I know many couples who game and don't have all these problems. I have no idea what they're doing that makes these strange problems. We play games together, we play games separately, both are fun. Of course, we've both been gamers all along.
Usually, my thought is, if someone isn't into a particular hobby, there's a pretty limited benefit to trying to draw them in; if you do want to, though, try to find cooperative or social activities that aren't overwhelmingly complicated at first. Maybe.
I got in a ton of trouble for things. At least one, I finally figured out 20 years later what happened.
The college I was at had terms of use. I read them. I followed them.
One of the rules was that you must not access other student's accounts. So I didn't. But I was curious about a lot of stuff, and I did things like write something to check common dictionary words against passwords (this was before shadow passwords). And I wrote something that emulated, down to the effectively-slower bit rate, the behavior of the terminal multiplexer which lived in front of the login process, and gave people fake login prompts, and recorded passwords.
I got in trouble. I was mystified by this. I had not accessed any other student's account.
Apparently, though: 1. No one was actually looking at logs in any detail. 2. At least one student claimed that I had done stuff to them. (I don't even know if it's a student whose account I had a password for; I assume they lost a file and blamed me because they'd heard I had passwords, or maybe it was just a lie.) 3. Also, you're apparently supposed to know that "don't access other people's accounts" implies "don't collect the passwords for other people's accounts."
Nowadays, if I take time to think about it, I can usually spot the intended "or do anything that looks like you might be planning to..." that people assume all rules carry, but I still have to work at it. I didn't even know why I kept having trouble with rules until I started reading up on autism.:)
I absolutely loved the game the day before the Real ID forum announcement. That, and their handling of it, killed any trust I had for the company, and I never actually played the game again. Logged in often enough to send all my sendable loot to guildies, deleted account. I was satisfied with the game as such, I just couldn't take the company anymore.
So what you're saying is, even the most carefully cherry-picked of hostile readings confirm absolute and undeniable real benefits for a non-zero number of patients, and this is proof that there is no benefit whatsoever and the whole thing is a scam.
See, the claim Cruise is making isn't "these only help some people". It's "these are absolutely never of use to anyone".
It's all rooted in L. Ron Hubbard's rage against the psychiatrists of the world after they refused to continue prescribing him antidepressants.
Even if we concede this point, this just further establishes that Scientology isn't a religion, as it is not founded on the same fallacies that religions are. Thanks for making that useful point!:)
I never said anyone couldn't discuss similarities. What I said was that the existence of some similarities does not mean we have to ignore all the very real differences. I mean, heck. There are similarities between all sorts of things. Doesn't mean that anything that has any similarities to a religion is just like all the religions and no different from them.
But please, do go into how similar the infiltration and intimidation tactics are. Impress us by actually providing a shred of evidence. Oh, you won't, because you don't have any, because they just plain aren't that similar.
And no, I don't think anyone could win a presidential election in the US without claiming to be Christian, and I think that's really fucked up. I also think it's disgusting that we have that "in God we trust" crap on money, and "under God" in the pledge. Offensive and frankly blasphemous; it stuns me that there are religious people who aren't offended by that. But you know what? Those are all what we call red herrings. They are emotionally-laden topics you can use to distract people from the actual points under discussion.
The actual point is the claims that scientology is "just like" religions. It's not. It's very, very, different in its basic structure and intent. I pointed out how and why, with examples and references. You handwaved about how you aren't going to produce evidence, then brought up red herrings to try to derail the conversation. Nice work!
That is some serious bullshit there. The "guilty conscience" thing? Seriously, that's just crap. That is not how people work, and that is not how reality works. There are lots of people who know perfectly well that there is a law they have technically broken, but who do not feel guilty about it at all -- but who might not be surprised to face jail time if a prosecutor happened to pick them to make an example of. The problem with this, apart from the victim-blaming, is that you're assuming that "violated a law" and "guilty" are the same thing in any kind of ethical sense. Similarly, "he knew he was guilty, so the probation he would have recieved was deserved."
This doesn't logically follow, because "deserve" is a moral claim, but you're basing it on the legal system. Legal systems are not moral systems. You can quite easily be fully aware that you have done a thing which is prohibited by a law, but not feel that you deserve jail time for it. Or you might feel that a misdemeanor charge that's in some way related to what you did is justified, but that multiple felony counts aren't.
