So you're saying you agree with me, is what I'm seeing. You're not using a traditional definition of social justice, but rather you're finding that there is an identifiable category of people who are looking for trouble, not justice. You're calling them SJWs because you have to call them something and others have used SJW in that manner.
I have no problems with you being angry with abusers or troublemakers of that sort. More power to you. If you need suggestions, I would willingly help with anything that deals with those seeking to cause actual harm for fun.
I do disagree with the use of SJW, but if that's the term you find works best for you, please understand some of us traditionalists will be using a different definition. I have no problems working with you or others on how to distinguish, maybe we should use SJW* for the traditional concept of someone bugfixing real social issues rather than adding defects.
If everyone is on-board with that, then there's no confusion. One lot add problems, one lot remove them, and we can say who does what.
Again, if you want to kick over troublemakers and social defect warriors, whatever name you give them, let me know what help you want from me. It's the ones finding actual problems and offering actual solutions that I don't want tangled up in that.
There is some set X of companies that do A and some set Y of companies that do B. There is some set X/\ Y that do both, and a non-empty set that do X but not Y (X-Y).
However, there is some subset of X that is actually relevant. Let's call that X'. There is a corresponding Y'.
The judge stated only that X-Y is non-empty.
The judge made no comment whatsoever about X'-Y', nor can you infer that X'-Y' is non-empty by knowing X-Y is not.
This is indeed elementary comprehension. I learned that much set theory back when I first entered primary school.
You are drawing inferences about X' and Y' knowing only about a relationship between X and Y. You know X and Y overlap but are not the same. You do not know that about X' and Y'. The judge said nothing about that and you've found no additional evidence about that.
They may have elements that are not in common, producing the same result as for X and Y. But this has not been shown nor was it asserted by the judge.
Let's see, 386BSD and Linux seem to have done very nicely for themselves. Linux ran correctly on 16-way PC architectures before Windows, and in the early days I was much happier on Linux on a 386SX 16 MHz with 5 megs of RAM 20 megs hard drive than on Windows - much faster, pre-emptive multi-tasking rather than cooperative or (in DOS under Windows' case) single-tasking.
Yes, 5 megs for RAM. Viglen computers let you use the 1 mb on the motherboard plus 4 megs of extended. It was an interesting arrangement. But it ran UNIX just fine. Windows was sluggish.
OpenSolaris struggles with finding maintainers, but that's not because it's incompatible with newer machines or that it was poor on older ones.
Minix and Linux could run on an Atari ST! Try doing that with Windows. In fact, Minix ran on an IBM PC XT with an 8088 processor, as did SCO Xenix. Wonder how Windows NT would cope, it's not on the list.
This is an important point. Unix has a virtual machine concept. The virtual machine is what applications see. The physical machine can be totally different.
Unix allows you to define the size of memory this virtual machine has. This is virtual memory. If you had tape drives, you could set this to be infinite, because you can swap tapes. So what if your computer has 5 megs of RAM? Your virtual memory could show 500. You end up swapping a lot, but it works.
This means you don't care what main memory physically addresses.
Because you're using a virtual machine, you're not even restricted to one physical machine. MOSIX shows that, as does bproc of Beowulf fame.
X11? You can have client and server on the same machine, or on different machines. It's your choice.
Early Linux supported MFM hard drives just fine and kept up with drive technology as it evolved. Windows has always had problems with larger than normal hard drives, but Unix operating systems have not.
Interesting. I'm doing something similar, only I'm using SEL4, public key encryption, scaleable reliable multicast, Orange Book separation of capabilities and Byzantine methods for proving integrity.
The reason - all this already exists, so I can do regression testing, and a lot exists as open source, so I can extend as needed, combine as needed and validate against recognized coding standards.
It's easy, efficient, avoids proprietary technologies such as C#, minimizes bloat and achieves a result as good as any wholly custom job without the risk of bugs caused by reinventing wheels.
Always start with the generic and move to the specific. Most concrete ideas can be traced to a much smaller pool of abstractions and a smaller pool still of deeper abstractions.
Learning even just one or two abstractions from as many layers as you care about will explain the whys and hows in a way few manuals ever do and that knowledge will apply to multiple concrete ideas of similar nature. Instead of learning things twice, learn them once plus the specific skin for each concrete form.
Build a framework that lets you do everything via plugins, then either add a new one or upgrade an old one. Never need to touch the framework, if it's designed well.
You can then sell forever, without necessarily having to obsolete anything and never having to obsolete everything.
Obvious benefit: Smaller units mean more sales more of the time, greater customer awareness and a closer distribution to the micropayment concept and agile development methodology.
