The law doesn't require private companies to treat people equally irrespective of their political choices.
It actually does in some states, and in DC. In most places you're correct, and "conservative" is not a protected class, but there's at least some experimentation with making political ideology a protected class.
An for once I think we're doing that right. Use the laboratories of the states to see what comes of that. Maybe in 5-10 years, take federal action, when the result is clear.
A publicly held company is not the same as a private company. Unless the corporate charter says otherwise, it has a duty to serve the interests of the shareholders.
The management is acting in a way they think will make the most profit, as far as I can tell. But if the board disagrees, they can fire all the CxOs and reset. This happens more often than you'd think.
If you're poor and competing with fresh immigrants for a job, Trump was your man. Immigration was the only issue for which he hasn't done a random-walk with his position.
Also, if you're tired of being talked down to by fuckwits who think they know better then you do what's best for you, Trump's your man for being an asshole to those guys. Your condescension is why Trump won, you know.
Is it legal to voice support for "Trump for Woodchipper 2017", like some people supported "Clinton for Prison 2016"?
Not that I support the former, I just want to understand where the line is drawn.
Lots of nebulous threats that aren't technically illegal will still result in a Secret Service visit. Every time the president is in town. For the rest of your life.
These days, with the surveillance panopitcon, I do wonder whether they're saturated and have raised the bar, but maybe it's best not to find out. Sort of like joking about terrorist attacks in an airport. Just a bad plan.
Given a large enough set of definitions for fascism, you're guaranteed to find one that matches any politician you don't like.
Look at this a different way: anyone who thinks they can predict with high confidence what his agenda will be, what he will actually do in office, is wrong. He's changed his position on basically everything except immigration over the course of his candidacy, and even if he hadn't we'd just have political promises - do you think Trump is more honest that the average politician?
You can certainly call Trump a fascist based on things you imagine he might do, but that just makes him an imaginary fascist.
Some people like to use Twitter (I have no clue why), and are worried about being thrown off (or actions to that effect). Twitter has every right, of course, but users have the right to be pissed.
because they want to keep out groups of people, because they are not the same as they
Sure, they aren't Americans like the protestors. That's why Americans have the right to control the ingress.
Or are you going to stick with calling them "racist"? Because that's exactly why you got Trump. This election was a referendum on immigration, needed because people have been dismissed as racists for so long.
The problem is that one half of our cultural/political spectrum has taken it upon themselves to redefine terms to suit their liking.
So the word "Hate Speech" only means "Disagrees with me" "Phobia" has gone from "irrational fear" to "Doesn't completely and unconditionally support and embrace" "Girl" now means "Man with a dress on" "White Supremacist" now means "White male with traditional values" "Sexism" and "Racism" now have nothing to do with sex or race.
Since I don't have mod points, I can only highlight the AC.
This is it exactly. No one on the right is fooled when Twitter says "ban hate speech". Apparently, many on the left think they're talking about death threats. That's what an echo chamber does for you. And, yes, that's how you get Trump.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
That's not an argument for how things should be. Religious freedom is constitutionally established. The government should not be able to compel people to actively work against their religious beliefs (or any deeply held beliefs, really), without first proving both compelling state interest, and that the proposed solution is as narrow as possible.
Burning hatred of Christians and/or traditional values is not itself a justification for action.
I have no problem with him myself, but he's an old-school right-wing religious wacko. He's been in favor of electro-shock to "cure" homosexuality, e.g. He's also clearly pro-life, where Trump clearly isn't.
As a party we've built a big umbrella. Somehow the one group we failed to bring in was the straight white male.
Somehow? The only unifying tenet of the left that I can see is hatred of the straight white male. That seems to be a turn-off for a larger group of voters than the unpeople.
I think the rest of the list is correct, but fundamentally missing the biggest point. Just like Brexit, this election was a referendum on immigration. That's the mystery of #5 too, BTW. The disconnect between the powers-that-were and people facing economic hardship about immigration is so bad that people were even willing to vote for Trump, just for a chance someone would listen. Same thing is happening across Europe. You dismiss people as racists because they want less immigration, you get Trump, Brexit, all all the growing nationalism across Europe.
Given I've been doing multi-threaded or async systems programming for 25 years, I think my self-esteem is safe. You know, when you have one crowd saying "it's easy" and another saying "no, you don't get how hard this is", there are two ways that can go.
