Most significantly, the temperature people generally serve coffee at is, in fact, hot enough go give third-degree burns. The general recommended temperature to store coffee at before serving is 185 degrees (farenheit, obviously). The truth is neither that the lawsuit was totally frivolous, nor that it was totally justified, but that this was a complicated situation with a number of issues that generally get glossed over.
Nope. They want to be entertained. They are fine with people liking them, they are fine with people being mad at them.
What they nearly always absolutely hate is when people don't like them but are entertained by them. If people react to them without hostility, but with sort of amused tolerance, like putting up with an annoying younger sibling, that will generally drive them away pretty fast.
They have a script. There's always something that's off the script and makes them no longer enjoy the game.
So, I once did some work where I was writing for Cell, and I was trying to optimize something for offloading to SPEs and all that. And I did a bunch of work, and I eventually trimmed, oh, easily 40% off my runtime.
Then I spent some time studying the code, noticed a flaw in the algorithm, and tweaked a few things. Half an hour later I had more than a factor of two improvement in runtime, and the size of the data sets I could work with increased noticably, allowing me to not have to deal with swap issues for quite a while.
People love to come up with these highly-specialized highly-optimized examples where in theory knowing how the CPU works matters. But you know what?
The CPU won't work that way next year. My code will still run.
Once OOO came along and became a common feature of CPUs, this became an almost-always-stupid idea. Not always-stupid, just almost-always-stupid.
Google "Steubenville rape". Look at the media coverage, look at a lot of the aftermath. That's "rape culture".
I think the key here is your qualifier: "seriously joke about it". Because not-serious joking about it doesn't bug you. But of course, it also doesn't bug the rapists; rather, it plays into their internal narrative that everyone thinks this is okay and sort of funny, they just don't admit it publically.
Uh, no. Even if we stick to a fairly stable legal definition of rape, we still find large and widespread patterns which are meaningfully described as "rape culture". If you just stick to "people actively defending men who had sex with someone who was absolutely not consenting", you continue to find it as a fairly widespread thing.
Remember those football player kids who went around taking video of themselves drugging girls and having sex with unconscious girls who hadn't consented? The ones who called themselves "the rape crew"? Did you see the news coverage talking about how sad it was that getting convicted might prevent them from having successful careers as football players, without addressing the question of whether it might have been better for them to not do it, rather than wishing they'd gotten away with it? Did you see the adults trying to come up with educational materials from this? The ones where they were going to teach boys that, if you are going to rape girls, you shouldn't take pictures and post them on social media?
Yeah, that's actually rape culture, it really is a thing, and I don't for a minute believe your denials to be sincere.
There isn't enough time in the world to focus on the individuals. If we reach a point where the most likely outcome of a guy openly groping a girl in front of a lot of witnesses and clearly without any consent is not people blaming how she dressed, then it might start making sense to focus only on the people doing that. But right now, it's sufficiently widespread to be a solid majority.
Nonsense. James Fallon has the same biological issues in his brain, and yet, somehow, manages to not go around killing random women. I have at least a lot of the markers for it (never done the CAT scans and such), but guess what, I generally get along fine with people and don't have those hang ups.
I can't say whether the kid was a psychopath or not, but I can tell you that the problem was not that he was a psychopath, it was that he hated women and had unrealistic beliefs about what relationships with women should be like, and people encouraged him in those beliefs.
I feel I should point out that I've never once heard the complaint about the "douchebag cheating assholes" (or words to that effect) that women date come from someone who didn't ping the creep radar fairly severely in person. Women learn pretty fast to spot that entitlement/jealousy attitude, and avoid it like the plague for good reason.
"Retroactive" withdrawal of consent is extremely rare. Sure, you've probably got a canned link or two, but it's not a thing that happens often at all. On the other hand, "something that really wasn't consent in the first place" is a pretty common problem. And that's not revoking consent retroactively, that's calling people on something that was actually out of line to begin with.
If you expand it just a tiny bit, from "stop raping" to "stop encouraging nonconsensual behaviors, stop covering up rapes, and stop other actions that enable or contribute to rape", then it's probably >80% of men that could change their behavior in a way that would noticably approach those goals.
Not every woman you meet has been raped. Every woman you meet has been sexually harassed. (I mean, theoretically, maybe, there could be exceptions. I have never met one.)
I'm a pretty good C programmer, by most accounts. I have a reasonable track record producing code that solves interesting problems, and very good reliability.
And this absolutely does not require me to understand how the processor works. In fact, it's sort of the opposite; the reason I'm good at C is that I mostly ignore the processor question and focus on how the language spec works. So I write code that's correct without guessing at what CPUs will do with it.
