This is familiar to programmers who are used to pointers or references. (Java's `final` does the same thing).
To prevent changes to an object's properties, you could use `Object.freeze()` instead [1]. NB, this is shallow, so a child object of a frozen object can still have its properties changed.
Thanks for the feedback! I did know about the pointer bit but for people unfamiliar this might come as a bit of a shock. I'm going to update the post. Hit me up on twitter if you'd like to be credited(@jacopotarantino) since I don't check in here very often.
A women-in-business non-profit found that Fortune 500 companies with most women board members consistently outperformed those with fewest [1].
Market forces should therefore cause the numbers of women board members to increase accordingly, however, "change has occurred at a sluggish pace" [2].
The 40% EU objective stipulates that "qualification and merit will remain the key criteria" and will hopefully challenge unconscious biases that may be behind the sluggish progress [3].
'A women-in-business non-profit found that Fortune 500 companies with most women board members consistently outperformed those with fewest...Market forces should therefore cause the numbers of women board members to increase accordingly, however, "change has occurred at a sluggish pace"'
Correlation!=causation.
From my observation, the correlation most likely runs the opposite direction. Board members of any type have quite limited impact on the management of a company. They fire the CEO if the numbers are bad, but otherwise, they are pretty much just along for the ride. They certainly are not involved in the kind of product decisions where having a female opinion could plausibly make a difference (and any company that has made it to the Fortune 500 status certainly knows how to solicit the opinion of women and customize their products accordingly).
However, I have personally seen "hot" companies, who are getting a lot of media attention, deliberately add female board members in order to avoid the negative press of having an all male board. One CEO of such a company described how the prospective board member put them through the ringer - she had a lot of demand to on boards, so she could be quite choosy about which company she joined.
In any case, if "Fortune 500 companies with most women board members consistently outperformed those with fewest" then you have a sure-fire way of making money, and you should invest everything you have, becoming wealthy along the way.
I would hesitate to make primary schools kids learn 'coding' because personally, I find the underlying problem solving more inspiring than learning syntax.
FIRST Lego League [1] offers a compelling alternative though. I competed in FLL with a team of other primary school kids and greatly enjoyed designing a robot (with motors and sensors) and then programming it to solve tasks using a drag and drop language. Each member of our team could focus on the part they enjoyed most rather than everyone sitting in front of the computer.
"FLL challenges kids to think like scientists and engineers" and has a glamorous 'World Final' event that is honestly the coolest thing in the world when you're 11.
I bet there would be a psychological impact. People would curtail their usage and frantically switch antennas on and off, resulting in an overall poor experience.
Perhaps having a big allowance in mind just encourages people to use their data!
Will this be the first spacecraft mounted laser weapon?
> "we plan to install a full-scale version on the ISS, incorporating a three-meter telescope and a laser with 10,000 fibers, giving it the ability to deorbit debris with a range of approximately 100 kilometers".
Having used both, I personally prefer Strava. I've found it far better at motivating me to run. You can compare your performance against other runners along pre-defined segments (e.g. some hill you regularly run). The two people I've recommended Strava to are now hooked.
Their engineers make cool side projects [1] and release interesting new features regularly.
As the spec for Swift solidifies, we'll see open source implementations. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple ends up releasing Swift as open source eventually as well.
To prevent changes to an object's properties, you could use `Object.freeze()` instead [1]. NB, this is shallow, so a child object of a frozen object can still have its properties changed.
[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...