Everything's a rightwing claptrap when you're hearing what you don't want to hear. I've been accused of using rightwing propaganda for siting the State Department Inspector General report. You know, the rightwing Obama administration State Department for which she was Secretary of State? Damned rightwing claptrap.
I had not taken the time to parse my fealty and that of my friends to Hillary, until a few weeks ago. Sitting in the swivel chair at a friend’s beauty salon, I followed the election news coverage on a small television screen atop the counter. Suddenly, my beautician friend leaned over me and asked: “Do you know why ‘they’ hate Hillary so much.” I shook my head, more out of curiosity than an inability to supply a host of reasons recycled from media reports. “She’s a ‘n*gger-lover’” my friend said with a loving vehemence that took me aback. And within that instant, it all fell into place. By “all”, I mean, the feelings of intimacy that I too felt for this rich, white woman.
Her beautician tells her that Sanders and his supporters hate Hillary because she's a "n*gger lover", and she suddenly realizes why she loves Hillary.
Apparently, Hillary's attempt to erase Sanders' civil rights record has succeeded with her supporters.
I've been wondering how Clinton, of "bring them to heel" and "super predators" fame, had managed to get most of the black vote, and I now see it's through disinformation.
The Clinton News Network is full of shit. The Inspector General report lists violations in State Department policy that directly correspond to violations of law, so there is already evidence of "criminal wrongdoing". If they have the will, they can charge her with violations of the espionage act, and probably others.
And if reports are true that they've recovered most of her deleted emails, there will probably be evidence of public corruption regarding the Clinton Foundation.
If you're looking for a project to demonstrate your ability to do the work for a living, don't write a game. Not that a game won't demonstrate useful coding skills, but the bigger skill you want to demonstrate is that you are able to solve problems. A game is a self-directed problem. You have not demonstrated that you can take someone else's requirements, communicate with them, and solve their problem. You haven't shown that you can work with or for other people.
Unless the game is for someone else, but then it still looks like you have to be entertained to be motivated.
Facebook keeps reverting your newsfeed to "top stories" (from "latest stories"), so most people are only seeing the most popular posts. And how often are a geek's posts popular? You post, nobody reacts, you hate the platform.
When you post, Facebook shares is with just a couple of the people who have reacted to your posts (like, share, comment) before. If they don't react, your post isn't shared with anyone else. If they do react, Facebook shares it with a few more people. They react? More people see it.
Like most geeks, who aren't sharing pictures of friends and food and generally displaying a charmed life, my posts are about things and projects and happenstance and other boring stuff nobody cares about. I post it, Facebook shares it with a couple people who don't respond, and Facebook kills it. Nobody sees it, I don't bother posting it anymore.
Admit it, this is how your facebook experience goes, too. So you post to slashdot how useless and intrusive Facebook is.
Since the 90's programming has become about minutiae, and not about problem solving. "Programmers" strive to please web forums full of their socially-awkward-but-now-connected peers, rather than their bosses. They test each other during interviews to make sure they are hiring someone autistic who has learned some useless facts rather than looking for people who can solve problems and talk to people. They saddle their employers with flavor-of-the-week technologies because they are so afraid of doing something a webforum didn't approve of that they won't write anything themselves. They *pride* themselves in not writing things themselves. They turn simple problems into large projects by bringing in "frameworks" and other webforum-approved technologies they can put on their resume, rather than solving the damned simple problem they were handed.
I never saw anything that a similar Linux counterpart, or a suite of Open Source counterparts could not do.
Then you didn't understand what they were doing. To suggest you can do the same on Linux is like suggesting you can use Gimp instead of Photoshop. It makes it sound like you don't do anything but resize photos, or the audio equivalent.
All of the DAWs and all of the sound libraries and all of the virtual instruments and all of the effects processing and all of the mastering software is on the Mac and on Windows. So is all the beatmaking software and the drivers for all the professional hardware interfaces. Any projects clients or friends bring you will be for a Windows or Mac suite of tools.
You can make music with Linux. People have made hit records with a lot less. But Linux is so far behind that using it for music is just a self-limiting, philosophical pat on the back.
Yelp is useless. They delete bad reviews. Amazon has a sycophant army marking bad reviews as unhelpful, but Yelp goes one further and just deletes them.
Malware thrives on code you didn't look at. You didn't look at it because you didn't write it. Some web forum told you it was the proper way to do things, so you used it, because you're more afraid to look bad to a web forum than you are of looking bad to your boss, and now you have the vulnerabilities that came with it.
Simpler code is more robust code. Simpler code is code you can fully understand. Simpler code is code you can modify, rather than being stuck with it because you're afraid to touch it. Simpler code is code you can modify, because you don't have to have your changes accepted by a web forum or a remote dev team that doesn't give a crap about your changes.