The Republicans now have a golden opportunity, but they will have to accept that their message did not win the election, Trump's message did. They can make this a way to rebuild their party.
I fully expect them not to get it, and 2018 to be brutal. The anti-incumbency wave that started in the late 90s continues to rise.
It's a fact she won the popular vote. It's not a fact she would have won the election had it been decided by the popular vote. So the obvious implication of the statement isn't a fact.
And now leftists want to assassinate the President Elect. Josh Whedon (who I used to admire) tweeted:This is simple: Trump cannot CANNOT be allowed a term in office. It's not about 2018. It's about RIGHT NOW. All these events have led me to no longer support the Democratic party at any level.
I've never thought of Trump as a very smart man, but in hindsight his choice of Pence was genius. Now no sane lefty will assassinate him, and the completely insane ones are easier for the Secret Service to handle. I was worried he would go the way of James Garfield, but now I doubt it - I think he's safe.
Yes, yes, why couldn't they act humble, abashed, and conciliatory like Trump himself, the paragon of modesty and politeness.
A big chunk of American voters had been shat on for years, so they picked the biggest asshole they could find to answer that. This is why the constant narrative that Trump was an asshole didn't hurt him - feature, not a bug.
And they wonder why we don't love censorious asshats who cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.
The big-money establishment left keeps looking anywhere but a mirror for why they failed. It's not Facebook, guys, nor racism, nor whatever else you came up with. Clinton was simply a toxic candidate. She came across like someone from Capitol City in the Hunger Games, didn't give a press conference for nine months, barely interacted with voters (and almost never with people who hadn't already contributed to her campaign), but spent a lot of time re-assuring Wall Street.
There's no mystery here why voters rejected her. Heck, she couldn't even get the majority of votes from white women - no one felt she was going to represent them. Trump didn't win the primary because people liked him, but because they rejected the big-money establishment right. He didn't win the general because people liked him, but because they rejected the big-money establishment left. Trump won because he's so obviously not a standard politician, and everyone he ran against was. Elections are going to keep going further afield until "business as usual" changes in DC - and that's a bigger driving force than left or right.
If you have a problem, and use Java to solve it, you now have additional problems.
Sadly, the biggest problem these days is "I need to hire kids out of college who can work on this code", so you're pretty much stuck with Java unless you're in a niche where eveyone's going to use C anyway, or you can use C#, etc.
Fair point, if you're in academia then needless complexity might be the point of the exercise.
The problems with threads can't simply be handwaved away with "Careful locking". There is no such beast!
I don't need to solve the general case of all multithreaded problems, I need to get the problem in front of me to work at scale. And nearly always you can pick a design approach that makes it easy enough.
The *actual* problems are deadlock detection, deadlock intervention, thread starvation, priority inversion... and that's before we even get to profiling, code coverage and unit tests which will all execute/result differently under threaded loads.
Deadlocks are hopefully the result of "evolved" code that was never really designed (in its current form) in the first place, as there's really no excuse for having that problem when you can choose your design.
Sure, you can't really write unit tests to find all your race conditions, but to the extent what you can use library code to do any manipulation of shared state, you don't have to.
When you're in that odd corner case where there's no easy fix, just make sure to build an anti-entropy mechanism (bigger hammer to reset anything that appears hung - you don't have to know that it's e.g. a deadlock intervention).
You clearly haven't been on some of the projects I have.
* Having every function return an detailed error code (leaving the actual result of computation as an output param), as a half-assed exception passing method. * Passing a "jump table" around as half0assed polymorphism. * Using special (and quite complicated) macros instead of malloc/free to do slab allocation (and constantly policing that in code reviews), instead of just overloading new. * Elaborate shenanigans to avoid memory leaks instead of just using scoped objects. * Buggy implementation of something from an algorithms textbook instead of just using the standard library.
For anything complicated, you really want to use something built into the language over inventing a buggy version of it yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
The law doesn't require private companies to treat people equally irrespective of their political choices.
It actually does in some states, and in DC. In most places you're correct, and "conservative" is not a protected class, but there's at least some experimentation with making political ideology a protected class.
An for once I think we're doing that right. Use the laboratories of the states to see what comes of that. Maybe in 5-10 years, take federal action, when the result is clear.