I've been writing C for >20 years. I've probably looked at assembly output maybe a dozen times in that time, maybe a little more but not much. I've tried to modify assembly code maybe twice tops. I don't know any assembly languages well enough to follow code in them without looking things up, and I generally can't tell you off the top of my head much of anything about a machine's addressing models or registers or whatever, unless the question came up as trivia. And I do just fine in C.
Doctors are licensed. And in a lot of places, so are plumbers. When we got a gas line run, we didn't hire the guy and see how he did. We hired someone who had gotten official certifications of competence from another source, and then had a state inspector evaluate the work. (And heck, for gas lines, I am totally okay with this, because you really, really, do not want those being done incorrectly.)
I'm not sure I'd be any better off with a union, mind. The types of unions we have in the US are pretty worker-hostile in a lot of cases, especially for workers who don't fit nicely into pigeon holes.
The canonical example was quicktime player (around version 4) having a volume control which was a graphical representation of a thumb wheel, so if you wanted to adjust the volume, you clicked on the wheel and dragged it up or down. Because that was a way volume controls worked on physical objects, right?
There are a lot of requirements on physical objects that don't apply to user interfaces, and accommodating them does not "work" in any useful sense.
So, yes. You are misinformed. You're using the word which means "making the user interface look just like a physical object", and using it as a malapropism for "make the user interface be complicated".
Look at your browser window. See that search input field? That should be gone, in your world, because a physical newspaper wouldn't have a search bar, and skuemorphism means we shouldn't have user interface elements that don't look like real things. No scroll bars, either, because you should physically reach over to the lower-right corner of the window, click the little corner-thing, and drag it up and left so it "turns the page".
Sound stupid? Yeah. It does. And that's what your post is saying.
HR people put things on "job requirements" which are not actually required.
This is an intentional thing, done to try to find "highly confident" people.
Basically, they think they are selecting for confidence and zeal. Mostly they are selecting for dishonesty and "can't follow simple instructions". Anyway, just send the resume in anyway. Don't lie on it or anything, just send it in anyway. When they realize that there is no such thing as an "entry-level" person with "2 years of experience", they'll look at the rest of the pile.
I remember I used to have these horrible connectivity problems with it, which turned out to be a result of a "feature" wherein it couldn't be used with a wifi network with a non-broadcast SSID, because it would scan for broadcast SSIDs, not see the one it was trying to be connected to, and turn the connection off. I spent a month or so trying to get it to use a WPA2 VPN and eventually gave up and went to wicd.
I have never previously heard anyone describe NetworkMangler in any positive terms whatsoever, let alone suggest that it was in some way "friendly".
FWIW, I actually find Steam really annoying. I usually use a couple of computers at once, and I sometimes have a slow-paced game on one and want to play something faster on another while, say, waiting for turns to process or something. I can do this with even the most draconian DRM schemes, but not with Steam. Yes, I'm aware of Offline Mode. Valve Support has told me that it is in fact prohibited to use Offline Mode to run another copy of Steam, even if I'm using it to play a different game.
Why should we read on for Bennett's "thoughts"? He's a twit. Why do you guys keep posting this garbage? Someone teach him how to use a blog, since what he's got here isn't "news", it isn't "stuff that matters", it's "some guy writing badly about things he doesn't really think through".
No, not all churches operate that way. Many churches are religious organizations that may or may not even be structured enough to need a legal existence. Only one "church" I've ever heard of specifically claimed not to be religious until the tax consequences showed up.
Your other points are, well. You didn't do any research and you didn't say anything coherent. Try again?
I got as far in the "cyborganize" page as "your brain works just like everyone else's" and stopped reading. There's a whole lot of similarities, but there are huge differences, too. For instance, the rate at which you forget things, that they so proudly identify as precisely worked out? Highly variable. The gap between, say, an autistic person who doesn't have ADHD, and a non-autistic person with ADHD, is going to be large.
Maybe the system is independent of these variances, but in general, if someone says everyone thinks the same, I dismiss them as not having made even the most casual effort to comprehend the field.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a vast oversimplification.
Most significantly, the temperature people generally serve coffee at is, in fact, hot enough go give third-degree burns. The general recommended temperature to store coffee at before serving is 185 degrees (farenheit, obviously). The truth is neither that the lawsuit was totally frivolous, nor that it was totally justified, but that this was a complicated situation with a number of issues that generally get glossed over.
Nope. They want to be entertained. They are fine with people liking them, they are fine with people being mad at them.
