I don't think you know the definition of respect. Otherwise you wouldn't have so haphazardly dismissed the idea that respect isn't something that comes for free.
I think you're confusing respect with trust. IMHO, the former comes for free, the latter does not.
The above comment is seriously underrated. Moderators please take note.
People who write code without getting paid (i.e., for open-source projects) need to be "paid" in other intangibles, such as recognition, network connections, and good will (as the parent says.)
Learn how to "pay" contributors to an open-source project, even if their code-contributions are not accepted. They may end up contributing in other ways, such as bug-fixes, documentation, or exposure. Otherwise, they will go and find another project that will "pay" them.
Way to be disingenuous. You deleted the latter part of what I said:
There's nothing wrong with having standards. And there's nothing wrong with treating people with respect either -- especially when you disagree with them.
People who can't measure up should not have their contributions included in a project. But there's no reason to berate people who make good-faith contributions. Just kindly tell them it's not good enough, explain why, and suggest ways to improve. Is that so hard?
He didn't do this because he had some mamby pamby warm fuzzy self realization. He is doing it because the people now in charge care more about feelings than code quality.
I don't see why you can't respect people's feelings and have great code quality. There's nothing wrong with having standards. And there's nothing wrong with treating people with respect either -- especially when you disagree with them.
To paraphrase Lao Tzu (the creator of Taoism) the worst leaders are hated, the next worst are feared, the better ones are loved, and the best are not seen at all.
Linus has created an admirable legacy for himself. I'm not surprised that, at this juncture, he sees becoming kinder and gentler as a way to preserve it.
They're precisely like the rest of the mainstream media. You don't trust anything they say without verifying it first.
Precisely like the rest of the mainstream media? Um, no. Take a look at where Breitbart is on this chart. (Right-click and select Show Image to enlarge it.) Yes, this is one person's analysis. But other studies of bias and veracity of news sources show similar results.
If CNN said shit tastes good you'd try a mouthful, right?
Well no, I wouldn't. But assuming you speak figuratively, the point is that CNN may have a left-of-center bias (and I admit I see it sometimes) but it strives to tell the truth and provide fair comment.
Breitbart, on the other hand, has a strongly right-wing agenda, and it shapes their reporting and editing to fulfill it. It is highly disingenuous, far more so than other news sources.
Science Magazine applauds the experiments for "obliterating our common sense notion of before and after and, potentially, muddying the concept of causality.
If anything I'd say a big "Duck you" was in order for guaranteeing that no non-physicist will ever understand quantum physics ever again.... But on the other hand, it might get me out of the dog house for getting drunk and breaking the living room table...
Non-physicists may not understand quantum mechanics, but they're in good company.
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. -- Richard Feynman
The video is pretty widely available; just because Breitbart has it doesn't mean it's not real.
If the video is so widely available, why link to Breitbart for it?
Oh wait, it's to surface Breitbart's -- uh -- unique view on it.
There's a reason Breitbart has a fringe following. It may present the truth from time to time, but it twists the truth to its own purpose. Look elsewhere for news.
Up Next: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character
Looking forward to this because he's such a great figure.
After you're done, read its sequel: What Do You Care What Other People Think?, also based on interviews of Feynman by his colleague Ralph Leighton. Feynman's recollections of the Challenger inquiry are alone worth the read.
Somehow your less-than and greater-than delimiters were posted as their character-entity-reference equivalents in html (e.g., ampersand-lt-semicolon for less-than.) I saw this by examining the "quote parent" text. Not sure how it happened, but the relevant keys on my keyboard appear to work fine for me.
I think their motive is not unlike other companies whose product-lines have a "Good, Better, Best" structure, with pricing to match. These levels could be imposed by manufacturing yields, or by an up-selling strategy.
Sometimes a company runs out of "Good" and has to sell "Better" or "Best" in its place, in order to maintain the tier strategy. (For example, Intel may sell chips certified at lower clock-rates even though they might be overclockable.) But shipping "Best" in the first place, and enabling the tiers by software configuration makes it seem like the manufacturing cost is irrelevant to the pricing strategy. Or it may be as you say, that people who purchase at the lower tier have lower support costs, or can be upgraded more easily later if they crave the extra range.
Yes, it does seem like a dickhead move on Tesla's part to sell a product that is crippled intentionally by a trivial configuration choice. But they're not the only company who does such things.
Exactly - God drives the climate, not man. If He wants a hurricane to hit the USA, it'll hit. I'll be surprised if He does, though, what with Trump and all. The USA is turning from its Satanic ways.