Code you wrote yourself is code malware authors don't already know how to exploit.
very, very few people have the required mindset to [create code]
While there's some truth to this, the self-congratulatory attitude that comes with it has ruined the entire field.
Prior to the 90's, programming was about solving problems, and a good solution was a simple solution. Then soccer moms entered the field and programmers didn't feel so special anymore. (Exaggerating only slightly) They responded by making everything as complex as possible, and turned from problem solving to learning minutiae, so that only autistic people want to do the job, and now they can call themselves specially suited...because they made it that way. Programmers are now so afraid of doing something their peers would disapprove of, for fear of not demonstrating the minutiae they've learned, that they won't design solutions for themselves. Now they have to have frameworks and use accepted buzzwords that someone else made up to describe techniques someone else created, and they saddle their employers with having to support soon-to-be-obsolete technology that they spend more time getting to work than if they had just solved the damned not-very-complex problem they were given.
Judging from the way most programmers "refactor", the solution to complex code is to replace it with even more complex code, because something that employs as many technologies, buzzwords and frameworks-of-the-week is obviously better.
FWIW my vision is only marginally bad (I'm far-sighted, and getting worse with age), and I have corrective glasses, and even my very modest disability is helped by such an easy zoom. I use it constantly. It's such a natural and integral part of using my Mac that I forget about it when I contemplate switching from a Mac to something else...until I use something else.
Get a Mac. No matter what's on-screen, you can hold the control key and scroll (or swipe up/down on a trackpad) to zoom the whole screen. Move the mouse cursor to the edge to pan. It's intuitive, it doesn't take any screen space, it's variable zoom, and it doesn't limit magnification to a portion of the screen.
I have a nearly blind friend who ranted for years that nothing adequately replaced her Windows XP magnifier, and that a good screen reader would cost a fortune. I kept telling her to go to a Mac store and try out the magnifier and screen reader. She finally did so, bought a Mac Mini, and I haven't heard a complaint since about screen magnifiers or screen readers, and I no longer get frantic calls for support when she can't see well enough to figure out how to fix something she broke, and I'm not sure if the latter is because she's no longer breaking things or because she can see well enough to figure things out for herself.
Having non-anonymous social contact with real-world people probably positively correlates with being able the repay a loan, so the credit scorers would probably disagree with you.
I will not jump through hoops to see programming. I will not sign up for multiple entertainment services and take on yet more monthly bills. I will not tolerate piss-poor streaming quality. I most especially will not tolerate incessant advertising, even if the service is free. *Especially* if it is free.
We have reached the point where the number of entertainment choices, the un-originality of them, the hoops and interruptions and surveillance they come with, has reduced their value to next to nothing. What we need is fewer sources, not more. We need aggregators, like cable TV services with on-demand access, at fair prices, with actual competition and no sports channel taxes.
Netflix is the best we have, but they are moving in the wrong direction, increasing prices so they can offer their own programming. They don't have an ESPN tax, but they do have a Orange-is-the-new-black tax. And their selection isn't awesome and isn't timely or even stable.
I won't see the new Trek until it has been out on DVD long enough to drop in price, a lot, because I hate even the ads they sometimes put on DVD, so I won't pay more than $17 for a season of television programming.
Or maybe Netflix will pick it up and I'll get to see it before they drop it...and re-add it...and drop it... and...
Screw it. All this wonderful technology the 21st century has brought us has pretty much been squandered by shitty business models and fucking shareholder value.
I see a lot of rigidity around buzzwords and established practice, because programmers these days are given tools, and to appear smart to other programmers, they treat these tools as rules. As if knowing some rules is more important that solving problems and getting the job done. It's apparently easier to show how smart you are by regurgitating rules and criticizing people who don't follow them rigidly than it is to actually accomplish things.
It seems that many in the field these days are afraid to code something themselves for fear that someone will find fault. So, they do things "the established" way, which is generally frameworks or anything that can be called "reusable", even if this generation's "reusable" is always less reusable than last, because it keeps getting needlessly more complex to the point that nobody *can* reuse it.
Used to be programmers had a fault we called "not invented here", in that they'd insist on re-writing things that already existed, because it was easier to understand their own code than to use someone else's. These days it's reversed. For fear of criticism, they *must* use someone else's code rather than write their own. I call it "afraid to invent it here."
The real news is that the mainstream media (NYT) is reporting on it. Also, that money is influential is obvious, but the degree to which it is influential is finally being measured. With numbers backing up observation, and MSM exposure, something may have to be done about it.
Online tech forums are fond of saying the MSM is a puppet of government. Here we have an instance where it isn't.
The brogrammer culture is world-wide. It's particularly bad in Silicon Valley because they also discriminate on age more than everywhere else, so their brogrammer culture is more pure.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything's a rightwing claptrap when you're hearing what you don't want to hear. I've been accused of using rightwing propaganda for siting the State Department Inspector General report. You know, the rightwing Obama administration State Department for which she was Secretary of State? Damned rightwing claptrap.