The fact is, nothing he did merits years of jail time, and the claim that the prosecutor was "asking for" six months minimum security is highly misleading at best. They were, quite clearly, aiming to make an example of him. Look at previous cases Ortiz prosecuted against people who could afford defense teams, and tell me how "deserved" those outcomes were.
Long story short, even if we ignore the fact that he was depressed, this was a crazy thing and your attempts to make it look less crazy are disturbing. The just world fallacy is called a fallacy because it is not actually valid reasoning. Your attempts to make yourself feel okay with the world by pretending that what happens is okay and justified are unpersuasive at best. And yet. We know he was depressed, and we know a fair amount about what depression does to people's ability to evaluate things and make decisions. It's bad enough that prosecutors are trying really hard to make dramatic examples of people by going after huge piles of charges without regard to the actual severity of the underlying acts; cherry-picking for depressed people because they're easier to bully is despicable. So's trying to defend it.
This is a really stupid rhetorical question, but it's a pretty good actual question. In case someone comes along who is interested in answers:
* Coercing members to have abortions so they won't waste money raising kids; instead, the money can go to the organization. * Complete ban on mental health care. * Major and sustained efforts to undermine health care for other people too, as part of their general war on anything related to psychiatry. * Systematic destruction of family relationships and friendships which in any way endanger someone's loyalty to the organization. * Systematic attacks on critics, including anyone who says anything just a bit negative. * Various lawsuits, legal hassles, and so on; they use these to get things like preferential tax treatment (they get better tax breaks than any religion does). * According to their founder, they are in fact not a religion at all, and are in no way religious; they adopted the "religion" thing only for legal benefits, while not actually being a religious organization in any way. * Paulette Cooper and "operation Freakout", in which they forged bomb threats from someone who'd said things they didn't like. * Lisa McPherson, who was tied to a bed and denied any sort of care until she was nearly-dead, then dropped off at a hospital (where she died because she was already too far gone), on the grounds that she had been thinking about seeking medical care. Anything where your autopsy reveals "cockroach feeding sites" should not be considered a viable medical treatment.
Christians can be really annoying (trust me on this; I am one, I should know), but the vast, vast, majority of them do not have a policy that says that they are obliged to take any and all possible measures to prevent me from disagreeing with them or telling other people I think they're wrong. Yes, some of the specific organizations have, over the last couple thousand years, gotten way out of line. But it's never been the official policy of the entire thing. The "Fair Game" policy is a whole new category compared to the policies that religions generally have.
In short, they are on the lunatic fringe compared even to the lunatic fringes of the world's religions. (And I don't say "any other religion" because L. Ron Hubbard said Scientology was not a religion, and he's presumably authoritative.)
When the Catholic Church tells its members to absolutely cut off all communciation with anyone who badmouths them, at all, ever, then we can talk about how Scientology is in any way similar to religions. Without that, you're just demonstrating severe ignorance of what it is that people dislike about Scientology.
I know easily ten people, probably more, who "used to" play WoW.
Of them, not a single one has ever commented on any of the things you've talked about. Every one of them quit over something pertaining to Blizzard's general corporate attitude post-merger; Real ID, the video with the anti-gay slurs at Blizzcon, lack of action about trolls and abusers in chat... In short, stuff that had nothing to do with the game, only with the company and community.
Had the company not been so spectacularly hostile to me and my friends, I would probably have loved Cataclysm; I'd certainly have bought it and played it, but instead we sent emails to their privacy department asking us to delete all our personal information. (This has not stopped them from continuing to send promotional spam now and again to the unique/tagged addresses never used with anyone but them, sadly.)
Admittedly, I don't play any of Zynga's games, but I play a lot of games, and I talk to a lot of gamers, and I've never heard of anyone designing games exclusively through analytics or statistics. I am not convinced that this is a real thing...
Plauger's essay, many years ago, about programmer types struck me as better advice: If you enjoy programming, do it. If you don't mind it, but don't really enjoy it, feel free to do it, but have other things available. If you hate it, don't do it, because you will be dramatically worse off than if you did something you enjoyed and were probably good at.
