It is only because America has elected a +radical president has this become somewhat apparent. But the inertia is democratic as it represents the democratic process and accumulation.
It is especially important when you have edge-case of a president wining, but with 46% of popular vote and 26.5% of the potential vote.
The "Deep State" being the actual institutions of law and governance is actually what makes democracy sustainable.
There's nothing radical about Trump's policies at all. In fact, he's hardly right of center on most things.
1) He's strongly in favor of keeping the welfare state and all the entitlement programs. Left loves it.
2) He wants to expand the military. Right loves it.
3) He's pushing a mixture of common right and left policies, including lower taxes and regulation, infrastructure spending. He's promoting American jobs / workers first (thus unions have applauded several of his efforts, such as killing the TPP), which used to be a left platform.
4) He wants to scrap the ACA, right loves it. But has talked about either expanding Medicare to all people as the solution, or kicking it down to the states to run their own ACA equivalent programs, both of which the left would be in favor of vs the worse conservative alternative of a total wipeout.
5) He's in favor of a strong border. This is something both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were supposedly in favor of. Bill Clinton talked openly about the need to stop illegal immigration because it was taking American jobs etc.
6) He ran on a platform of putting an end to the US proliferation of entanglement overseas, particularly when it comes to wars in the middle east. George W Bush ran on a platform not so different.
Radical? Where? There isn't anything even remotely radical about Trump other than his personality type. His policies are rehashes of decades of policies espoused by other Presidents.
Whether Trump won 44% or 47% or 50.1% of the popular has absolutely nothing to do with the deep state's response to him. The deep state operates entirely independent of the electorate.
None of the three Clinton runs for Presidency achieved over 50% for example. With only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, and an openly anti-military bias, Bill Clinton didn't have these kinds of problems with the deep state in his first term.
An assault of against the entire legitimacy of the judicial branch is hyper radical. Naming the news media the enemies of the American people is hyper radical. Illegally ordering legal permanent residents be detained without due process is hyper radical.
Some of his policies aren't radical, sure. He is a populist. The fact that one time he said he likes the welfare state and one time he said he didn't, or that one time he said he wants to scrap ALL of ACA and then some other time he described all of the policies in ACA and said they were good and wouldn't go away doesn't mean he's moderate, it means he's incapable of telling the truth because his mind changes too quickly to have a consistent position. But regardless, the president doesn't set policy, congress does. He leads the country in words and action, acts as the head of state diplomatically and oversees enforcement of the laws which the legislative and the judicial branch decide for him.
In that sense as the leader of our country he is the most radical president I can think of since FDR who was a wartime leader and was rapidly approaching a dangerous permanent control of the country.
I disagree. Microsoft in terms of products under Nadella has been largely a continuation of Microsoft under Ballmer. Inside the company things will be different, but in terms of actual output the company has become much more risk-averse.
In the real world being a good developer is not about programming ability. A great programmer needs to absolutely engage in managing perception in the everyday working environment.
The reasoning is if programmer A addresses issues 2X as fast as programmer B.
Then as things average out programmer A will generate 2X more issues than programmer B all else being equal.
Managers, clients and fellow programmers will almost always see programmer A as a problem and programmer B as a hero in this situation.
I don't agree with your choice of words here. A developer is absolutely about his technical ability combined with the people skills needed to use that ability within a team. That is, after all, the purpose of the specialization.
That a developer would benefit from other specific people skills doesn't mean those skills become part of being a great developer. A developer would also probably benefit from being more good looking due to human psychology, but what does that have to do with the profession itself?
Rather, this means that the industry favors politics over development, which is a problem with the industry. The fact that it is not great developers who will ultimately prosper in this environment should alarm you.
Perhaps that's the answer to the question of: "Where have all the good developers gone?" - nobody wants them.
I would argue that people feel "a developer is absolutely about his technical ability" but when you look at it you will find that this is a feeling rather than something which is in any way quantified as hinted at in article.
Very rarely does management decipher a developers problem solving skills, or rank the quality of code or rank eagerness to learn for example ..management does not do this.
What they do is judge "good team members" (and is that developer nice to me is very important) and "can they trust" which and goes back to "frequency of positive interactions" / "how often do you have do deal with issues".
Good point, namely that doing less is the best way to avoid creating bugs. Which screws up many a metric. But you need scare quotes around "good developer."
It's not just tech good which are getting ~20% price increases but general goods like food, DIY, curtain and everything really, as companies start restocking they have no choices but to increase prices.
I have a feeling that this explanation overly complex, more like liberal self-beating and giving far too much credence
Simply those who voted for Trump feel like victims of "something"
And despite having won "everything" I have the feeling that they will still feel like victims of the undefinable "other" in the up and coming loooong years..
What we actually need is good _independant_ firewall vendors.
It is not enough to focus on the telemetry giant corporations like NVIDIA or Microsoft while forgetting about all the P2P software being installed by game's vendors and "telemetry" of software smaller vendors.
On big computers/pcs the default mode makes the user give up too much control _forever_ once the software its has been installed. Most software only need to be doing anything when your actually using it.
What we need is not opt-in checkboxes from vendors, what we need is the operating-system level software to be better -> where our explicit permission is needed to "allow" some kind of activity like transmitting over the network or detecting my location.
Or maybe it does, and they're ranked down. They do have a truth-detection phase, but it's mostly syntactic, and the top categories all have negative examples ("Hillary is not a candidate", "Hillary is not a democrat", etc.).
Wow, those are rather interesting "concepts". It's surprising most of the top results are all totally subjective (and yes highly opinionated): 'unrepentant liar', 'gas bag', 'ruthless and totally corrupt politician'...
Clearly those associated concepts didn't come from the nytimes or wikipedia, so how can they ensure accuracy when scraping these unauthoritative sources?
It is only because America has elected a +radical president has this become somewhat apparent. But the inertia is democratic as it represents the democratic process and accumulation.
It is especially important when you have edge-case of a president wining, but with 46% of popular vote and 26.5% of the potential vote.
The "Deep State" being the actual institutions of law and governance is actually what makes democracy sustainable.