This is who is voting for her:
Why 85% of Black Female Voters Support Hillary Clinton (And Its Not for the Reasons You Think)
Her beautician tells her that Sanders and his supporters hate Hillary because she's a "n*gger lover", and she suddenly realizes why she loves Hillary.
Apparently, Hillary's attempt to erase Sanders' civil rights record has succeeded with her supporters.
How Clinton Media Machine Blocked Sanders Civil Rights Play
I've been wondering how Clinton, of "bring them to heel" and "super predators" fame, had managed to get most of the black vote, and I now see it's through disinformation.
The Clinton News Network is full of shit. The Inspector General report lists violations in State Department policy that directly correspond to violations of law, so there is already evidence of "criminal wrongdoing". If they have the will, they can charge her with violations of the espionage act, and probably others.
And if reports are true that they've recovered most of her deleted emails, there will probably be evidence of public corruption regarding the Clinton Foundation.
If you're looking for a project to demonstrate your ability to do the work for a living, don't write a game. Not that a game won't demonstrate useful coding skills, but the bigger skill you want to demonstrate is that you are able to solve problems. A game is a self-directed problem. You have not demonstrated that you can take someone else's requirements, communicate with them, and solve their problem. You haven't shown that you can work with or for other people.
Unless the game is for someone else, but then it still looks like you have to be entertained to be motivated.
fucking shareholders
No shit Sherlock.
Aren't you just awesome.
But those nobody responds to, no big deal. I don't need that kind of social validation.
If nobody responds, then it was only seen by a few people. Facebook stopped showing it to people when the first few didn't respond.
Facebook keeps reverting your newsfeed to "top stories" (from "latest stories"), so most people are only seeing the most popular posts. And how often are a geek's posts popular? You post, nobody reacts, you hate the platform.
When you post, Facebook shares is with just a couple of the people who have reacted to your posts (like, share, comment) before. If they don't react, your post isn't shared with anyone else. If they do react, Facebook shares it with a few more people. They react? More people see it.
Like most geeks, who aren't sharing pictures of friends and food and generally displaying a charmed life, my posts are about things and projects and happenstance and other boring stuff nobody cares about. I post it, Facebook shares it with a couple people who don't respond, and Facebook kills it. Nobody sees it, I don't bother posting it anymore.
Admit it, this is how your facebook experience goes, too. So you post to slashdot how useless and intrusive Facebook is.
Since the 90's programming has become about minutiae, and not about problem solving. "Programmers" strive to please web forums full of their socially-awkward-but-now-connected peers, rather than their bosses. They test each other during interviews to make sure they are hiring someone autistic who has learned some useless facts rather than looking for people who can solve problems and talk to people. They saddle their employers with flavor-of-the-week technologies because they are so afraid of doing something a webforum didn't approve of that they won't write anything themselves. They *pride* themselves in not writing things themselves. They turn simple problems into large projects by bringing in "frameworks" and other webforum-approved technologies they can put on their resume, rather than solving the damned simple problem they were handed.
Then you didn't understand what they were doing. To suggest you can do the same on Linux is like suggesting you can use Gimp instead of Photoshop. It makes it sound like you don't do anything but resize photos, or the audio equivalent.
All of the DAWs and all of the sound libraries and all of the virtual instruments and all of the effects processing and all of the mastering software is on the Mac and on Windows. So is all the beatmaking software and the drivers for all the professional hardware interfaces. Any projects clients or friends bring you will be for a Windows or Mac suite of tools.
You can make music with Linux. People have made hit records with a lot less. But Linux is so far behind that using it for music is just a self-limiting, philosophical pat on the back.
Yelp is useless. They delete bad reviews. Amazon has a sycophant army marking bad reviews as unhelpful, but Yelp goes one further and just deletes them.
Malware thrives on code you didn't look at. You didn't look at it because you didn't write it. Some web forum told you it was the proper way to do things, so you used it, because you're more afraid to look bad to a web forum than you are of looking bad to your boss, and now you have the vulnerabilities that came with it.
Simpler code is more robust code. Simpler code is code you can fully understand. Simpler code is code you can modify, rather than being stuck with it because you're afraid to touch it. Simpler code is code you can modify, because you don't have to have your changes accepted by a web forum or a remote dev team that doesn't give a crap about your changes.
Code you wrote yourself is code malware authors don't already know how to exploit.
very, very few people have the required mindset to [create code]
While there's some truth to this, the self-congratulatory attitude that comes with it has ruined the entire field.