It's a great thought to "not be at the mercy of some programmer". Makes sense for singing, for musicians. Thing is, you don't have to sing particularly well to sing adequately to get stuff recorded. Might not make a lot of money, but you can do pretty well if you can carry a tune at all. Or even if you can't, if you're charismatic. But a bad programmer doesn't just produce tolerable but sort of flawed programs; a bad programmer produces programs that are frequently worse than not having a program at all.
I have a G2. Not rooted or anything. Most of the time it's fine. Every so often, when I touch keypad buttons during a call, Nothiing Happens. A few seconds later, any and all buttons I've hit will play back very very fast.
One is a correlation between experience and quality or productivity. Another is a correlation between people and quality or productivity.
These are not the same. The claim about "super-human programming ninjas" is not that a programmer with 10 years of experience is 10x as fast as a programmer with 1. It's that the variance between good programmers and bad programmers is huge.
And it is, on many different factors. I'm unreasonably fast, but I'm also really error-prone, especially on the "easy" parts of things. Taking that into account, I can still get stuff done quite quickly if it has the qualities that make it amenable to the kinds of things that my brain happens to be really good at.
Yes, environment also makes a huge difference. But the difference between a really good programmer and a really bad programmer may be quite a lot larger than the difference between a perfect environment and a mediocre environment.
And it's also true that virtually no one is "10x" as good as their peers. But say you've got this one guy who really is about 3x as productive as an average programmer. And say you've got this other guy who is just awful, and maybe 1/4 as productive as an average programmer. That's a 12x difference between them...
I think the biggest thing is probably "assuming that the same practices are good or bad for everyone". Consider "face time"; this ranges from essential to disruptive depending on the people involved. If you don't make sure that your socially-oriented developers are getting the human contact they need to be engaged, you are crippling them. If you don't keep your non-socially-oriented coworkers free from disruptive enforced socializing, you are crippling them. So if you pick a policy, and use it for everyone, you're likely hurting productivity.
Honestly, though, the biggest thing I've seen, by far? Blame. When I have worked places where there was a focus on identifying fault and trying to punish failure, it meant that the bulk of effort in responding to issues was spent on identifying or avoiding blame. Where I work now, the corporate culture is that we all know we make mistakes (although I like to think I make more of them than anyone else; I have a spectacular track record in that regard), and we also know that in nearly every case, any of several people could have prevented something. If code goes in that breaks something, and I reviewed it, I don't say "oh, there's no way I could have known that would happen", I say "whoops, my bad, I reviewed that one".
And that means that, when something goes wrong, we have the best information we can have about what went wrong and how as soon as possible, and we can focus on fixing it. And "fixing it" doesn't mean "sitting around waiting for the person who screwed up to be around to fix it", it means "best fit of availability and schedule". I will fix mistakes I didn't make, other people fix mistakes I make, and we get stuff done.
I basically laugh when people ask me whether I'm looking for work.:)
Exactly. That is the only person who considered the spec and reacted intelligently.
I'm pretty good at shell, and one of the things I note is that a TON of stuff that people often write elaborate code for can be done in a couple of lines of shell and then we're done.
That... Just ain't so, really. I am relatively senior in some ways, I certainly do stuff that no one would dream of asking a newbie to do.
But at the end of the day, sometimes I have to get a thing done, and that includes doing some of the "undergraduate-level" stuff. And the funny thing is, I'm actually pretty sucky at that stuff. I can get the mutex locking right, but the code won't compile because I changed the name of a variable halfway through writing a function. (Yes, really. I am trying to get an appointment for screening for dyslexia, since it turns out my failure modes are symptomatic.)
And knowing that I have trouble with that stuff is relevant if you want to know how well I can actually perform a job... It isn't the only relevant thing, but it sure as heck isn't irrelevant.
I have never, ever, met a genuinely competent writer who needed a spell checker to produce reasonably correct output.
I think you earned that 0 fair and square, and it's a reasonably good reflection of real-world circumstances; you are the sort of person who will refuse to do anything rather than doing something you dislike. Well, okay. That's good information to have.
The world is full of people who can break a problem down, but can't produce actual code. And people who have a great idea, but don't have the patience to write the game, or book, or movie. Or people who can "write", but not on a specific topic with a deadline. And in all these cases, they are firmly convinced that they are the important ones, who make the primary contributions, and that the people who handle the "implementation details" aren't really doing much. And in all these cases, they're wrong.
