If you code in embedded systems or FPGA its very common since you are using very specific vendor tools. A lot of enterprise companies have a "one way" kind of philosophy as well, they lock down the systems so much "for security" that you might not be able to install anything other than Eclipse or whatever is approved.
I'm not sure about the other ones, but I know that helix supports language servers by default and it does not have a workspace trust system like vscode, so LSPs can automatically execute code when you enter a directory
Every gas station, grocery store, convenience store, pharmacy, urgent care, every bank, every tech company, every computer manufacturer, most food production companies, most farms, every resource extraction company, every manufacturing company.
Any health care organization - from your list, pharmacies and urgent care - that is profit-driven is not holding health as top priority.
If an organization that should be focused on making people healthy is instead focused on how many currency units it can extract from other entities, there is (as they say) a misalignment of priorities.
The Bending Spoons business model is right out of the private equity playbook. Buy a business with good revenue, cut cost to turn this into a consistent revenue stream, generate annual returns.
This is not like making a small 20 person self funded company.
Urban areas conserve far more resources than suburban or rural per person. They also use less land per person, allowing more land to be used for natural processes and agriculture. Imagine if all 30 million people in Shanghai moved to the suburbs of NYC in a .5 acre house, and started watering their lawns.
Maybe those people just wont get as good of grades, and that's acceptable. It is strange that the educational system determined it wasn't acceptable. If I go to a university and try to walk onto the NCAA Division 1 Basketball team, its fine for them to tell me that I am too short, too slow, too weak, can't shoot, or my performance anxiety means I mess up every game and I am off the team. If I try and go for Art but my art is bad I am rejected. If I try and go for music but my performance anxiety messes up my performances, then I am rejected.
Why aught there be an exception for academics? Do you want your lawyer or surgeon to have performance anxiety? This seems like a perfectly acceptable thing to filter out on.
I didn't ask for an "exception" in terms of knowledge, I pointed out a bias in favor of one specific type of assessment. I didn't do great on verbal exams but I could run circles around other people when it came to more hands-on assessments that required a deeper understanding of the material and applying it in practice.
A surgeon is a perfect example. Before you trust your life to someone, would you rather find out their grades on verbal assessments in med school or do you prefer to see their patient outcome statistics?
When hiring a software developer would you rather verbally quiz them on theoretical knowledge of SOLID and TDD or would you rather see their code and work history?
> Do you want your lawyer or surgeon to have performance anxiety? This seems like a perfectly acceptable thing to filter out on.
As a client you can do whatever you want, but that's not the goal of educational institutions. It's antithetical to their goals unless you subscribe to the cynical belief that schools only exist to produce easily replaceable, obedient, compliant workers.
[And reading your other comment, this indeed seems to be your view.]
Everything involves performing and actually proving what you know. If this is such an issue, then its something you need to fix. I have never actually met anyone who has this “perfomance anxiety” where they are so brilliant but do poorly on tests because of it. I think its a myth to attack rigor of academics. For knowledge workers everntually you have to go into court, or perform surgery, or do the taxes or give the presentation, or have the high pressure meeting. If anxiety is truly debilitating to the person all of these situations theyll be doomed so filter them out.
I had some take home exams in Physics that you could use internet, books, anything except other people (but that was honor code based). Those were some of the hardest exams I ever took in my life. Pages and pages of mathematical derivations. An LLM with how they can do a pretty good job at constructing mathematics, would actually have solved that issue pretty well.
I do not use the app or scan and go. But I have a walmart account, and if I use my credit card at walmart all of those purchases show up on my online account. My email is of course intimately tied to my credit card (I am not in payments, so I am not sure where that happens, its not surprising but its there).
The US constitution is working great. Democracy isn't necessarily good. If we had a national vote where 51% of the people voted to kill 49% of the people, that would be bad. More democratic institutions also have a tendency to favor hand outs to people, people vote for the policy that gives them free stuff, or rather that robs other people and enriches them.
The issue is a cultural one, where people are looking out for themselves over their country. Where politicians seek to enrich themselves, people just want to get a hand out, and lobbyists write sections of laws.
Where democracy shines is that we can leverage democracy to amend the constitution. If they think that moving to a pure popular vote or something would be better, then get that amended into the constitution, we have a process for this, just get 2/3s of states to vote for it.
> The US constitution is working great. Democracy isn't necessarily good. If we had a national vote where 51% of the people voted to kill 49% of the people, that would be bad.
"Democracy is bad because majorities can vote for bad things" is hardly a meaningful argument on its own. How is the current system of minority rule via electors better? If we had an electoral vote where 22% of the people voted to kill 78% of the people[1], would that be better?
1. The current apportionment of electors is such that you can achieve 270 electoral votes with states accounting for roughly 43% of the population. Since nearly all states grant all electors to the candidate winning the popular vote within themselves, you only need roughly 22% of the overall US population to elect a president.
22% is unlikely. The electoral college, the senate, the house, the state legiatures for constitutional ammendments. These are multiple layers that are meant to act as a check against a popular mob in a heat of passion.
If 3 people vote and 1 million are eligible but dont vote. Then 2 people vote for A and 1 person votes for B. A wins with 66% of the vote not .000000001% of the vote. Effectively those million people surender their votes to the other 3, or even just to the winners. They dont count anymore, they chose to not be counted when they chose not to participate. Whether those votes effectively disapear, or go to the winner or are divided based on the results, it doesn matter. If youre counting non voters you mignt as well get really pedantic and say that only the president, house and senate really get votes on a law so its .000000001% that vote on anything, but we dont because we known those votes represent the will of the people.
Then they are misusing the 22% argument. The 22% to win argument, is a specific arrangement of votes that is an argument against the electoral college. In that if someone were to merely win a the electoral college with 51% of the votes in each states but receive 0% of the votes in all other states, they could still win the presidency. So it is an extreme case of a president winning the electoral college despite a landslide crushing defeat in the popular vote. It is not about counting all non-voters as having been votes for the opponent.
They’re not misusing it. You are arguing things in your head instead of reading what is written. That you double down on it, when wrong, shows why you make up arguments with yourself.
Simply read what is written before making false claims against what you misread. Stubborn ignorance is still ignorance.
reply