Prior to the 90's, programming was about solving problems, and a good solution was a simple solution. Then soccer moms entered the field and programmers didn't feel so special anymore. (Exaggerating only slightly) They responded by making everything as complex as possible, and turned from problem solving to learning minutiae, so that only autistic people want to do the job, and now they can call themselves specially suited...because they made it that way. Programmers are now so afraid of doing something their peers would disapprove of, for fear of not demonstrating the minutiae they've learned, that they won't design solutions for themselves. Now they have to have frameworks and use accepted buzzwords that someone else made up to describe techniques someone else created, and they saddle their employers with having to support soon-to-be-obsolete technology that they spend more time getting to work than if they had just solved the damned not-very-complex problem they were given.
Judging from the way most programmers "refactor", the solution to complex code is to replace it with even more complex code, because something that employs as many technologies, buzzwords and frameworks-of-the-week is obviously better.
The correlation is probably the reverse of the one stated. With prosperity comes consumption of services, like internet access.
FWIW my vision is only marginally bad (I'm far-sighted, and getting worse with age), and I have corrective glasses, and even my very modest disability is helped by such an easy zoom. I use it constantly. It's such a natural and integral part of using my Mac that I forget about it when I contemplate switching from a Mac to something else...until I use something else.
Get a Mac. No matter what's on-screen, you can hold the control key and scroll (or swipe up/down on a trackpad) to zoom the whole screen. Move the mouse cursor to the edge to pan. It's intuitive, it doesn't take any screen space, it's variable zoom, and it doesn't limit magnification to a portion of the screen.
I have a nearly blind friend who ranted for years that nothing adequately replaced her Windows XP magnifier, and that a good screen reader would cost a fortune. I kept telling her to go to a Mac store and try out the magnifier and screen reader. She finally did so, bought a Mac Mini, and I haven't heard a complaint since about screen magnifiers or screen readers, and I no longer get frantic calls for support when she can't see well enough to figure out how to fix something she broke, and I'm not sure if the latter is because she's no longer breaking things or because she can see well enough to figure things out for herself.
Having non-anonymous social contact with real-world people probably positively correlates with being able the repay a loan, so the credit scorers would probably disagree with you.
I will not check out CBS's "online platform".
I will not jump through hoops to see programming. I will not sign up for multiple entertainment services and take on yet more monthly bills. I will not tolerate piss-poor streaming quality. I most especially will not tolerate incessant advertising, even if the service is free. *Especially* if it is free.
We have reached the point where the number of entertainment choices, the un-originality of them, the hoops and interruptions and surveillance they come with, has reduced their value to next to nothing. What we need is fewer sources, not more. We need aggregators, like cable TV services with on-demand access, at fair prices, with actual competition and no sports channel taxes.
Netflix is the best we have, but they are moving in the wrong direction, increasing prices so they can offer their own programming. They don't have an ESPN tax, but they do have a Orange-is-the-new-black tax. And their selection isn't awesome and isn't timely or even stable.
I won't see the new Trek until it has been out on DVD long enough to drop in price, a lot, because I hate even the ads they sometimes put on DVD, so I won't pay more than $17 for a season of television programming.
Or maybe Netflix will pick it up and I'll get to see it before they drop it...and re-add it...and drop it... and...
Screw it. All this wonderful technology the 21st century has brought us has pretty much been squandered by shitty business models and fucking shareholder value.
I see a lot of rigidity around buzzwords and established practice, because programmers these days are given tools, and to appear smart to other programmers, they treat these tools as rules. As if knowing some rules is more important that solving problems and getting the job done. It's apparently easier to show how smart you are by regurgitating rules and criticizing people who don't follow them rigidly than it is to actually accomplish things.
It seems that many in the field these days are afraid to code something themselves for fear that someone will find fault. So, they do things "the established" way, which is generally frameworks or anything that can be called "reusable", even if this generation's "reusable" is always less reusable than last, because it keeps getting needlessly more complex to the point that nobody *can* reuse it.
Used to be programmers had a fault we called "not invented here", in that they'd insist on re-writing things that already existed, because it was easier to understand their own code than to use someone else's. These days it's reversed. For fear of criticism, they *must* use someone else's code rather than write their own. I call it "afraid to invent it here."
The real news is that the mainstream media (NYT) is reporting on it. Also, that money is influential is obvious, but the degree to which it is influential is finally being measured. With numbers backing up observation, and MSM exposure, something may have to be done about it.
Online tech forums are fond of saying the MSM is a puppet of government. Here we have an instance where it isn't.
That's news for nerds.
You know how more women can be involved into open-source ? When there are more women coding open source. That's it.
All they have to do is put up with people like you and they are free to participate. That's it.
No, thanks.
How to get more women into open source, focus less on the code and more on other things.
Seriously? Can't handle the machismo, go do something else? And get me a sammich while you're at it? That's your solution?
Maybe you're part of the problem?
The brogrammer culture is world-wide. It's particularly bad in Silicon Valley because they also discriminate on age more than everywhere else, so their brogrammer culture is more pure.