I live in the same building as Ryan, and while I do not know his personal financial situation, I know that he isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel in regards to apartment rents. The average rent of a unit in my building is ~$2500.
If the vote is traded, it is a net 0 swing for any party involved. This tool was created with the explicit intent of gaining Hillary votes in battleground states because Trump is such a real threat to this country (and others).
Personally, I do not like Hillary as a presidential candidate and oppose many of her views and stances. However, I would much prefer her in office than Trump. I would love to see a true 3 (or more) party system in the future, but at this point in time you need to be realistic and direct your efforts where it make sense.
Trading votes in not illegal[0] in the US under the condition that no pecuniary value is added. In other words, as long as you don't buy or sell a vote. This website merely connects two voters from different parties and states and enabled them to pledge to swap votes.
I would also highly recommend the movie Meru, which is briefly mentioned in this article. It's a great documentary that shows the crazy shit he (more than willingly) goes through to get some of his shots.
This only affects that one interview pad you ran it in. We can make it hard to do stuff like this but one can always find a way. And it's fine too because these commands affect that user only.
I understand the perceived benefit of compositional eloquence that this may add (pretty much borrowing from Python) but as others have pointed out, this is incongruent to the design of Ruby as a language and how it treats the relation between objects and their methods. Additionally, you lose any compositional elegance you may have gained when you decided not to use:
x not in y
and instead propose:
!(x in y)
Seems like a zero-sum addition to the language to me.
I find `not in` highly dubious - it makes the expression grammar awkward and harder to parse. Is `not in` a two-token operator? Or is `not` an adverb in this context? What else resembles this?
To cite an alternatice, in Tcl, `in` is an operator and its negation is `ni`. A cute pun and echo of Monty Python that I'm disappointed Python didn't follow :).
You should be happy, as Python 3 would have renamed it to "Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoo Boing!"
As to the "what else resembles this"? I would turn it around and ask what else could resemble this. I'm not sure the conclusion would be that "not in" is a good thing, but not sure of the reverse, either:
Well, shell has the '-ne' operator, which is 'not equals' in a terser style.
Really '!=' is just an attempt at rendering '≠' using only ASCII characters. They're a bit like digraphs and trigraphs in C/C++, except everyone is used to them.
I wonder if Unicode is ubiquitous enough now that you could write a language where the real maths operators were used instead. What would that look like?
Scala allows using unicode arrows (→) in place of their ASCII version (->), but not things like '≠'.
I'm currently using the Monoid font (https://larsenwork.com/monoid/), which uses ligatures to achieve the visual effect of things like the not equals symbol, while the underlying code remains the same. It's a pretty nice work-around for current languages.
Another alternative is the way D does it. Its the same idea as `not in` but instead of adding a 2 keyword operator and non-standard usage of negation (`not` instead of `!`) it is simply: `!in`
I had the opportunity to speak with Albert on a developer panel and he told this story (we were speaking to software developers that had just begun their job search). He's a very nice guy and I think this is great, general advice for people just beginning to step into the world of software development and don't quite yet have a resume that can "wow" people. I'm glad to see Zenefits recognized that.