A publicly held company is not the same as a private company. Unless the corporate charter says otherwise, it has a duty to serve the interests of the shareholders.
The management is acting in a way they think will make the most profit, as far as I can tell. But if the board disagrees, they can fire all the CxOs and reset. This happens more often than you'd think.
I see you value your smugness more than a Trump defeat. Fair enough. You do you.
His campaign is not his presidency.
If you're poor and competing with fresh immigrants for a job, Trump was your man. Immigration was the only issue for which he hasn't done a random-walk with his position.
Also, if you're tired of being talked down to by fuckwits who think they know better then you do what's best for you, Trump's your man for being an asshole to those guys. Your condescension is why Trump won, you know.
So it's win-win, really.
Why would you write more than once with an SSD? Heck, it's been pointless with spinning rust for more than a decade now.
Is it legal to voice support for "Trump for Woodchipper 2017", like some people supported "Clinton for Prison 2016"?
Not that I support the former, I just want to understand where the line is drawn.
Lots of nebulous threats that aren't technically illegal will still result in a Secret Service visit. Every time the president is in town. For the rest of your life.
These days, with the surveillance panopitcon, I do wonder whether they're saturated and have raised the bar, but maybe it's best not to find out. Sort of like joking about terrorist attacks in an airport. Just a bad plan.
Given a large enough set of definitions for fascism, you're guaranteed to find one that matches any politician you don't like.
Look at this a different way: anyone who thinks they can predict with high confidence what his agenda will be, what he will actually do in office, is wrong. He's changed his position on basically everything except immigration over the course of his candidacy, and even if he hadn't we'd just have political promises - do you think Trump is more honest that the average politician?
You can certainly call Trump a fascist based on things you imagine he might do, but that just makes him an imaginary fascist.
Some people like to use Twitter (I have no clue why), and are worried about being thrown off (or actions to that effect). Twitter has every right, of course, but users have the right to be pissed.
because they want to keep out groups of people, because they are not the same as they
Sure, they aren't Americans like the protestors. That's why Americans have the right to control the ingress.
Or are you going to stick with calling them "racist"? Because that's exactly why you got Trump. This election was a referendum on immigration, needed because people have been dismissed as racists for so long.
The problem is that one half of our cultural/political spectrum has taken it upon themselves to redefine terms to suit their liking.
So the word "Hate Speech" only means "Disagrees with me"
"Phobia" has gone from "irrational fear" to "Doesn't completely and unconditionally support and embrace"
"Girl" now means "Man with a dress on"
"White Supremacist" now means "White male with traditional values"
"Sexism" and "Racism" now have nothing to do with sex or race.
Since I don't have mod points, I can only highlight the AC.
This is it exactly. No one on the right is fooled when Twitter says "ban hate speech". Apparently, many on the left think they're talking about death threats. That's what an echo chamber does for you. And, yes, that's how you get Trump.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
That's not an argument for how things should be. Religious freedom is constitutionally established. The government should not be able to compel people to actively work against their religious beliefs (or any deeply held beliefs, really), without first proving both compelling state interest, and that the proposed solution is as narrow as possible.
Burning hatred of Christians and/or traditional values is not itself a justification for action.
I have no problem with him myself, but he's an old-school right-wing religious wacko. He's been in favor of electro-shock to "cure" homosexuality, e.g. He's also clearly pro-life, where Trump clearly isn't.
As a party we've built a big umbrella. Somehow the one group we failed to bring in was the straight white male.
Somehow? The only unifying tenet of the left that I can see is hatred of the straight white male. That seems to be a turn-off for a larger group of voters than the unpeople.
I think the rest of the list is correct, but fundamentally missing the biggest point. Just like Brexit, this election was a referendum on immigration. That's the mystery of #5 too, BTW. The disconnect between the powers-that-were and people facing economic hardship about immigration is so bad that people were even willing to vote for Trump, just for a chance someone would listen. Same thing is happening across Europe. You dismiss people as racists because they want less immigration, you get Trump, Brexit, all all the growing nationalism across Europe.
Given I've been doing multi-threaded or async systems programming for 25 years, I think my self-esteem is safe. You know, when you have one crowd saying "it's easy" and another saying "no, you don't get how hard this is", there are two ways that can go.
Mishandling of secret information is a felony.
