I mostly write C++ code on Linux systems. I use ddd for interactive debugging in bigger projects. For throwaway code(C++ & Python), I just use print statements.
For 5), 89 modulo 77 is 12 so we just solve for the least m such that (m + 3) * (m + 4) (= mm + 7m + 12) is divisible by 77. Both 73 and 74 clearly satisfy the condition, but 18 + 3 = 21 divisible by 7 and 18 + 4 = 22 divisible by 11 is the least among the choices.
As an Indian I often wonder, the real question is not why India is so corrupt(esp. at the lower levels of bureaucracy), rather how come certain countries have zero corruption at those levels? Perhaps I'm too pessimistic about human nature.
Because corruption is a thing that enters from the top down. If the cadre is corrupt then corruption will be seen as 'ok'. If the cadre is incorruptible then they can make a demand of those below them to act in a similar way or be booted out. The change from a corrupt state to one that isn't takes multiple decades, it is not something you can do overnight and at any point in time the arrow can reverse. The same goes for states that have low corruption today, that is not a guarantee for low corruption in the future.
China is interesting in this respect, on the one hand corruption is rife, on the other it is nominally totally out of bounds and the punishments are severe. I don't understand how those can both be true at the same time without a huge amount of selective enforcement.
My experience with India to date has one of utter amazement at the brashness and the degree to which corruption has infused society there. I suspect that for India a part of it is that it has social classes that are very disjoint. This creates a very fertile growth medium for corruption because it puts a lot of small people in positions of relatively large amounts of power over the lives of others.
I think it's the other way round: corruption, or at least nepotism, is the natural state of man just as dictatorship is the natural state of government. It takes considerable effort and ideological groundwork to build anything else. Just as you can't airdrop democracy onto countries.
For example in the UK, if one were to write a history of corruption-fighting there would be three big strands since the 1500s. Religion: the replacement of a church that sold salvation with (sometimes extreme) Protestant moralism. Military: at one point commissions in the army were bought and sold. This practice was replaced with more meritocratic promotion in order to win wars. And financial: English law seems to be considered one of the world's fairest regimes for contract law, and is often used for contracts between non-English big companies.
I don't think this is universally true. I think corruption or some version of it tends to be more common nearer the top, but does not always filter down. When it filters down, that's when the whole system becomes corrupt and there are many degrees of corruption a system might have.
One interesting thing I saw in toy models is that a small number of incorruptible people (5% or less) can make it very dangerous to be corrupt. As corruption falls there's then a feedback spiral, because most people will report corruption if they're not corrupt themselves.
You definitely need a few people who are weird and unreasonable to start it off though. Have you seen the movie Serpico? I thought that gave a good portrayal of how odd and antisocial the people who cause that kind of change often are (and the real story was more so e.g. his marriage collapsed as part of the process). If we're going to be really speculative, maybe it takes an individualistic culture to even have that kind of personality?
As a New Zealander, any form of corruption is unacceptable. It's just not in the DNA of being a good New Zealander to be corrupt. Therefore, there's great social pressure to not be corrupt. Being corrupt is not celebrated, and I wouldn't show off or discuss it here.
Everywhere in Northern Europe getting labelled as corrupt would be a huge stigma, too. Just not something that can be done.
This applies to direct corruption. There are different, structural kinds of corruption though, like "old boy networks" where business may get handled via personal relations. While still damaging for the society, it probably isn't even illegal in most cases.
It used to be the same here in Sweden but unfortunately it has started changing for the worse. It's mainly centered around higher up municipal government officials who take bribes to let certain companies win contracts for the municipality. While citizens have yet to bribe the officials we still suffer because of sub-standard products from/work done by companies that "win" the contracts.
I spent my first 25 years in India and the next 15 in the US. Widespread corruption in India was one of the things I hated most. I think in the end it comes down to just social norm, peer pressure and the prevailing environment. There are kinds of behavior that would be completely unacceptable and looked down upon in India and there are other kinds of behavior that is unacceptable in the US. Corruption is one of the behaviors unacceptable in the US but prevalent in India - and people just learn from the environment they grow up in.
I think many people in India, who consider themselves to have morally 'good' - wouldn't bat an eyelid while offering bribes. They don't get push back from peers either. What irked in India is when you try to do the right thing - i.e. not take the corruption shortcut - my peers would tell me I'm stupid or naive or something to that effect. In the US if I say that I attempted corruption, my peers will probably tell me I'm morally depraved. So you need a critical mass of people that enforce and most people just follow along.
