Sure, and even good parents can end up with a child that goes bad. BUT, when both parents end up working full time and still have trouble making ends meet, they are less effective than they would have been back when one income was enough.
If parents see a potential mental health problem with their child, they need to have affordable mental health care available. Otherwise, all they can do is worry and pray.
Given that relatives reported him to the FBI before the shooting, the point about mental health care is quite relevant to the situation. I don't imagine they just woke up one morning and got worried enough to call the FBI out of the blue. They were likely concerned for some time. But without affordable mental health care, they couldn't do much about it.
Not really. It's just that a lot of Unix people don't use/know about ACLs in Linux. try man setfacl.
In general, you can achieve similar results using conventional unix permissions, but it takes a bit more work. You just create a group to represent a directory tree that needs to be useable by a subset of the users on the system, and then assign the relevant users to that group.
Every major leap in automation has been followed by several years of economic turmoil where people were displaced from their jobs but new jobs hadn't been created yet. It's easy to look at that as a simple curiosity when you're a well paid economist and not one of those people.
A novelty here is that some SKILLED labor is also on the chopping block.
I'm not so sure people will pay that much for human service, especially if they are feeling an economic pinch. Remember when gas stations used to offer full service or self service for a few cents cheaper? Guess which one prevailed.
Btw, this is insanely stupid of a claim. Fashion designers want a particular size and shape of model and for her to walk down a particular stretch of runway at a particular pace and be as non-human as possible - the point is to show off the clothes......golly, that sounds like a fantastic opportunity for robotics.
It shows generally lackluster thinking. Have they not noticed that AI generated fake photos are passing for the real thing these days? They could just throw the clothes on a dummy and have the AI fill in a plausible model later.
If anything, that might be the easiest fill in given that after the crazy dieting and heroin use plus air brushing, many fashion photos are already on the edge of the uncanny valley.
As for the catwalk, Michael Jackson appeared on stage in holographic form after his death.
Because without money to survive in the mean time and money for that training (since employers don't offer it anymore), they will have no choice but crime. Do you want that?
And if you don't think people are hindered or obstructed from finding other means of support, try plowing your front yard to plant wheat or corn and getting some chickens for the back yard. Then mark on your calendar how long it takes for someone from zoning enforcement to write you a summons.
What we need is grants or stipends so people forced to change jobs in mid life can afford to live through the apprenticeship. To anyone saying people should just tighten their belts and cram 3 families into a single family dwelling (most often someone making well over the median in a job that isn't threatened), I say "after you".
There is a LOT to that. Hiring a CS to develop software is about like hiring a physicist to design a building. They know way more than necessary in some areas and nothing about other areas. That may work out well as part of a team, but not so much if the whole team is physicists.
But that cannot always be educated, may have a legitimate disagreement for reasons you don't know, and they are ALWAYS the ones who write the check (or not).
Have a look at my actual opinion vs what serviscope_minor thought it was. My simple belief that the author might be concerned about a vast over-reaction to the simple statement that there are gender differences does not mean I am in lock-step with anyone or that I agree with someone else's conclusions.
You apparently didn't anticipate that possibility either, which tends to reinforce my point here.
I chose to post this part as a seperate message so the discussion isn't muddled. I believe it is apparent that my opinion was not what you thought it was. You were quite ready to shut down dialog by a process that was dangerously close to a strawman simply because you were (apparently) unprepared for someone not in lock-step with Damore to believe that the subsequent events were an amazing over-reaction.
Given your own opinion that it was right to fire Damore, can you really not see why someone who agrees even somewhat with him might feel that they had best keep quiet or even jump on the fire Damore bandwagon?
Possibly, but being misguided to the point of damaging is ultimately about as bad as if intent is there.
Damaging? How so? Did he force HR to change their policies? Did he fire someone? Did he get someone fired? Did he cause anyone to not be hired? Did he cause a small child to cry inconsolably because someone on the internet was wrong?
Sure but in his own words at least accodring to one interview he watched, he kept showing it round to more and ore and more people until he stopped getting reactions he didn't want (those being either people ignoring it or telling him it was bad without going into specifics).
So he sought feedback, perhaps critique or dialog? How is that wrong? Can you point me to the interview?
I think that if you lay traits out on spectra, you'll find two bell curves with a great deal of overlap, one representing women, another representing men. Much of that may be a matter of socialization, but that doesn't make it not exist.
None of that is a value judgement and none of it grants an overall superiority to either gender.
Damore made too much of that and made a few poor word choices, but then many people read a LOT more into it than he actually wrote.
But perhaps more to the point here, what he wrote wasn't hostile, nor was it anti-diversity. Right or wrong, he seemed to genuinely want to foster more diversity. He did not release it outside of Google and shows no sign of intent that it ever be read outside of Google. Interestingly, as far as we know, the jackass that published his essay for the world seems not to have been penalized at all.
I didn't express a personal opinion. I just observed that when expressing an opinion (any opinion) that goes against orthodoxy becomes a firing offense it becomes hard to know what anyone actually believes.
Slashdot Mirror
Gather evidence for a 72 hour psych hold?
Sure, and even good parents can end up with a child that goes bad. BUT, when both parents end up working full time and still have trouble making ends meet, they are less effective than they would have been back when one income was enough.
If parents see a potential mental health problem with their child, they need to have affordable mental health care available. Otherwise, all they can do is worry and pray.
Given that relatives reported him to the FBI before the shooting, the point about mental health care is quite relevant to the situation. I don't imagine they just woke up one morning and got worried enough to call the FBI out of the blue. They were likely concerned for some time. But without affordable mental health care, they couldn't do much about it.
Other than the system tools, why should it be up to the software to deal with it at all?
