens who didn't attend higher education are paying for us who did attend. This is usually motivated by the idea that society as a whole benefits from us educated people so much that they should pay for it. I find this idea a bit offensive.

The data supports the claim. A higher educated citizen generate more tax and in general use less money in the healthcare system. It's a net surplus to pay for the education, so the "less affluent" citizens are not paying for anything. At least that is what the Danish government claims.

> would actually prefer a system financed purely by student loans. It does put a lot more responsibility on the prospective student to judge the quality of an education programme and the opportunities it affords. Some programmes would no longer be sustainable if they were not given free of charge.

This is rather simple to correct for. If the unemployment is high for a given education it can be reduced. It is in Denmark.

Which is a very good way to cut down the money spend on things.

You only need to state to what extend and period the information is stored in backups, and have a process in place to purge it again in case of a restore.

I never realized that was the rule. I thought you had to go in and wipe the backups regularly.

That would be infeasible for cold storage.

I agree, either compare at the same size or the same perceptual quality. I know the latter is subjective, but in this case the JPEG is significantly higher quality.

Chemistry is complex enough that layman cannot make any assumptions. For all we know stainless steel and carbon steel have higher content than the cast iron, but leach less because it's far more stable.

I like growing employees, but I'd be lying if it said I didn't put immense value on the great employees that are content where they are with what they're doing. They're dependable and they mean I have some form of "old guard" that really knows a system inside out without going through documentation or experimenting. That is very valuable.

That is very valuable until that employee needs to find another job and find their skills aren’t marketable.

Its up to the employee to continue to build marketable skills, not the employer. If the employee is content in their position, then that's that.

This is not how good managers think. They're not building good employees, they're helping build incredible team members. This isn't some altruistics BS, it's because the attributes of a great employee are symptoms of the indvidual. If your manager only cares about your bottom-line impact towards your job, start looking for a better situation.

I will absolute do what I can to grow employees. But they have to want to do that. Not all employees want to climb the ladder. They do not want to become a manager, they do not want the responsibility that comes with lead or architect roles. That does not mean they cannot grow in their position. You can always improve your coding, automated testing, devops, not to say soft skills, learn a new framework etc.

Manager: “What happens if I train my employees and they leave?”

What happens if you don’t train your employees and they stay?

Why would anyone want a team who hasn’t updated their skillset since 2006? That’s the epitome of the “Dead Sea Effect”

Exactly and while the employee may appear from the untrained eye, to be "going nowhere" they may well be quietly gaining skills of highly marketable long term value, in fact having time to learn stuff properly due to lower pressure. So everyone wins...

I have seen the thought "employers are responsible for skills growth of their employees" and I am with you on this.

Employees need to take responsibility for their career and growth. I am responsible for continuing my learning and maintaining my skill set. To that end though, I choose to work places that encourage and support that since it's in their own interest.

Agreed, I think companies that foster an environment of growth and learning ultimately become more competitive in the market and have an easier time innovating, so its a big plus from the shareholder equity side, but certainly not their responsibility to elevate each and every employee.