My friend applied to a service station. They gave him a test where he was supposed to diagnose a problem with a vehicle and fix it, and they gave him an hour to do so. Is this test in any way meaningful?
Well, think about it. They want someone to fix cars. They get paid for fixing cars. They get paid more when they can fix more cars per day. Does it seem like whether someone can perform a trivial task in an hour or less might be a relevant piece of information?
Seriously, there's a lot of things about programming where wall-clock time isn't hugely important, and a really good slightly slow programmer is usually better than a crappy fast programmer.
But as someone who is, most of the time, on the very fast end of things: Yes, I think there is value in being able to get stuff done quickly. It's not the only value, and I don't necessarily think I'm a more valuable employee than someone who's slower but more reliable (which gets you like 95% of the programming population), but there's certainly utility to it.
Down for upgrades? Down for an evaluation of whether upgrades are needed? Down for code fixes? Down because they need to evaluate what happened after confirming attack happened?
The actual vulnerability was not automatically present; it's easy to use Rails and not have this vulnerability affect you, because while the vulnerability is nominally in the code base, there's no paths to trigger it without specific code -- so either you'd have to use a specific third-party library, or write your own code which does the same things. So it might well be that the site is not actually vulnerable -- and they're just being cautious.
Of course you can separate them. And of course you can support GMOs without supporting that "framework". Many people do, and quite actively so.
Your argument, transposed to another field:
If you're supporting small portable computers, then you are supporting a framework that allows for Apple and Google to control the smartphone industry.
Well, maybe that's true in practice right now, but it's not inherently true, and it is quite possible to dislike both Apple and Google, and yet still support the legality of small portable computers.
Slashdot Mirror
I know many couples who game and don't have all these problems. I have no idea what they're doing that makes these strange problems. We play games together, we play games separately, both are fun. Of course, we've both been gamers all along.
Usually, my thought is, if someone isn't into a particular hobby, there's a pretty limited benefit to trying to draw them in; if you do want to, though, try to find cooperative or social activities that aren't overwhelmingly complicated at first. Maybe.
I got in a ton of trouble for things. At least one, I finally figured out 20 years later what happened.
The college I was at had terms of use. I read them. I followed them.
One of the rules was that you must not access other student's accounts. So I didn't. But I was curious about a lot of stuff, and I did things like write something to check common dictionary words against passwords (this was before shadow passwords). And I wrote something that emulated, down to the effectively-slower bit rate, the behavior of the terminal multiplexer which lived in front of the login process, and gave people fake login prompts, and recorded passwords.
I got in trouble. I was mystified by this. I had not accessed any other student's account.
Apparently, though:
1. No one was actually looking at logs in any detail.
2. At least one student claimed that I had done stuff to them. (I don't even know if it's a student whose account I had a password for; I assume they lost a file and blamed me because they'd heard I had passwords, or maybe it was just a lie.)
3. Also, you're apparently supposed to know that "don't access other people's accounts" implies "don't collect the passwords for other people's accounts."
Nowadays, if I take time to think about it, I can usually spot the intended "or do anything that looks like you might be planning to..." that people assume all rules carry, but I still have to work at it. I didn't even know why I kept having trouble with rules until I started reading up on autism. :)
I absolutely loved the game the day before the Real ID forum announcement. That, and their handling of it, killed any trust I had for the company, and I never actually played the game again. Logged in often enough to send all my sendable loot to guildies, deleted account. I was satisfied with the game as such, I just couldn't take the company anymore.
So what you're saying is, even the most carefully cherry-picked of hostile readings confirm absolute and undeniable real benefits for a non-zero number of patients, and this is proof that there is no benefit whatsoever and the whole thing is a scam.
See, the claim Cruise is making isn't "these only help some people". It's "these are absolutely never of use to anyone".
It's all rooted in L. Ron Hubbard's rage against the psychiatrists of the world after they refused to continue prescribing him antidepressants.
Even if we concede this point, this just further establishes that Scientology isn't a religion, as it is not founded on the same fallacies that religions are. Thanks for making that useful point! :)
Nice shifting of the goal posts!
I never said anyone couldn't discuss similarities. What I said was that the existence of some similarities does not mean we have to ignore all the very real differences. I mean, heck. There are similarities between all sorts of things. Doesn't mean that anything that has any similarities to a religion is just like all the religions and no different from them.