Trump will build a wall to keep the hurricane out. And make God pay for it.
PopeRatzo, I'm on your side. My post was tongue-in-cheek.
Trump certainly appears to be causing racists to become emboldened, but I don't think taking drugs causes people to vote for Trump, or vice-versa.
At a recent rally, Obama said that Trump was a symptom of our current political situation, not the cause. And I'm inclined to agree: Trump swept into power by exploiting a Republican base that was over-ripe for a populist takeover, plus disaffected working-class voters in the rust belt that Clinton failed to reach. And, per the study you linked to, many of those people happened to be disproportionately in socioeconomic categories that are disposed to opioid abuse. I'm not sure what causes what, but it is interesting.
You need not worry. If we put a 15% tariff on them, the Chinese government will simply devalue the Yuan (as they always do) so as to maintain steady employment within China. That's the biggest fear of the CCP, mass unemployment WITHIN China.
Interesting strategy. Not only would that keep their exports attractively cheap, but it would also increase the cost of imports, thereby acting as a de facto tariff.
Of course, currency manipulation has not helped China make friends, in the current US administration or previous ones.
Wages have been slow to adjust, but a recent report shows wage growth(*) at 2.9% last month (monthly increase, annualized for a year), which is higher than inflation. Unemployment is at about 2.9% and steady.
(*)Yes, Breitbart.com, which always lies and never tells the truth and are a bunch of poo-poo heads that should be banned. Now dispute the actual numbers and the government report like an adult, or GTFO.
But I mean, c'mon. Breitbart? Their reputation is well-known. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some links to other sources, assuming you read any.
Don't forget that the economy, from the point of view of the *people*, only started to get better about October of last year. Looking at the DJIA (or other leading indicators) shows we were out of the woods and back to health in 2013.
Repeat after me:
The stock market is not the economy. The economy is not the stock market. The stock market is not the economy. The economy is not the stock market. The stock market is not the economy. The economy is not the stock market. [...]
You can't restrict a search using physical parameters. You need to use DNA.
Nobody is saying image recognition is the only tool on the workbench. It's a useful way to narrow down suspects and concentrate resources for further investigation.
And DNA evidence, while compelling, is not a requirement to obtain a conviction or an acquittal.
This. The debate about proper use of human-recognition software is a valid and important one. But if such software can't identify basic descriptive characteristics (such as, oh say, skin color) then it isn't worth a damn.
Alas, we live in a world where people of many descriptions commit illegal acts. And we try to identify suspects based on evidence, including what eyewitnesses or video surveillance indicates they look like. Recognition software is one of many tools used for such purposes. But if it is used as a blanket detector for entire classes of people we have no reason to suspect are criminals, then it is most certainly being misused.
Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit. Either get out and berate them publicly, or work for the interests of who you are working for.
If my "employer" appears to be unbalanced, and has the authority to start World War III, I just might be inclined to do a little undermining for the sake of the planet and the human race.
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.
I think what you overlook is the fact that Trump hand-picked all of these people, and he has bragged frequently of his superior judgement at picking talent.
If, as you say, he wound up surrounding himself wit a "deep state" then either:
(a) it puts the lie to his hiring judgement; or
(b) he's so unhinged that even the people on his own team try to stop him from causing real damage to the world.
I'm inclined to think a little of both.
[...] I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.
Setting aside its erudite and eloquent style -- hardly qualities one would expect of Trump -- its content is hardly the kind of commentary Trump would ever allow to be said of him. He's hyper-controlling of his image. He would never allow a negative op-ed to be written if he had any control over it. "False-flag" op-eds are just not something he's into. If he needs to write more than 280 characters, he's just not interested.
Some telling excerpts from the end of the op-ed:
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
Do you really think Trump would write something that lauds the late Senator John McCain?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you know the definition of respect. Otherwise you wouldn't have so haphazardly dismissed the idea that respect isn't something that comes for free.
I think you're confusing respect with trust. IMHO, the former comes for free, the latter does not.
You are beyond hope. Over and out.
The above comment is seriously underrated. Moderators please take note.
People who write code without getting paid (i.e., for open-source projects) need to be "paid" in other intangibles, such as recognition, network connections, and good will (as the parent says.)
Learn how to "pay" contributors to an open-source project, even if their code-contributions are not accepted. They may end up contributing in other ways, such as bug-fixes, documentation, or exposure. Otherwise, they will go and find another project that will "pay" them.
Way to be disingenuous. You deleted the latter part of what I said:
There's nothing wrong with having standards. And there's nothing wrong with treating people with respect either -- especially when you disagree with them.
