If he had solid evidence, he would've used it already and the suit would've never happened. I think he's hoping for a better deal, maybe a bigger fine but less time banned from being CEO.
The problem is, what Elon allegedly did is in fact illegal. Unlike in your case, the cost to send SEC the evidence is nothing compared to the cost of a settlement. So if he had any evidence that could exonerate him, he would've already used them, then SEC wouldn't have bothered charging him in the first place.
A waste of time. It makes people learn everyone else's pronouns instead of learning the patch they're submitting.
So, before the CoC, how did people address each other on the LKML? I can see a lot of pronouns like "he" and "her", but somehow now it's worse because..?
It's worse because previously if you used the wrong one, there's no consequence. Now if you screw up, you're liable to be kicked from the project.
Simply wrong, no one should take personal viewpoints and experiences into account when evaluating a pull request. It should be evaluated purely on its technical merit.
So when Linus said that the Gnome preferences panel was crap in his experience, re-wrote it and submitted a patch, that was wrong?
No, when did I say that?
His personal experience and views on it's usability should be ignored, the only thing that needs evaluating is the technical merits of the patch?
Yes. The fact that he's Linus should not factor into the decision at all. In fact, if I were him, I would consider submitting the patch anonymously so as to avoid unintentionally using my fame to influence the Gnome maintainer.
How about checking first whether the criticism has merit?
Okay, say it doesn't have merit... You could offer some constructive meta-criticism. I'm not sure what your problem is here, the CoC is saying you shouldn't be hostile to genuine attempts to provide helpful criticism, it doesn't preclude disagreeing.
The CoC states "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism". To me, that means taking it to heart and acting on it. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, in which case it should be rewritten to use words like "acknowledge" instead of "accept".
What should the community do with a mentally disabled person? Should they be made to feel welcome despite spamming every discussion with kindergarten-level understanding?
Note how it doesn't say "if you have some kind of disability the rules don't apply to you".
Right, but nowhere in the CoC is there any wording requiring community members to have the ability to communicate above kindergarten level. Making someone feel welcome does mean catering to their needs to a large extent, whatever those might be.
Eating shrimp is offensive to wahhabists.
But note that there is recourse beyond the project maintainer and that punishing someone for eating shrimp would doubtless be a violation of the CoC itself and result in sanctions.
You missed my point.
There are no limits when it comes to "offensive", which means the person who caused it has no way to modify their behavior so as to avoid being offensive in the future. Listening to the offended person might placate that one person, but your modified behavior may now be offensive to another. So what do you do? Well any reasonable person would do what they think is right and ignore those conflicting suggestions. But if that's the result, you might as well just ignore the offended people right from the start and just always do what you think is right.
However, that's not allowed according to the CoC. If someone is offended, the maintainers should ban the offending person. If an argument between tabs and spaces occurred and both sides are offended, the only way to adhere to the CoC is to ban both sides.
Now perhaps that's not the intention, but then why is that kind of wording included in the CoC in the first place? To confuse people?
If someone used the wrong pronoun, it would take a few seconds to figure out that they're referring to me, but wouldn't bother me otherwise. There are languages out there that don't have gendered pronouns and people get by just fine with them. The dress thing wouldn't bother me either, though it sucks to have to buy significantly more expensive clothing. Women aren't being pressured to wear dresses in any case so it's a moot point.
You know, it takes quite a bit of time to type up a reasonable response to the question (which I did just now). By asking the other side to do a bunch of work that is sufficiently tedious that most don't bother, he's able to shutdown the discussion temporarily. I suppose that is a victory of sorts for you SJW types.
Ok, I'll bite. Here's the first 3 standards that's been added, and I have a problem with all of them:
* Using welcoming and inclusive language
A waste of time. It makes people learn everyone else's pronouns instead of learning the patch they're submitting.
* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
Simply wrong, no one should take personal viewpoints and experiences into account when evaluating a pull request. It should be evaluated purely on its technical merit.
* Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
How about checking first whether the criticism has merit?
Besides those points, the entire thing reeks of SJW influence and reads poorly because of it.
We... pledge to making participation in our project... a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation
There's absolutely no reason to have this list. It's not only overly broad in certain areas, but also incomplete. What should the community do with a mentally disabled person? Should they be made to feel welcome despite spamming every discussion with kindergarten-level understanding? On the other hand, what if someone is being ridiculed for having pink hair? Hair color isn't in the list. Why bother making a list when you can just say "We pledge to make participation in our project a harassment-free experience for everyone"? Is it any less clear? Can someone say "oh but I only harassed them due to their gender" and get away with it? No!