But please, do go into how similar the infiltration and intimidation tactics are. Impress us by actually providing a shred of evidence. Oh, you won't, because you don't have any, because they just plain aren't that similar.
And no, I don't think anyone could win a presidential election in the US without claiming to be Christian, and I think that's really fucked up. I also think it's disgusting that we have that "in God we trust" crap on money, and "under God" in the pledge. Offensive and frankly blasphemous; it stuns me that there are religious people who aren't offended by that. But you know what? Those are all what we call red herrings. They are emotionally-laden topics you can use to distract people from the actual points under discussion.
The actual point is the claims that scientology is "just like" religions. It's not. It's very, very, different in its basic structure and intent. I pointed out how and why, with examples and references. You handwaved about how you aren't going to produce evidence, then brought up red herrings to try to derail the conversation. Nice work!
I like how you actually provided any kind of argumentation, or responded to the actual specific data and examples.
Oh, wait. You didn't, because you can't, because you're wrong.
I advanced a claim and provided evidence. You provided no rebuttal. You have conceeded. Thank you.
That is some serious bullshit there. The "guilty conscience" thing? Seriously, that's just crap. That is not how people work, and that is not how reality works. There are lots of people who know perfectly well that there is a law they have technically broken, but who do not feel guilty about it at all -- but who might not be surprised to face jail time if a prosecutor happened to pick them to make an example of. The problem with this, apart from the victim-blaming, is that you're assuming that "violated a law" and "guilty" are the same thing in any kind of ethical sense. Similarly, "he knew he was guilty, so the probation he would have recieved was deserved."
This doesn't logically follow, because "deserve" is a moral claim, but you're basing it on the legal system. Legal systems are not moral systems. You can quite easily be fully aware that you have done a thing which is prohibited by a law, but not feel that you deserve jail time for it. Or you might feel that a misdemeanor charge that's in some way related to what you did is justified, but that multiple felony counts aren't.
The fact is, nothing he did merits years of jail time, and the claim that the prosecutor was "asking for" six months minimum security is highly misleading at best. They were, quite clearly, aiming to make an example of him. Look at previous cases Ortiz prosecuted against people who could afford defense teams, and tell me how "deserved" those outcomes were.
Long story short, even if we ignore the fact that he was depressed, this was a crazy thing and your attempts to make it look less crazy are disturbing. The just world fallacy is called a fallacy because it is not actually valid reasoning. Your attempts to make yourself feel okay with the world by pretending that what happens is okay and justified are unpersuasive at best. And yet. We know he was depressed, and we know a fair amount about what depression does to people's ability to evaluate things and make decisions. It's bad enough that prosecutors are trying really hard to make dramatic examples of people by going after huge piles of charges without regard to the actual severity of the underlying acts; cherry-picking for depressed people because they're easier to bully is despicable. So's trying to defend it.
This is a really stupid rhetorical question, but it's a pretty good actual question. In case someone comes along who is interested in answers:
* Coercing members to have abortions so they won't waste money raising kids; instead, the money can go to the organization.
* Complete ban on mental health care.
* Major and sustained efforts to undermine health care for other people too, as part of their general war on anything related to psychiatry.
* Systematic destruction of family relationships and friendships which in any way endanger someone's loyalty to the organization.
* Systematic attacks on critics, including anyone who says anything just a bit negative.
* Various lawsuits, legal hassles, and so on; they use these to get things like preferential tax treatment (they get better tax breaks than any religion does).
* According to their founder, they are in fact not a religion at all, and are in no way religious; they adopted the "religion" thing only for legal benefits, while not actually being a religious organization in any way.
* Paulette Cooper and "operation Freakout", in which they forged bomb threats from someone who'd said things they didn't like.
* Lisa McPherson, who was tied to a bed and denied any sort of care until she was nearly-dead, then dropped off at a hospital (where she died because she was already too far gone), on the grounds that she had been thinking about seeking medical care. Anything where your autopsy reveals "cockroach feeding sites" should not be considered a viable medical treatment.
Christians can be really annoying (trust me on this; I am one, I should know), but the vast, vast, majority of them do not have a policy that says that they are obliged to take any and all possible measures to prevent me from disagreeing with them or telling other people I think they're wrong. Yes, some of the specific organizations have, over the last couple thousand years, gotten way out of line. But it's never been the official policy of the entire thing. The "Fair Game" policy is a whole new category compared to the policies that religions generally have.