Accepting bribes from foreign governments via the Clinton Foundation is a felony.
<Michael_Jackson> "Allegedly" </Michael_Jackson>
The Republicans now have a golden opportunity, but they will have to accept that their message did not win the election, Trump's message did. They can make this a way to rebuild their party.
I fully expect them not to get it, and 2018 to be brutal. The anti-incumbency wave that started in the late 90s continues to rise.
Politifact is in deep with the Clintons. That's Wikileaks, not conspiracy theory.
ANyway, I agree with you: since there's no such thing as an objective fact-checker, we need a variety of views.
It's a fact she won the popular vote. It's not a fact she would have won the election had it been decided by the popular vote. So the obvious implication of the statement isn't a fact.
And now leftists want to assassinate the President Elect. Josh Whedon (who I used to admire) tweeted:This is simple: Trump cannot CANNOT be allowed a term in office. It's not about 2018. It's about RIGHT NOW. All these events have led me to no longer support the Democratic party at any level.
I've never thought of Trump as a very smart man, but in hindsight his choice of Pence was genius. Now no sane lefty will assassinate him, and the completely insane ones are easier for the Secret Service to handle. I was worried he would go the way of James Garfield, but now I doubt it - I think he's safe.
Yes, yes, why couldn't they act humble, abashed, and conciliatory like Trump himself, the paragon of modesty and politeness.
A big chunk of American voters had been shat on for years, so they picked the biggest asshole they could find to answer that. This is why the constant narrative that Trump was an asshole didn't hurt him - feature, not a bug.
And they wonder why we don't love censorious asshats who cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.
The big-money establishment left keeps looking anywhere but a mirror for why they failed. It's not Facebook, guys, nor racism, nor whatever else you came up with. Clinton was simply a toxic candidate. She came across like someone from Capitol City in the Hunger Games, didn't give a press conference for nine months, barely interacted with voters (and almost never with people who hadn't already contributed to her campaign), but spent a lot of time re-assuring Wall Street.
There's no mystery here why voters rejected her. Heck, she couldn't even get the majority of votes from white women - no one felt she was going to represent them. Trump didn't win the primary because people liked him, but because they rejected the big-money establishment right. He didn't win the general because people liked him, but because they rejected the big-money establishment left. Trump won because he's so obviously not a standard politician, and everyone he ran against was. Elections are going to keep going further afield until "business as usual" changes in DC - and that's a bigger driving force than left or right.
If you have a problem, and use Java to solve it, you now have additional problems.
Sadly, the biggest problem these days is "I need to hire kids out of college who can work on this code", so you're pretty much stuck with Java unless you're in a niche where eveyone's going to use C anyway, or you can use C#, etc.
Maybe he did a CS-heavy field of study.
Fair point, if you're in academia then needless complexity might be the point of the exercise.
The problems with threads can't simply be handwaved away with "Careful locking". There is no such beast!
I don't need to solve the general case of all multithreaded problems, I need to get the problem in front of me to work at scale. And nearly always you can pick a design approach that makes it easy enough.
The *actual* problems are deadlock detection, deadlock intervention, thread starvation, priority inversion... and that's before we even get to profiling, code coverage and unit tests which will all execute/result differently under threaded loads.
Deadlocks are hopefully the result of "evolved" code that was never really designed (in its current form) in the first place, as there's really no excuse for having that problem when you can choose your design.
Sure, you can't really write unit tests to find all your race conditions, but to the extent what you can use library code to do any manipulation of shared state, you don't have to.
When you're in that odd corner case where there's no easy fix, just make sure to build an anti-entropy mechanism (bigger hammer to reset anything that appears hung - you don't have to know that it's e.g. a deadlock intervention).
You clearly haven't been on some of the projects I have.
* Having every function return an detailed error code (leaving the actual result of computation as an output param), as a half-assed exception passing method.
* Passing a "jump table" around as half0assed polymorphism.
* Using special (and quite complicated) macros instead of malloc/free to do slab allocation (and constantly policing that in code reviews), instead of just overloading new.
* Elaborate shenanigans to avoid memory leaks instead of just using scoped objects.
* Buggy implementation of something from an algorithms textbook instead of just using the standard library.
For anything complicated, you really want to use something built into the language over inventing a buggy version of it yourself.