If you don't build by waterfall and lose sales by charging for too much (sticker shock), then sell smaller blocks for smaller amounts.
You make more money, get greater mindshare, you have more custom, you sell the way you make, and you eliminate bloat. All in one go.
Good code should be modular, using reusable components were possible, such that only necessary modules are loaded, there is no duplication (think normalization, except in code not databases) and abstraction is based on abstract function not physical form (code has no interest in meatspace).
I reduced a NASA application from 20 megs to 360k by de-duplicating and refactoring. Performance went through the roof, defect density plunged through the floor.
Some people don't care. We in the trade call them Microsoft.
How to write tight code. Easy. NASA's Power of Ten is an excellent starting point. Top-down design, so you rip objects up into actual subcomponents, is also excellent and limits the option of thinking too much in the physical. If code is re-entrant, it makes life easier. Proper modules and libraries mean you can load and unload as needed, you don't need everything at the start.
Oh, and if you need some generic facility? That's what script engines are for. It's ok to soft-code.
Building larger programs is why I can do more on a 386SX-16 than a lot of people can do on a modern 4-core SSE3-enabled 64-bit behemoth. I can squeeze more out not because I'm better or a superhero, but because I'm using lighter software on a lighter OS, set up to be efficient.
Yeah, some might say, but we can get what we want from our expensive boxes. Why be efficient?
Same reason. Those who set up better have faster systems that end up doing more by doing less.
In a way, this reminds me of the CISC vs RISC war. RISC won, for that same reason. By doing less, you ended up doing more.
That's not social justice. It's only social justice if there's provable harm to a society. Engels was a social justice warrior because he was a warrior for social justice. The origin of the name. Joseph Rowntree and Robert Owen fought for social justice.
Emily Pankhurst favoured methods I'd never agree to, but she wanted social justice.
How are these not social justice warriors?
And yet none were snowflakes, only Emily was offensive, none sought issues, they found them calmly, logically and analytically.
So what if Trump uses a different definition? If he called an apple an orange, would that change the taste? What does it matter what the far right says? Crayon on the dictionary alters nothing.
Being aspie means you're face-blind, body-language-blind in a world devoid of clear, quality communication. That has nothing to do with lack of empathy, that has to do with a protocol failure.
Arrogance is a deficit, you cannot produce good code by assumption, only by good methodology. And good methodology requires a calm, logical, rational mind. The arrogant are simply incapable of it.
People tend to work better when: 1) Not distracted by stupid, unnecessary, dysfunctional politics 2) Their work is judged on merit, as is everyone else's 3) They can see clear requirements and clear defect descriptions
Does this always happen in the real world? No. With the practical upshot of short company life expectancies, defective products, dissatisfied customers, disgruntled employees and periodic global recessions.
Who the hell teaches these guys basic engineering or optimisation? Defective by design is precisely what competent people avoid.
Well, at least I know know a bit more about why there's no Linux on the Desktop. Too much sub-optimal low-grade thinking and too little development.
That says that reorging isn't done to maximise profit. That's all it says. It says nothing about whether they then maximise profits, or whether they were already doing so. And, or course, a company that is held privately has no shareholders but can still be for-profit or not-for-profit. If there are no shareholders, it's obvious nothing is maximized for them.
So whilst your conclusion may be true, it can't be for that reason. The quote says nothing.
SJWs are the ones who feel you should judge a patch by the quality and not by genitals.
Those claiming to be SJWs who want favourable unearned respect aren't SJW at all. What do they care of society or justice?
Those who condemn groups they don't understand because they don't understand them are like off by one errors, sometimes nothing crashes but it's still a bug.
Nope, he wasn't fired for any contravention of the Linux CoC.
Or, as far as I can tell, any other.
Besides, Employment At Will entitles an employer to fire you for any reason or none. Don't like it? Change the system and ban EAW. Don't blame a company for not using a tool you support in the way you like.
Deplorables are indeed a race. The deplorabites landed on Easter Island four hundred thousand years before the Polynesians, where they diverged into a new species before wiping themselves out in a fit of pique.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying you agree with me, is what I'm seeing. You're not using a traditional definition of social justice, but rather you're finding that there is an identifiable category of people who are looking for trouble, not justice. You're calling them SJWs because you have to call them something and others have used SJW in that manner.
I have no problems with you being angry with abusers or troublemakers of that sort. More power to you. If you need suggestions, I would willingly help with anything that deals with those seeking to cause actual harm for fun.
I do disagree with the use of SJW, but if that's the term you find works best for you, please understand some of us traditionalists will be using a different definition. I have no problems working with you or others on how to distinguish, maybe we should use SJW* for the traditional concept of someone bugfixing real social issues rather than adding defects.