In short, they are on the lunatic fringe compared even to the lunatic fringes of the world's religions. (And I don't say "any other religion" because L. Ron Hubbard said Scientology was not a religion, and he's presumably authoritative.)
When the Catholic Church tells its members to absolutely cut off all communciation with anyone who badmouths them, at all, ever, then we can talk about how Scientology is in any way similar to religions. Without that, you're just demonstrating severe ignorance of what it is that people dislike about Scientology.
That's a good point, except...
So far as I can tell, for the people who dislike programming, automating tasks would not be a net improvement.
Just a side note:
I know easily ten people, probably more, who "used to" play WoW.
Of them, not a single one has ever commented on any of the things you've talked about. Every one of them quit over something pertaining to Blizzard's general corporate attitude post-merger; Real ID, the video with the anti-gay slurs at Blizzcon, lack of action about trolls and abusers in chat... In short, stuff that had nothing to do with the game, only with the company and community.
Had the company not been so spectacularly hostile to me and my friends, I would probably have loved Cataclysm; I'd certainly have bought it and played it, but instead we sent emails to their privacy department asking us to delete all our personal information. (This has not stopped them from continuing to send promotional spam now and again to the unique/tagged addresses never used with anyone but them, sadly.)
Admittedly, I don't play any of Zynga's games, but I play a lot of games, and I talk to a lot of gamers, and I've never heard of anyone designing games exclusively through analytics or statistics. I am not convinced that this is a real thing...
Plauger's essay, many years ago, about programmer types struck me as better advice: If you enjoy programming, do it. If you don't mind it, but don't really enjoy it, feel free to do it, but have other things available. If you hate it, don't do it, because you will be dramatically worse off than if you did something you enjoyed and were probably good at.
It's a great thought to "not be at the mercy of some programmer". Makes sense for singing, for musicians. Thing is, you don't have to sing particularly well to sing adequately to get stuff recorded. Might not make a lot of money, but you can do pretty well if you can carry a tune at all. Or even if you can't, if you're charismatic. But a bad programmer doesn't just produce tolerable but sort of flawed programs; a bad programmer produces programs that are frequently worse than not having a program at all.
I have a G2. Not rooted or anything. Most of the time it's fine. Every so often, when I touch keypad buttons during a call, Nothiing Happens. A few seconds later, any and all buttons I've hit will play back very very fast.
It really is quite noticeable.
I have never, ever, in my life seen too much documentation. I have rarely seen anything that was even close to sufficiently documented.
You are conflating two unrelated claims.
One is a correlation between experience and quality or productivity.
Another is a correlation between people and quality or productivity.
These are not the same. The claim about "super-human programming ninjas" is not that a programmer with 10 years of experience is 10x as fast as a programmer with 1. It's that the variance between good programmers and bad programmers is huge.
And it is, on many different factors. I'm unreasonably fast, but I'm also really error-prone, especially on the "easy" parts of things. Taking that into account, I can still get stuff done quite quickly if it has the qualities that make it amenable to the kinds of things that my brain happens to be really good at.
Yes, environment also makes a huge difference. But the difference between a really good programmer and a really bad programmer may be quite a lot larger than the difference between a perfect environment and a mediocre environment.
And it's also true that virtually no one is "10x" as good as their peers. But say you've got this one guy who really is about 3x as productive as an average programmer. And say you've got this other guy who is just awful, and maybe 1/4 as productive as an average programmer. That's a 12x difference between them...
I think the biggest thing is probably "assuming that the same practices are good or bad for everyone". Consider "face time"; this ranges from essential to disruptive depending on the people involved. If you don't make sure that your socially-oriented developers are getting the human contact they need to be engaged, you are crippling them. If you don't keep your non-socially-oriented coworkers free from disruptive enforced socializing, you are crippling them. So if you pick a policy, and use it for everyone, you're likely hurting productivity.