What they nearly always absolutely hate is when people don't like them but are entertained by them. If people react to them without hostility, but with sort of amused tolerance, like putting up with an annoying younger sibling, that will generally drive them away pretty fast.
They have a script. There's always something that's off the script and makes them no longer enjoy the game.
So, I once did some work where I was writing for Cell, and I was trying to optimize something for offloading to SPEs and all that. And I did a bunch of work, and I eventually trimmed, oh, easily 40% off my runtime.
Then I spent some time studying the code, noticed a flaw in the algorithm, and tweaked a few things. Half an hour later I had more than a factor of two improvement in runtime, and the size of the data sets I could work with increased noticably, allowing me to not have to deal with swap issues for quite a while.
People love to come up with these highly-specialized highly-optimized examples where in theory knowing how the CPU works matters. But you know what?
The CPU won't work that way next year. My code will still run.
Once OOO came along and became a common feature of CPUs, this became an almost-always-stupid idea. Not always-stupid, just almost-always-stupid.
Google "Steubenville rape". Look at the media coverage, look at a lot of the aftermath. That's "rape culture".
I think the key here is your qualifier: "seriously joke about it". Because not-serious joking about it doesn't bug you. But of course, it also doesn't bug the rapists; rather, it plays into their internal narrative that everyone thinks this is okay and sort of funny, they just don't admit it publically.
Uh, no. Even if we stick to a fairly stable legal definition of rape, we still find large and widespread patterns which are meaningfully described as "rape culture". If you just stick to "people actively defending men who had sex with someone who was absolutely not consenting", you continue to find it as a fairly widespread thing.
Remember those football player kids who went around taking video of themselves drugging girls and having sex with unconscious girls who hadn't consented? The ones who called themselves "the rape crew"? Did you see the news coverage talking about how sad it was that getting convicted might prevent them from having successful careers as football players, without addressing the question of whether it might have been better for them to not do it, rather than wishing they'd gotten away with it? Did you see the adults trying to come up with educational materials from this? The ones where they were going to teach boys that, if you are going to rape girls, you shouldn't take pictures and post them on social media?
Yeah, that's actually rape culture, it really is a thing, and I don't for a minute believe your denials to be sincere.
There isn't enough time in the world to focus on the individuals. If we reach a point where the most likely outcome of a guy openly groping a girl in front of a lot of witnesses and clearly without any consent is not people blaming how she dressed, then it might start making sense to focus only on the people doing that. But right now, it's sufficiently widespread to be a solid majority.
Nonsense. James Fallon has the same biological issues in his brain, and yet, somehow, manages to not go around killing random women. I have at least a lot of the markers for it (never done the CAT scans and such), but guess what, I generally get along fine with people and don't have those hang ups.
I can't say whether the kid was a psychopath or not, but I can tell you that the problem was not that he was a psychopath, it was that he hated women and had unrealistic beliefs about what relationships with women should be like, and people encouraged him in those beliefs.
I feel I should point out that I've never once heard the complaint about the "douchebag cheating assholes" (or words to that effect) that women date come from someone who didn't ping the creep radar fairly severely in person. Women learn pretty fast to spot that entitlement/jealousy attitude, and avoid it like the plague for good reason.
"Retroactive" withdrawal of consent is extremely rare. Sure, you've probably got a canned link or two, but it's not a thing that happens often at all. On the other hand, "something that really wasn't consent in the first place" is a pretty common problem. And that's not revoking consent retroactively, that's calling people on something that was actually out of line to begin with.
If you expand it just a tiny bit, from "stop raping" to "stop encouraging nonconsensual behaviors, stop covering up rapes, and stop other actions that enable or contribute to rape", then it's probably >80% of men that could change their behavior in a way that would noticably approach those goals.
Not every woman you meet has been raped. Every woman you meet has been sexually harassed. (I mean, theoretically, maybe, there could be exceptions. I have never met one.)
"About" equivalent. Except, you know, for the part where you can change your mind when new evidence comes along.
Don't blame C99, that was true in C89 as well, and generally for pretty carefully-considered reasons.
People who are trying to get "negative" responses are not getting negative conditioning, they're getting what they want.
The trick is to give them feedback they don't want, not necessarily obviously "negative" feedback.
I hear that a lot, but I genuinely don't buy it.
I'm a pretty good C programmer, by most accounts. I have a reasonable track record producing code that solves interesting problems, and very good reliability.
And this absolutely does not require me to understand how the processor works. In fact, it's sort of the opposite; the reason I'm good at C is that I mostly ignore the processor question and focus on how the language spec works. So I write code that's correct without guessing at what CPUs will do with it.