I use ACLs in a few situations and take care of the apps that don't even know ACLs exist (all of them) using default ACLs on the relevant directories.
Not really. It's just that a lot of Unix people don't use/know about ACLs in Linux. try man setfacl.
In general, you can achieve similar results using conventional unix permissions, but it takes a bit more work. You just create a group to represent a directory tree that needs to be useable by a subset of the users on the system, and then assign the relevant users to that group.
Every major leap in automation has been followed by several years of economic turmoil where people were displaced from their jobs but new jobs hadn't been created yet. It's easy to look at that as a simple curiosity when you're a well paid economist and not one of those people.
A novelty here is that some SKILLED labor is also on the chopping block.
I'm not so sure people will pay that much for human service, especially if they are feeling an economic pinch. Remember when gas stations used to offer full service or self service for a few cents cheaper? Guess which one prevailed.
Btw, this is insanely stupid of a claim. Fashion designers want a particular size and shape of model and for her to walk down a particular stretch of runway at a particular pace and be as non-human as possible - the point is to show off the clothes......golly, that sounds like a fantastic opportunity for robotics.
It shows generally lackluster thinking. Have they not noticed that AI generated fake photos are passing for the real thing these days? They could just throw the clothes on a dummy and have the AI fill in a plausible model later.
If anything, that might be the easiest fill in given that after the crazy dieting and heroin use plus air brushing, many fashion photos are already on the edge of the uncanny valley.
As for the catwalk, Michael Jackson appeared on stage in holographic form after his death.
Because without money to survive in the mean time and money for that training (since employers don't offer it anymore), they will have no choice but crime. Do you want that?
And if you don't think people are hindered or obstructed from finding other means of support, try plowing your front yard to plant wheat or corn and getting some chickens for the back yard. Then mark on your calendar how long it takes for someone from zoning enforcement to write you a summons.
Given your nick, you should be able to see the pitfalls from a mile away.
What we need is grants or stipends so people forced to change jobs in mid life can afford to live through the apprenticeship. To anyone saying people should just tighten their belts and cram 3 families into a single family dwelling (most often someone making well over the median in a job that isn't threatened), I say "after you".
Perhaps they're an AMD shop?
Naturally, I meant underpaid. Damned thinkos.
But is they were down to 20% hand-holding, they were past noob but still jr.
After 2 years, they were NOT noobs. Certainly not seniors but not noobs. The one with the ego problem was probably best gone.
If you were offered 30% to stay on, you were very much being overpaid. Perhaps that's why the jr.s left.
Because if you don't, eventually there won't be anyone you can hire.
There is a LOT to that. Hiring a CS to develop software is about like hiring a physicist to design a building. They know way more than necessary in some areas and nothing about other areas. That may work out well as part of a team, but not so much if the whole team is physicists.
OTOH, if they were leaving for higher pay, apparently they were worth more than you thought.
They may not have been Sr. material yet, but some recognition that they weren't noobs either might have helped.
But that cannot always be educated, may have a legitimate disagreement for reasons you don't know, and they are ALWAYS the ones who write the check (or not).
But it does sharply limit the "oops, I clicked the wrong thing" damage.
If each server has a different purpose, the odds are slim that you'll have a lot of changes that apply to multiple machines.
Where did he say anyone currently working at Google shouldn't have been hired. Be specific, give me a quote with context.
If you can't find one, please do be big enough to indicate that case.
Have a look at my actual opinion vs what serviscope_minor thought it was. My simple belief that the author might be concerned about a vast over-reaction to the simple statement that there are gender differences does not mean I am in lock-step with anyone or that I agree with someone else's conclusions.
You apparently didn't anticipate that possibility either, which tends to reinforce my point here.
I chose to post this part as a seperate message so the discussion isn't muddled. I believe it is apparent that my opinion was not what you thought it was. You were quite ready to shut down dialog by a process that was dangerously close to a strawman simply because you were (apparently) unprepared for someone not in lock-step with Damore to believe that the subsequent events were an amazing over-reaction.
Given your own opinion that it was right to fire Damore, can you really not see why someone who agrees even somewhat with him might feel that they had best keep quiet or even jump on the fire Damore bandwagon?
Possibly, but being misguided to the point of damaging is ultimately about as bad as if intent is there.
Damaging? How so? Did he force HR to change their policies? Did he fire someone? Did he get someone fired? Did he cause anyone to not be hired? Did he cause a small child to cry inconsolably because someone on the internet was wrong?
Sure but in his own words at least accodring to one interview he watched, he kept showing it round to more and ore and more people until he stopped getting reactions he didn't want (those being either people ignoring it or telling him it was bad without going into specifics).
So he sought feedback, perhaps critique or dialog? How is that wrong? Can you point me to the interview?
I think that if you lay traits out on spectra, you'll find two bell curves with a great deal of overlap, one representing women, another representing men. Much of that may be a matter of socialization, but that doesn't make it not exist.
None of that is a value judgement and none of it grants an overall superiority to either gender.
Damore made too much of that and made a few poor word choices, but then many people read a LOT more into it than he actually wrote.
But perhaps more to the point here, what he wrote wasn't hostile, nor was it anti-diversity. Right or wrong, he seemed to genuinely want to foster more diversity. He did not release it outside of Google and shows no sign of intent that it ever be read outside of Google. Interestingly, as far as we know, the jackass that published his essay for the world seems not to have been penalized at all.
OK then, I'm calling. What do you think my opinion is?
You still don't even know what my opinion *IS*
I didn't express a personal opinion. I just observed that when expressing an opinion (any opinion) that goes against orthodoxy becomes a firing offense it becomes hard to know what anyone actually believes.