Of course, patriarch theory completely accounts for this. The common view that men are more powerful and autonomous, and therefore dangerous, can probably account for some degree of their harsher treatment under the justice system, just like this view probably helps them in acquiring positions of power in the workplace.
I don't see how. If men are perceived as being stronger and more rational, that will help them in acquiring jobs, but hurt them when being found culpable of a crime.
I'm not sure where you learned feminist theory, but it's fairly resolute about the fact that Patriarchy is deleterious to both men and women.
Nobody learns feminist theory because it's not a learnable topic, it's just a collection of nonsensical anecdotes bound together with clever sounding words.
If men get sentenced more harshly because they are "stronger" and "more rational", or even just perceived that way, then there's no problem with them dominating roles that benefit from a lot of strength or rationality, roles like CEO of a company. But feminists have a big problem with that notion. They're all about how women are just as good as men at everything, equal in all respects and thus deserving of equal outcomes, right until there's an outcome that's better for women than men. Then suddenly there's an intellectual sounding but illogical explanation.
In my decades of programming I've never had to seriously consider these issues. I have used recursion and have written some pretty deep stuff like cryptography and writing my own interpreter (for a business - not a school project). I've even implemented recursion in a language that didn't support it. I have read about tail recursion several times. I still barely remember what it is. But I know a few books to reach for if I had to use recursion again. This is why the interview process is broken. I've written lots of production code and end up being seen as a lead programmer within weeks of a new job. And your questions would make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about.
I’ve worked with some interviewers who are out to prove they are smarter than the candidate because they remember a bit of something that the candidate does not.
Only when the interviewer finds someone “smarter” than himself does he approve of hiring the candidate.
Serious request, as a developer who would probably code a naive Fibonacci that doesn't meet your standard: Could you provide a code sample that does meet your standard? This looks like an important learning opportunity for me. Thanks.
True, but then the "worker" fib() method should be called fib_calculate() and should be wrapped by fib() which then returns a single integer. I believe that breaks the spirit of the question.
There should be a fourth level where they use the closed form solution to get to the solution they want without any recursion or looping for reasonable values of N. Maybe even a fifth level using the O(log(N)) matrix exponentiation method.
I’m a bit puzzled at the idea of using recursion for an infinite sequence (did OP mean factorial?). Give me a LazyList / generator / IEnumerable instead any day for Fib.
The people who only talk about skin colour and have brought it to the forefront of our collective thought, even for people who genuinely didn't think about skin colour.
Do you believe permanently raising wages to offset black swan events such as the COVID-19 epidemic is a wise move? What about the next black swan event? Are they going to be paid enough then or they'll need a pay rise again?
Healthcare professionals are paid much more compared to the average UK citizen. Especially doctors, the average pay (100k pounds) is in the 2% of the earners. Emigrant doctors couldn't even dream of finding comparable wages in free market scenarios in their own countries and come to the UK.
I think the best we could do collectively is to pay out generous bonuses to frontline nurses for the duration of the pandemic.
The COVID-19 epidemic is not a black swan event. It is a foreseeable event with a computable probability of happening. Epidemics are recurring events throughout human history, including in the present day. Sure, the recurrence is low, especially for global pandemics, but you can be almost absolutely sure that within the next 100 years there will be another one.
In fact, even in the black swan book, they are explicitly given as an example of rare but NOT black swan-style events.
Point being, governments and corporations should have epidemic plans. It should never come as a surprise. Sure, a small mom-an-pop place or a start-up can't really prepare, but a corporation the size of Amazon should have an epidemic plan and reserves for that. Not having one would simply be irresponsible, both to shareholders and to employees.
Edit to add: airlines, restaurant, and hotel chains should have been the most aware of this. If they do not have plans for resisting a 2-6 month epidemic when business is shut down, then they are simply gambling on government intervention. There is almost 0% probability of operating one of these companies for 50 years and not having to battle at least a local epidemic in a large country.
Here's how this would go. The UK government did have epidemic plans, including a stockpile of PPE. Here's how the BBC described that stockpile: "Coronavirus: UK failed to stockpile crucial PPE". Of the four items that it complains were missing from the stockpile - gowns, visors, swabs and body bags - two (gowns and swabs) were ones that the government didn't expect to need for the epidemics it was planning for, the visors are expensive and bulky to store but so easy to manufacture hobbyists with 3D printers can literally do it at home, and I'm not even sure what's going on with body bags because there was famously a huge Brexit stockpile of those. Anyway, my overall point is that governments and corporations don't get credit for planning, they get blamed for the ways in which their plans don't predict the future exactly.
Perhaps you missed the C4 doco which showed that stockpiles of PPE of all kinds were run down and what was left was often out of date.
Or the conclusions of the government's own Exercise Cygnus in 2016 which stated clearly that this should never be allowed to happen because the consequences would be beyond horrific.
> Healthcare professionals are paid much more compared to the average UK citizen. Especially doctors, the average pay (100k pounds)
This is just utter nonsense. The average UK salary is around £30,000. Nurses can expect to earn anywhere between £22,000 and £30,000.
Junior doctors (which a new doctor can expect to be for somewhere around 5 years) starts at £23,000 increasing to somewhere between £30,000 to £45,000. GP's earn around £75,000.
I think a Black Swan event is an opportunity to shift society out of an inadequate equilibrium. Not just for NHS staff but to reshape the relationship between capital and labor.
Top 2% of income is no great shakes when you look at the full distribution. The 0.1 and 0.01% make several orders of magnitude more.
Why? Aside from the fact that if you give everybody more money you're just raising the supply of money in the market so people essentially have the same purchasing power as before, except now their integer in a database is bigger.
This isn't how the economy works. If thst was the case nobody would ever earn more, which of course isn't true.
Wages are only a small part of a products price, and there also is enough evidence that for example raising the minimum wage does actually help people.
For why it works, its simple: non-rich people spend any extra money, rich people don't do anything useful with their extra money. Which is also why trickle-down economics is a scam when its being presented as a way to help poor or average people. It does work of course as a way to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
This is exactly how the economy works. If you raise the supply of money, prices are going to rise. Does not matter whether you print it or you just extract it from someone's bank account and redistribute it. That's Econ101. You're equating SOME people getting to earn more, with your original statement that EVERYBODY should be earning more. Well that doesn't work.
Also, rich people don't do anything with their extra money? The exact opposite is true. Most of rich people's wealth is not in cash, it's in investments - while the average folk's extra money is "invested" in products that they can't afford, like the latest iPhone or a fancy house/car. No rich person that didn't just inherit their wealth lets their money sit in a bank except for a small percentage of their wealth, because they know it's a bad deal. How does trickle down economics transfer wealth from the poor to the rich? The poor should have wealth to begin with, in order for it to be transferred.
>Healthcare professionals are paid much more compared to the average UK citizen. Especially doctors, the average pay (100k pounds) is in the 2% of the earners.
Oh please. Have you read "This is going to hurt" by Adam Kay?
Yes. Rise all wages to the point where everyone can at least fully support a family with it. You know, like during the good times when capitalism was still generating prosperity beside the usual death and destruction.