Honestly, though, the biggest thing I've seen, by far? Blame. When I have worked places where there was a focus on identifying fault and trying to punish failure, it meant that the bulk of effort in responding to issues was spent on identifying or avoiding blame. Where I work now, the corporate culture is that we all know we make mistakes (although I like to think I make more of them than anyone else; I have a spectacular track record in that regard), and we also know that in nearly every case, any of several people could have prevented something. If code goes in that breaks something, and I reviewed it, I don't say "oh, there's no way I could have known that would happen", I say "whoops, my bad, I reviewed that one".
And that means that, when something goes wrong, we have the best information we can have about what went wrong and how as soon as possible, and we can focus on fixing it. And "fixing it" doesn't mean "sitting around waiting for the person who screwed up to be around to fix it", it means "best fit of availability and schedule". I will fix mistakes I didn't make, other people fix mistakes I make, and we get stuff done.
I basically laugh when people ask me whether I'm looking for work. :)
Exactly. That is the only person who considered the spec and reacted intelligently.
I'm pretty good at shell, and one of the things I note is that a TON of stuff that people often write elaborate code for can be done in a couple of lines of shell and then we're done.
That... Just ain't so, really. I am relatively senior in some ways, I certainly do stuff that no one would dream of asking a newbie to do.
But at the end of the day, sometimes I have to get a thing done, and that includes doing some of the "undergraduate-level" stuff. And the funny thing is, I'm actually pretty sucky at that stuff. I can get the mutex locking right, but the code won't compile because I changed the name of a variable halfway through writing a function. (Yes, really. I am trying to get an appointment for screening for dyslexia, since it turns out my failure modes are symptomatic.)
And knowing that I have trouble with that stuff is relevant if you want to know how well I can actually perform a job... It isn't the only relevant thing, but it sure as heck isn't irrelevant.
I have never, ever, met a genuinely competent writer who needed a spell checker to produce reasonably correct output.
I think you earned that 0 fair and square, and it's a reasonably good reflection of real-world circumstances; you are the sort of person who will refuse to do anything rather than doing something you dislike. Well, okay. That's good information to have.
The world is full of people who can break a problem down, but can't produce actual code. And people who have a great idea, but don't have the patience to write the game, or book, or movie. Or people who can "write", but not on a specific topic with a deadline. And in all these cases, they are firmly convinced that they are the important ones, who make the primary contributions, and that the people who handle the "implementation details" aren't really doing much. And in all these cases, they're wrong.
No one wants to look for it, but the real world will occasionally provide stressful circumstances; ability to handle them is pretty much mandatory.
I don't understand how this can be a question.
I mean.
My friend applied to a service station. They gave him a test where he was supposed to diagnose a problem with a vehicle and fix it, and they gave him an hour to do so. Is this test in any way meaningful?
Well, think about it. They want someone to fix cars. They get paid for fixing cars. They get paid more when they can fix more cars per day. Does it seem like whether someone can perform a trivial task in an hour or less might be a relevant piece of information?
Seriously, there's a lot of things about programming where wall-clock time isn't hugely important, and a really good slightly slow programmer is usually better than a crappy fast programmer.
But as someone who is, most of the time, on the very fast end of things: Yes, I think there is value in being able to get stuff done quickly. It's not the only value, and I don't necessarily think I'm a more valuable employee than someone who's slower but more reliable (which gets you like 95% of the programming population), but there's certainly utility to it.
You know, it's pretty obvious that you're trolling, but there's a real question here:
Why would we use frameworks, given that they have security bugs coming up all the time?
Answer: Because code people write themselves isn't any less buggy, and with a framework, at least you have other people looking for bugs too.
Down for upgrades? Down for an evaluation of whether upgrades are needed? Down for code fixes? Down because they need to evaluate what happened after confirming attack happened?
The actual vulnerability was not automatically present; it's easy to use Rails and not have this vulnerability affect you, because while the vulnerability is nominally in the code base, there's no paths to trigger it without specific code -- so either you'd have to use a specific third-party library, or write your own code which does the same things. So it might well be that the site is not actually vulnerable -- and they're just being cautious.
Which I don't think is overreacting.
Of course you can separate them. And of course you can support GMOs without supporting that "framework". Many people do, and quite actively so.
Your argument, transposed to another field:
If you're supporting small portable computers, then you are supporting a framework that allows for Apple and Google to control the smartphone industry.
Well, maybe that's true in practice right now, but it's not inherently true, and it is quite possible to dislike both Apple and Google, and yet still support the legality of small portable computers.