If everyone is on-board with that, then there's no confusion. One lot add problems, one lot remove them, and we can say who does what.
Again, if you want to kick over troublemakers and social defect warriors, whatever name you give them, let me know what help you want from me. It's the ones finding actual problems and offering actual solutions that I don't want tangled up in that.
It is reading comprehension, I agree.
There is some set X of companies that do A and some set Y of companies that do B. There is some set X /\ Y that do both, and a non-empty set that do X but not Y (X-Y).
However, there is some subset of X that is actually relevant. Let's call that X'. There is a corresponding Y'.
The judge stated only that X-Y is non-empty.
The judge made no comment whatsoever about X'-Y', nor can you infer that X'-Y' is non-empty by knowing X-Y is not.
This is indeed elementary comprehension. I learned that much set theory back when I first entered primary school.
You are drawing inferences about X' and Y' knowing only about a relationship between X and Y. You know X and Y overlap but are not the same. You do not know that about X' and Y'. The judge said nothing about that and you've found no additional evidence about that.
They may have elements that are not in common, producing the same result as for X and Y. But this has not been shown nor was it asserted by the judge.
The judge was very clear.
Go back and read it again.
I'd consider the OS to be the complete environment, hence Unix Philosophy applying to the utilities and services.
That's a implementation and it's bad. I'd say that agrees nicely with the statement.
Systemd ignores the Unix philosophy and adopts the Microsoft Way. With predictably hilarious results. It's like watching a Carry On movie.
How did it not solve them?
Let's see, 386BSD and Linux seem to have done very nicely for themselves. Linux ran correctly on 16-way PC architectures before Windows, and in the early days I was much happier on Linux on a 386SX 16 MHz with 5 megs of RAM 20 megs hard drive than on Windows - much faster, pre-emptive multi-tasking rather than cooperative or (in DOS under Windows' case) single-tasking.
Yes, 5 megs for RAM. Viglen computers let you use the 1 mb on the motherboard plus 4 megs of extended. It was an interesting arrangement. But it ran UNIX just fine. Windows was sluggish.
OpenSolaris struggles with finding maintainers, but that's not because it's incompatible with newer machines or that it was poor on older ones.
Minix and Linux could run on an Atari ST! Try doing that with Windows. In fact, Minix ran on an IBM PC XT with an 8088 processor, as did SCO Xenix. Wonder how Windows NT would cope, it's not on the list.
This is an important point. Unix has a virtual machine concept. The virtual machine is what applications see. The physical machine can be totally different.
Unix allows you to define the size of memory this virtual machine has. This is virtual memory. If you had tape drives, you could set this to be infinite, because you can swap tapes. So what if your computer has 5 megs of RAM? Your virtual memory could show 500. You end up swapping a lot, but it works.
This means you don't care what main memory physically addresses.
Because you're using a virtual machine, you're not even restricted to one physical machine. MOSIX shows that, as does bproc of Beowulf fame.
X11? You can have client and server on the same machine, or on different machines. It's your choice.
Early Linux supported MFM hard drives just fine and kept up with drive technology as it evolved. Windows has always had problems with larger than normal hard drives, but Unix operating systems have not.
Interesting. I'm doing something similar, only I'm using SEL4, public key encryption, scaleable reliable multicast, Orange Book separation of capabilities and Byzantine methods for proving integrity.
The reason - all this already exists, so I can do regression testing, and a lot exists as open source, so I can extend as needed, combine as needed and validate against recognized coding standards.
It's easy, efficient, avoids proprietary technologies such as C#, minimizes bloat and achieves a result as good as any wholly custom job without the risk of bugs caused by reinventing wheels.
Always start with the generic and move to the specific. Most concrete ideas can be traced to a much smaller pool of abstractions and a smaller pool still of deeper abstractions.
Learning even just one or two abstractions from as many layers as you care about will explain the whys and hows in a way few manuals ever do and that knowledge will apply to multiple concrete ideas of similar nature. Instead of learning things twice, learn them once plus the specific skin for each concrete form.
There is a third option.
Build a framework that lets you do everything via plugins, then either add a new one or upgrade an old one. Never need to touch the framework, if it's designed well.
You can then sell forever, without necessarily having to obsolete anything and never having to obsolete everything.
Obvious benefit: Smaller units mean more sales more of the time, greater customer awareness and a closer distribution to the micropayment concept and agile development methodology.
If you don't build by waterfall and lose sales by charging for too much (sticker shock), then sell smaller blocks for smaller amounts.
You make more money, get greater mindshare, you have more custom, you sell the way you make, and you eliminate bloat. All in one go.