I've been writing C for >20 years. I've probably looked at assembly output maybe a dozen times in that time, maybe a little more but not much. I've tried to modify assembly code maybe twice tops. I don't know any assembly languages well enough to follow code in them without looking things up, and I generally can't tell you off the top of my head much of anything about a machine's addressing models or registers or whatever, unless the question came up as trivia. And I do just fine in C.
Where do you get this idea? Do you have any idea how many Samsung parts are in pretty much every Apple product? Hint: Lots.
Doctors are licensed. And in a lot of places, so are plumbers. When we got a gas line run, we didn't hire the guy and see how he did. We hired someone who had gotten official certifications of competence from another source, and then had a state inspector evaluate the work. (And heck, for gas lines, I am totally okay with this, because you really, really, do not want those being done incorrectly.)
I'm not sure I'd be any better off with a union, mind. The types of unions we have in the US are pretty worker-hostile in a lot of cases, especially for workers who don't fit nicely into pigeon holes.
No, it doesn't work.
The canonical example was quicktime player (around version 4) having a volume control which was a graphical representation of a thumb wheel, so if you wanted to adjust the volume, you clicked on the wheel and dragged it up or down. Because that was a way volume controls worked on physical objects, right?
There are a lot of requirements on physical objects that don't apply to user interfaces, and accommodating them does not "work" in any useful sense.
So, yes. You are misinformed. You're using the word which means "making the user interface look just like a physical object", and using it as a malapropism for "make the user interface be complicated".
Look at your browser window. See that search input field? That should be gone, in your world, because a physical newspaper wouldn't have a search bar, and skuemorphism means we shouldn't have user interface elements that don't look like real things. No scroll bars, either, because you should physically reach over to the lower-right corner of the window, click the little corner-thing, and drag it up and left so it "turns the page".
Sound stupid? Yeah. It does. And that's what your post is saying.
Okay, real simple:
HR people put things on "job requirements" which are not actually required.
This is an intentional thing, done to try to find "highly confident" people.
Basically, they think they are selecting for confidence and zeal. Mostly they are selecting for dishonesty and "can't follow simple instructions". Anyway, just send the resume in anyway. Don't lie on it or anything, just send it in anyway. When they realize that there is no such thing as an "entry-level" person with "2 years of experience", they'll look at the rest of the pile.
Uh.
What?
I remember I used to have these horrible connectivity problems with it, which turned out to be a result of a "feature" wherein it couldn't be used with a wifi network with a non-broadcast SSID, because it would scan for broadcast SSIDs, not see the one it was trying to be connected to, and turn the connection off. I spent a month or so trying to get it to use a WPA2 VPN and eventually gave up and went to wicd.
I have never previously heard anyone describe NetworkMangler in any positive terms whatsoever, let alone suggest that it was in some way "friendly".
Interesting! I wasn't aware that this was an option. I will have to investigate that. Thanks!
So far as I can tell, DRM-free means "no DRM".
FWIW, I actually find Steam really annoying. I usually use a couple of computers at once, and I sometimes have a slow-paced game on one and want to play something faster on another while, say, waiting for turns to process or something. I can do this with even the most draconian DRM schemes, but not with Steam. Yes, I'm aware of Offline Mode. Valve Support has told me that it is in fact prohibited to use Offline Mode to run another copy of Steam, even if I'm using it to play a different game.
Seriously, just... Why?
Why should we read on for Bennett's "thoughts"? He's a twit. Why do you guys keep posting this garbage? Someone teach him how to use a blog, since what he's got here isn't "news", it isn't "stuff that matters", it's "some guy writing badly about things he doesn't really think through".
No, not all churches operate that way. Many churches are religious organizations that may or may not even be structured enough to need a legal existence. Only one "church" I've ever heard of specifically claimed not to be religious until the tax consequences showed up.
Your other points are, well. You didn't do any research and you didn't say anything coherent. Try again?
1. It's annoying.
2. Most people don't think like that.
People are not built for that kind of caution.
I got as far in the "cyborganize" page as "your brain works just like everyone else's" and stopped reading. There's a whole lot of similarities, but there are huge differences, too. For instance, the rate at which you forget things, that they so proudly identify as precisely worked out? Highly variable. The gap between, say, an autistic person who doesn't have ADHD, and a non-autistic person with ADHD, is going to be large.
Maybe the system is independent of these variances, but in general, if someone says everyone thinks the same, I dismiss them as not having made even the most casual effort to comprehend the field.