People who can't measure up should not have their contributions included in a project. But there's no reason to berate people who make good-faith contributions. Just kindly tell them it's not good enough, explain why, and suggest ways to improve. Is that so hard?
Respect is earned. Sometimes you need to tell someone their code fucking sucks and they should feel bad.
Pop quiz: who deserves respect?
Answer: everyone.
Respecting people and agreeing with them are two different things.
The essence of diplomacy is to be able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.
He didn't do this because he had some mamby pamby warm fuzzy self realization. He is doing it because the people now in charge care more about feelings than code quality.
I don't see why you can't respect people's feelings and have great code quality. There's nothing wrong with having standards. And there's nothing wrong with treating people with respect either -- especially when you disagree with them.
To paraphrase Lao Tzu (the creator of Taoism) the worst leaders are hated, the next worst are feared, the better ones are loved, and the best are not seen at all.
Linus has created an admirable legacy for himself. I'm not surprised that, at this juncture, he sees becoming kinder and gentler as a way to preserve it.
He realized he needed therapy.
FTFY
They're precisely like the rest of the mainstream media. You don't trust anything they say without verifying it first.
Precisely like the rest of the mainstream media? Um, no. Take a look at where Breitbart is on this chart. (Right-click and select Show Image to enlarge it.) Yes, this is one person's analysis. But other studies of bias and veracity of news sources show similar results.
If CNN said shit tastes good you'd try a mouthful, right?
Well no, I wouldn't. But assuming you speak figuratively, the point is that CNN may have a left-of-center bias (and I admit I see it sometimes) but it strives to tell the truth and provide fair comment.
Breitbart, on the other hand, has a strongly right-wing agenda, and it shapes their reporting and editing to fulfill it. It is highly disingenuous, far more so than other news sources.
Science Magazine applauds the experiments for "obliterating our common sense notion of before and after and, potentially, muddying the concept of causality.
If anything I'd say a big "Duck you" was in order for guaranteeing that no non-physicist will ever understand quantum physics ever again. ... But on the other hand, it might get me out of the dog house for getting drunk and breaking the living room table...
Non-physicists may not understand quantum mechanics, but they're in good company.
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. -- Richard Feynman
Because they broke this particular piece of news — all other sites carrying it call it "video obtained by Breitbart".
Actually they're saying the video was leaked and it happens to be posted on Breitbart. But anyway.
Few other news-sources would go for this kind of guerilla reporting risking Google's displeasure.
Except that Google doesn't appear to be all that "displeased" about it. There is no evidence that they are suppressing it.
The video is pretty widely available; just because Breitbart has it doesn't mean it's not real.
If the video is so widely available, why link to Breitbart for it?
Oh wait, it's to surface Breitbart's -- uh -- unique view on it.
There's a reason Breitbart has a fringe following. It may present the truth from time to time, but it twists the truth to its own purpose. Look elsewhere for news.
but.. "The Hidden Life of Trees"
Hope you got it as an e-book. ;-p
Up Next:
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character
Looking forward to this because he's such a great figure.
After you're done, read its sequel: What Do You Care What Other People Think?, also based on interviews of Feynman by his colleague Ralph Leighton. Feynman's recollections of the Challenger inquiry are alone worth the read.
Somehow your less-than and greater-than delimiters were posted as their character-entity-reference equivalents in html (e.g., ampersand-lt-semicolon for less-than.) I saw this by examining the "quote parent" text. Not sure how it happened, but the relevant keys on my keyboard appear to work fine for me.
I think their motive is not unlike other companies whose product-lines have a "Good, Better, Best" structure, with pricing to match. These levels could be imposed by manufacturing yields, or by an up-selling strategy.
Sometimes a company runs out of "Good" and has to sell "Better" or "Best" in its place, in order to maintain the tier strategy. (For example, Intel may sell chips certified at lower clock-rates even though they might be overclockable.) But shipping "Best" in the first place, and enabling the tiers by software configuration makes it seem like the manufacturing cost is irrelevant to the pricing strategy. Or it may be as you say, that people who purchase at the lower tier have lower support costs, or can be upgraded more easily later if they crave the extra range.
Yes, it does seem like a dickhead move on Tesla's part to sell a product that is crippled intentionally by a trivial configuration choice. But they're not the only company who does such things.
Exactly - God drives the climate, not man. If He wants a hurricane to hit the USA, it'll hit. I'll be surprised if He does, though, what with Trump and all. The USA is turning from its Satanic ways.