Problem solved.
Good code should be modular, using reusable components were possible, such that only necessary modules are loaded, there is no duplication (think normalization, except in code not databases) and abstraction is based on abstract function not physical form (code has no interest in meatspace).
I reduced a NASA application from 20 megs to 360k by de-duplicating and refactoring. Performance went through the roof, defect density plunged through the floor.
Some people don't care. We in the trade call them Microsoft.
How to write tight code. Easy. NASA's Power of Ten is an excellent starting point. Top-down design, so you rip objects up into actual subcomponents, is also excellent and limits the option of thinking too much in the physical. If code is re-entrant, it makes life easier. Proper modules and libraries mean you can load and unload as needed, you don't need everything at the start.
Oh, and if you need some generic facility? That's what script engines are for. It's ok to soft-code.
Building larger programs is why I can do more on a 386SX-16 than a lot of people can do on a modern 4-core SSE3-enabled 64-bit behemoth. I can squeeze more out not because I'm better or a superhero, but because I'm using lighter software on a lighter OS, set up to be efficient.
Yeah, some might say, but we can get what we want from our expensive boxes. Why be efficient?
Same reason. Those who set up better have faster systems that end up doing more by doing less.
In a way, this reminds me of the CISC vs RISC war. RISC won, for that same reason. By doing less, you ended up doing more.
That's not social justice. It's only social justice if there's provable harm to a society. Engels was a social justice warrior because he was a warrior for social justice. The origin of the name. Joseph Rowntree and Robert Owen fought for social justice.
Emily Pankhurst favoured methods I'd never agree to, but she wanted social justice.
How are these not social justice warriors?
And yet none were snowflakes, only Emily was offensive, none sought issues, they found them calmly, logically and analytically.
So what if Trump uses a different definition? If he called an apple an orange, would that change the taste? What does it matter what the far right says? Crayon on the dictionary alters nothing.
Incorrect. You misread the fallacy and committed several of your own.
https://thebestschools.org/mag...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Bull. The genetic and neurologic differences are established.
Sorry, do your homework and don't talk about us aspies until you have.
See "development branch" in source control.
The latter. Which is why Linus is taking time off (but will doubtless still provide code).
Being aspie means you're face-blind, body-language-blind in a world devoid of clear, quality communication. That has nothing to do with lack of empathy, that has to do with a protocol failure.
Arrogance is a deficit, you cannot produce good code by assumption, only by good methodology. And good methodology requires a calm, logical, rational mind. The arrogant are simply incapable of it.
That isn't the problem, though.
The problem is top coders getting rejected and the crap getting in because key players weren't looking at the code but the submitter.
People tend to work better when:
1) Not distracted by stupid, unnecessary, dysfunctional politics
2) Their work is judged on merit, as is everyone else's
3) They can see clear requirements and clear defect descriptions
Does this always happen in the real world? No. With the practical upshot of short company life expectancies, defective products, dissatisfied customers, disgruntled employees and periodic global recessions.
Who the hell teaches these guys basic engineering or optimisation? Defective by design is precisely what competent people avoid.
Well, at least I know know a bit more about why there's no Linux on the Desktop. Too much sub-optimal low-grade thinking and too little development.
Substitute Trump for Hillary and it's just as true.
Nobody does that.
He migrated to America and has been awarded American citizenship. Slashdot covered it, oh, a decade and a bit ago.
That says that reorging isn't done to maximise profit. That's all it says. It says nothing about whether they then maximise profits, or whether they were already doing so. And, or course, a company that is held privately has no shareholders but can still be for-profit or not-for-profit. If there are no shareholders, it's obvious nothing is maximized for them.
So whilst your conclusion may be true, it can't be for that reason. The quote says nothing.
SJWs are the ones who feel you should judge a patch by the quality and not by genitals.
Those claiming to be SJWs who want favourable unearned respect aren't SJW at all. What do they care of society or justice?
Those who condemn groups they don't understand because they don't understand them are like off by one errors, sometimes nothing crashes but it's still a bug.
All geeks are high functioning aspies.
In fact, one in ten are.
If you know an alcoholic or a depressive, there's a 64% chance they are, too.
Neurotypicals are the freaks in this world.
Nope, he wasn't fired for any contravention of the Linux CoC.
Or, as far as I can tell, any other.
Besides, Employment At Will entitles an employer to fire you for any reason or none. Don't like it? Change the system and ban EAW. Don't blame a company for not using a tool you support in the way you like.
Deplorables are indeed a race. The deplorabites landed on Easter Island four hundred thousand years before the Polynesians, where they diverged into a new species before wiping themselves out in a fit of pique.