And then we have this gem:
Maintainers have the right and responsibility... to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
So the rest of the CoC talks about harassment, which has a commonly-agreed upon definition, but now suddenly it's taken to a new level of stupidity with "inappropriate" and "offensive". Well everything can be inappropriate or offensive. Wearing red on St. Patricks day is inappropriate. Maintaining eye contact with a stranger for longer than 2 seconds is inappropriate. Smoking is offensive to nonsmokers. Eating shrimp is offensive to wahhabists. Discussing Emacs is offensive to Vim developers. Using spaces is offensive to tab users. Running non-free software triggers RMS. Need I to go on?
This entire CoC is pointless. It says very little using a lot of words. Including SJW terminology unnecessarily triggers the anti-SJW camp and generates internet drama. At best it drives away a few devs who don't want politics in their software. At worst it can end up splitting the community.
And frankly, I can come up with a better CoC in 2 words: "Be civil."
Do you honestly think anyone smart enough to learn to code wouldn't also be smart enough to see it's a language with no future? Indian or not, they'll be gone as soon as they find something better.
I imagine most people don't bother asking for birth certificates before hooking up, so this could've happened to anyone. The problem is that the law draws a very thin line between "100% ok" and "life in prison", which is simply stupid.
I'm not particularly surprised the Chirstian conservatives like this since they think it'll reduce the amount of sex people have, but what I am surprised by is all the liberals going along with it.
I think the setup GP implied is faking the entire thing to get him back in the states. Once there, these charges would be quietly dropped and other gun-printing-related charges brought forward.
Sounds like you don't have the skills it takes to negotiate a better schedule. The entire power dynamic flips on its head when you're the only guy in the company who knows how to keep the business-critical stuff running and rival companies are offering 30% raises to jump ship.
Slow and bloated code is not necessarily low quality. To take an absurd example, you can code your entire application in x86 assembly, and it will be much faster than code compiled from any other language.
That does not mean, however, that the code is high quality. To start with, it's almost impossible to find developers who can work on it, so you'll be in a team of one. Next, there is no abstraction at all, which means it not only takes forever to write and it's also nearly impossible to understand anything you wrote a month ago. Finally, it's missing every kind of safeguard that will alert you to problems, which means you'll have a hell of a time debugging.
Can you still do it? Sure, but it will suck in every way except speed.
Trust is an obsolete way to do things. Now that we have the internet, we can replace trust with direct knowledge.
Whether it's consumer products, vacation destinations, restaurants or even plumbers, I've never been let down by anything highly rated.
Likewise, I might get the right answer 60% of the time when asking people for directions, but Google Maps can do it 99% of the time.
Besides, there's a scale to trust. If someone wanted to borrow $5 from me, I'd probably let them have it. If they're borrowing $500,000 though, that's a different story. And I suspect even in what you consider a trustworthy society, people don't go around lending their live savings without a paper trail.
I don't think you addressed my comment. It's certainly fine for service and consumer industries, but other industries need deliveries more often than once a day.
I think GP is plenty clear on why this manifesto is a problem, but I can rephrase some of that for you:
* We believe that interpersonal skills are at least as important as technical skills. - You believe instead that technical skills are more important than technical skills (either in software in general, or OSS in general, or Linux in particular? unclear).
There's no place on the swimming team for people who can't swim.
* We can add the most value as professionals by drawing on the diversity... - About race/sex diversity, you believe that the quantity/quality of a team's technical contributions is unaffected by this. About background/international diversity, you believe that the quantity/quality of a team's technical contributions is increased a little by this in some areas.
Don't judge people by the color of their skin.
* We have the obligation to use our positions of privilege, however tenuous, to improve the lives of others. - You believe instead that there is no such obligation. (or, I guess, you believe it's an acceptable exercise of free speech for a project to adopt this as a rule, but you believe the quality of the project will suffer for it).
Being helped is a privilege, not a right.
* We must make room for people who are not like us to enter our field and succeed there. - You believe instead that there's no obligation on anyone to make room.
Cheetahs should not be forced to have snails on their relay team.
* We have an ethical responsibility to refuse to work on software that will negatively impact the well-being of other people. - You instead believe there is no such ethical responsibility, maybe because every action has some positive and some negative impact. (It was unclear to me how this relates - is there a logical step which says "anything which can be used for good and bad obviates the developer of evaluating the good/bad likely effects because that's solely down to the users"?)
Software don't kill people, people kill people.
* We acknowledge the value of non-technical contributors as equal to the value of technical contributors. - You believe instead that that value of technical contributors is higher.
On a swim team, people who can swim are more valuable.
* We understand that working in our field is a privilege, not a right. - You instead believe that working in OSS is a right, indeed just a special case of the freedom of speech+expression. (I don't think that you and the manifesto have the same definition of "field" and "work" on this point?)
You don't need a software job to write free software.
* The negative impact of toxic people in the workplace or the larger community is not offset by their technical contributions. - You instead believe that "toxic person" is too loaded/dangerous a term to ever be used (in this context? or in general? unclear).
Labels are tools of dictators. They can be used to remove anyone you dislike.
Correlation does not equal causation. Is he good because he had that policy, or in spite of it?