Care to explain a little? Did your friend mean that talented engineers like working on novel problems and companies facing hard problems are thus more attractive?
I read jenshoop to mean: when recruiting, describe in some technical depth, the difficult, unique problems your company is solving to build its product(s).
As far as your work is concerned, if you believe your code or design choices are valid, don't accept their corrections or suggestions so easily. Explain your choices and listen to them seriously. Let THEM convince you why you're in the wrong. Ask for clarifications and don't let them leave until you are fully convinced. Stand up for yourself, OP.
Availability of an interpreter has been one of the major advantages of programming in dynamic languages. With languages like Haskell, Scala coming with first class interpreters, this advantage is being lost to a certain extent. I think it should be possible to build interpreters even for mainstream static langs like C++ and Java, they probably exist already, though I'm not sure why they haven't found larger acceptance.
I believe the biggest advantage with a good static type system is that programmers can design good datatypes and specify their relationships - and the compiler can then detect any inconsistencies(ideally anyway).
What Xixi says is that when China's GDP per capita matches that of Japan, it's economy will be 3.5x as big as US's. A similar percentage in budget for defence as that of US would then mean 3.5 x 600B. Nothing to do with China's current GDP or her current defence budget.
The German school system divides students into three distinct groups starting in the fourth grade, meaning the decision is made in the third [1]. The three divisions are 1. Hauptschule (central, lower-level school) 2. Realschule (technical school) and 3. Gymnasium (uni-prep school). Once placed into one of these three tracks, it's very difficult to switch between them - more so in the later years, since they each have a different number of years required in order to graduate.
Over the past few years, the system has been changing to allow parents greater say in their children's future, resulting in the same mixups that happen in the United States when parents can override course placement decisions. I can go into more detail on this if anyone wants.
Although this is true, it is only half the story and school system.
You leave out the Fachoberschule, Berufsoberschule (name and curriculum depends on the state) and Berufsschule/Apprenticeship system. While the biggest factor in if someone will go on to study later in life will be if a student attended the Gymnasium from 5th grade on, every single person in Germany has many options to get to a university or university of applied sciences. As for the the schools I mentioned before:
Students from the Hauptschule (until 9th grade) and Realschule (until 10th grade) can attend the Fachoberschule, depending on a certain core GPA and extra coursework for Hauptschul students. Which is leading towards the 12th or 13th grade, depending on if the student wants to attend a university of applied science or a university.
Furthermore, students who do an apprenticeship after the 9th or 10th grade can enter a Berufsoberschule with successful completion of their apprenticeship. These students are often allowed to skip the 11th grade (same curriculum as the Fachoberschule).
Whereas, I have to fully agree that it is hard to switch from Hauptschule or Realschule to a Gymnasium, but it is not impossible and I know multiple people who studied at universities, while starting out at the Hauptschule.
Starting with 5th grade, primary school has 4 years (or 6 in 2 states, and possibly different numbers in experimental cases).
And while switching between the tracks indeed is difficult, it is possible to either gain the Abitur after going to one of the "lower" levels by taking additional years of schooling, or start at uni (especially universities of applied science) without it all. The article you linked gives the (to me surprising, I wouldn't have expected the numbers to be that high) statistic of
> The most traditional route has always been graduation from a Gymnasium with the Abitur; however this has become less common over time. As of 2008, less than half of university freshmen in some German states had graduated from a Gymnasium. Even in Bavaria (a state with a policy of strengthening the Gymnasium) only 56 percent of freshmen had graduated from a Gymnasium.
That said, this early split certainly is a heavily debated topic and in many cases likely is not optimal.
Czech have similar system. It is easy to get into technical university if you know some math. Real hard are humanities, some art schools take perhaps 0.5% of applicants.
Not sure about market. Most musicians and painters I know are self educated and have daily job.
University does not have monopoly, one can always pay for private university (which is not that expensive). But state university is highly selective and most prestigious.
Prep schools are not for university, they're for "great schools" which is a separate system and pretty much unique to the country. Neither prep schools nor the bac are relevant to universities (outside of having the bac), universities are free-ish and anyone can attend (at least the first year, there's no entrance test)
Prep schools in France can be damn selective as well. And prep schools tend to have contracts with universities so drop out from prep schools can be admitted to universities (they might or might not have to pass an exam for that). Prep schools are somewhat equivalent to the first two years of university, with a bit of literature/philosophy and foreign language classes, but prep schools are much intense and exams are harder (disclaimer: I did prep school and a "Grande Ecole", and and also have an Msc from a University).
