The expectation that a machine should not make these mistakes is reasoned, humans might make these mistakes but they will generally realise their mistake. The machine doesn't know its wrong. A human learns to drive within 20-40 hours with reasonable competency, versus the effectively millions of hours of computation that's used to train the models, Given this the expectations aren't as unrealistic as some on here claim.

Disagree on latency, for certain classes of applications it really matters. Latency can be caused by a myriad of things, but if that thing is your means for cut over, you haven't failed to respond, you've failed to respond in a timely way. The telco space has strict latency requirements. If you have a failure which results in erratic behaviour on the network due to the database taking time to handle a node failure you aren't in a good place, it has a financial impact.

There are databases that can provide high consistency and availability.

Put an SLA on the latency, and it becomes availability.

That’s a great way of putting it!

Bournemouth has a long runway, legacy of its WWII roots. It was chartered for £60,000 for some 20-minute subsonic flights. There were also some day trips to Cairo from Bournemouth.

They're very similar to each other. Both count as short to Concorde, rotate at 250mph+ and wings that don't generate that much lift.

It is a real issue, I was amazed to find places such as Milton Keynes were seeing foreign investment on new build - friend is renting there and his new build place is owned by a family based in the UAE

Zwift and Bkool already have offerings in this area. Zwift is outstanding.

And http://expresso.com/Home

It is brutal and in some countries, likely to result in a law suit as it can be construed as 'Constructive Dismissal'. Extraordinarily damaging to the person on the receiving end. Its better to do it the right way, make the position redundant, and enable everyone to move on.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with Scala. It feels every conceivable concept in language research has been thrown in. The lack of coherency is sometimes quite jarring.

Coherency/conceptual integrity are things I look for in computing environments they make reasoning things much simpler as logical deductions can be made, I don't find myself doing that with Scala.

Your mileage may certainly vary, but having used Scala pretty steadily for the last year, I find the strong majority of Scala code I see in practice generally very easy to intuit. You can do stupid things with it--see Scalaz, which is bad ideas[1] given form--but for the most part, people don't.

I used to have the same concern you're expressing, and a few others besides--I've written comments on HN along the lines of "I'm writing Scala that I can't read the next day"--but I got past that stage not too long afterwards, and I find it remarkably predictable and consistent in everyday use.

[1] - this isn't a fair characterization, see deeper in the tree

what is wrong with scalaz?

Sorry, that was a little more flip than it should have been. Scalaz attempts to wedge into Scala a set of idioms that don't really work well in Scala; as an OO language that's still largely imperative at its core, it's swimming upstream and the code--and the use of that code--is pretty clumsy.

Scala isn't a pure-FP language, and trying to treat it as one doesn't really...work. Square peg, round hole. For me it falls in the "neat hack, but" bucket. That it can be done as Scalaz does is cool, but the practical value of it seems vastly oversold and I'm uncomfortable with the functional-everywhere political viewpoint pushed by some of its leaders (and fortunately Odersky seems opposed to a lot of it, which IMO bodes well for Scala's future).

> as an OO language that's still largely imperative at its core

Why do you say this? vals and immutable data strucutres are clearly emphasized in Scala, so how can you say that FP isn't at its core?

>Scala isn't a pure-FP language, and trying to treat it as one doesn't really...work

Why do you think scalaz concerns itself primarily with enforcing 'purity'? Scalaz' effects library isn't even part of it's core repo.

>You can do stupid things with it--see Scalaz, which is bad ideas given form

Oh the irony.

Warrants are required in the UK, though there are special exceptions such as when a serious or dangerous incident, agreed its open ended but the onus is on the Police officer to prove it and entering without one is unheard of in my experience, the source below provides more detail, and is a reliable source:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system...

They're useful where you need to grow a collection in constant time. Re-sizing arrays is potentially very expensive.

You might want to take a look at the graph (scroll down a little) in this article that is linked in the blog post:

http://kjellkod.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/why-you-should-neve...

It's not just growing the collection (it does read and insert), but it may be a bit surprising.

That's why you use a growth factor, say doubling the backing array when you need to grow. That makes the amortized cost of adding an item constant.

The only case where a LL may be preferable are when you care about performance of inserting/deleting in the middle of a list.

If really needed you can have it both ways, you could roll a data structure that is a linked list of arrays. Then you have constant time growth and good caching/prefetching.

Toy example:

  struct ListSegment {
    T[64] items
    int nextItem = 0
    ListSegment* nextSeg, prevSeg
  }

If you're using C++ you don't need to roll your own because the standard library provides it. It is called deque.