Trump will build a wall to keep the hurricane out. And make God pay for it.
PopeRatzo, I'm on your side. My post was tongue-in-cheek.
Trump certainly appears to be causing racists to become emboldened, but I don't think taking drugs causes people to vote for Trump, or vice-versa.
At a recent rally, Obama said that Trump was a symptom of our current political situation, not the cause. And I'm inclined to agree: Trump swept into power by exploiting a Republican base that was over-ripe for a populist takeover, plus disaffected working-class voters in the rust belt that Clinton failed to reach. And, per the study you linked to, many of those people happened to be disproportionately in socioeconomic categories that are disposed to opioid abuse. I'm not sure what causes what, but it is interesting.
[...] chronic use of prescription opioid drugs was correlated with support for the Republican candidate in the 2016 US presidential election.
And now there's a cure for that? Wow, what a world we live in.
Oh, wait:
Individual and county-level socioeconomic measures explained much of the association between the presidential vote and opioid use.
So, there's an association. No doubt causation is more complicated.
You need not worry. If we put a 15% tariff on them, the Chinese government will simply devalue the Yuan (as they always do) so as to maintain steady employment within China. That's the biggest fear of the CCP, mass unemployment WITHIN China.
Interesting strategy. Not only would that keep their exports attractively cheap, but it would also increase the cost of imports, thereby acting as a de facto tariff.
Of course, currency manipulation has not helped China make friends, in the current US administration or previous ones.
Wages have been slow to adjust, but a recent report shows wage growth(*) at 2.9% last month (monthly increase, annualized for a year), which is higher than inflation. Unemployment is at about 2.9% and steady.
(*)Yes, Breitbart.com, which always lies and never tells the truth and are a bunch of poo-poo heads that should be banned. Now dispute the actual numbers and the government report like an adult, or GTFO.
You know, like a stopped clock, Breitbart just might be right now and then. And in this case, it appears they are.
But I mean, c'mon. Breitbart? Their reputation is well-known. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some links to other sources, assuming you read any.
Don't forget that the economy, from the point of view of the *people*, only started to get better about October of last year. Looking at the DJIA (or other leading indicators) shows we were out of the woods and back to health in 2013.
Repeat after me:
The stock market is not the economy. The economy is not the stock market.
The stock market is not the economy. The economy is not the stock market.
The stock market is not the economy. The economy is not the stock market.
[...]
Great post. Thanks for it.
You can't restrict a search using physical parameters. You need to use DNA.
Nobody is saying image recognition is the only tool on the workbench. It's a useful way to narrow down suspects and concentrate resources for further investigation.
And DNA evidence, while compelling, is not a requirement to obtain a conviction or an acquittal.
This. The debate about proper use of human-recognition software is a valid and important one. But if such software can't identify basic descriptive characteristics (such as, oh say, skin color) then it isn't worth a damn.
Alas, we live in a world where people of many descriptions commit illegal acts. And we try to identify suspects based on evidence, including what eyewitnesses or video surveillance indicates they look like. Recognition software is one of many tools used for such purposes. But if it is used as a blanket detector for entire classes of people we have no reason to suspect are criminals, then it is most certainly being misused.
Supposition: there is not one author, but several. The intermediary is an attempt to disguise this fact.
Came here to say that. You beat me to it.
Indeed, maybe it's like Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. Maybe they all wrote it.
[For obvious reasons, please don't take the analogy too seriously.]
Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit. Either get out and berate them publicly, or work for the interests of who you are working for.
If my "employer" appears to be unbalanced, and has the authority to start World War III, I just might be inclined to do a little undermining for the sake of the planet and the human race.
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.
I think what you overlook is the fact that Trump hand-picked all of these people, and he has bragged frequently of his superior judgement at picking talent.
If, as you say, he wound up surrounding himself wit a "deep state" then either:
(a) it puts the lie to his hiring judgement; or
(b) he's so unhinged that even the people on his own team try to stop him from causing real damage to the world.
I'm inclined to think a little of both.
[...] I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.
In your wet dreams. Have you read the op-ed?
Setting aside its erudite and eloquent style -- hardly qualities one would expect of Trump -- its content is hardly the kind of commentary Trump would ever allow to be said of him. He's hyper-controlling of his image. He would never allow a negative op-ed to be written if he had any control over it. "False-flag" op-eds are just not something he's into. If he needs to write more than 280 characters, he's just not interested.
Some telling excerpts from the end of the op-ed:
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
Do you really think Trump would write something that lauds the late Senator John McCain?