I've had very good professors who were quite lax with assignments. Though my definition of "very good" refers to how much I learned from them, not how many other students they failed.
By that logic the shift should be infinitely long so no handoffs are ever needed.
Reality is, after a certain period of time on the shift, people are no longer able to pay attention, resulting in all sorts of errors being made, including forgetting to mention things during the handoff.
Besides, if the problem are bad handoffs, maybe the ICU should devote a bit more time and effort to training people to do it properly.
Actually the answer is no. "Stopped beating" described a transition from "beating" to "not beating". Since "beating" never occurred, the transition never occurred either.
Slashdot Mirror
If he had solid evidence, he would've used it already and the suit would've never happened. I think he's hoping for a better deal, maybe a bigger fine but less time banned from being CEO.
The problem is, what Elon allegedly did is in fact illegal. Unlike in your case, the cost to send SEC the evidence is nothing compared to the cost of a settlement. So if he had any evidence that could exonerate him, he would've already used them, then SEC wouldn't have bothered charging him in the first place.
Ah sorry, I forgot you're just a troll and can't form an argument better than strawmen and cursing. Please disregard my previous post.
Ok, I can accept that interpretation. Though I still have to ask, why settle for "not that bad" when it could be "great" instead?
A waste of time. It makes people learn everyone else's pronouns instead of learning the patch they're submitting.
So, before the CoC, how did people address each other on the LKML? I can see a lot of pronouns like "he" and "her", but somehow now it's worse because..?
It's worse because previously if you used the wrong one, there's no consequence. Now if you screw up, you're liable to be kicked from the project.
Simply wrong, no one should take personal viewpoints and experiences into account when evaluating a pull request. It should be evaluated purely on its technical merit.
So when Linus said that the Gnome preferences panel was crap in his experience, re-wrote it and submitted a patch, that was wrong?
No, when did I say that?
His personal experience and views on it's usability should be ignored, the only thing that needs evaluating is the technical merits of the patch?
Yes. The fact that he's Linus should not factor into the decision at all. In fact, if I were him, I would consider submitting the patch anonymously so as to avoid unintentionally using my fame to influence the Gnome maintainer.
How about checking first whether the criticism has merit?
Okay, say it doesn't have merit... You could offer some constructive meta-criticism. I'm not sure what your problem is here, the CoC is saying you shouldn't be hostile to genuine attempts to provide helpful criticism, it doesn't preclude disagreeing.
The CoC states "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism". To me, that means taking it to heart and acting on it. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, in which case it should be rewritten to use words like "acknowledge" instead of "accept".
What should the community do with a mentally disabled person? Should they be made to feel welcome despite spamming every discussion with kindergarten-level understanding?
Note how it doesn't say "if you have some kind of disability the rules don't apply to you".
Right, but nowhere in the CoC is there any wording requiring community members to have the ability to communicate above kindergarten level. Making someone feel welcome does mean catering to their needs to a large extent, whatever those might be.
Eating shrimp is offensive to wahhabists.
But note that there is recourse beyond the project maintainer and that punishing someone for eating shrimp would doubtless be a violation of the CoC itself and result in sanctions.
You missed my point.
There are no limits when it comes to "offensive", which means the person who caused it has no way to modify their behavior so as to avoid being offensive in the future. Listening to the offended person might placate that one person, but your modified behavior may now be offensive to another. So what do you do? Well any reasonable person would do what they think is right and ignore those conflicting suggestions. But if that's the result, you might as well just ignore the offended people right from the start and just always do what you think is right.
However, that's not allowed according to the CoC. If someone is offended, the maintainers should ban the offending person. If an argument between tabs and spaces occurred and both sides are offended, the only way to adhere to the CoC is to ban both sides.
Now perhaps that's not the intention, but then why is that kind of wording included in the CoC in the first place? To confuse people?
If someone used the wrong pronoun, it would take a few seconds to figure out that they're referring to me, but wouldn't bother me otherwise. There are languages out there that don't have gendered pronouns and people get by just fine with them. The dress thing wouldn't bother me either, though it sucks to have to buy significantly more expensive clothing. Women aren't being pressured to wear dresses in any case so it's a moot point.
You know, it takes quite a bit of time to type up a reasonable response to the question (which I did just now). By asking the other side to do a bunch of work that is sufficiently tedious that most don't bother, he's able to shutdown the discussion temporarily. I suppose that is a victory of sorts for you SJW types.
* Using welcoming and inclusive language
A waste of time. It makes people learn everyone else's pronouns instead of learning the patch they're submitting.
* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
Simply wrong, no one should take personal viewpoints and experiences into account when evaluating a pull request. It should be evaluated purely on its technical merit.
* Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
How about checking first whether the criticism has merit?
Besides those points, the entire thing reeks of SJW influence and reads poorly because of it.
We ... pledge to making participation in our project ... a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation
There's absolutely no reason to have this list. It's not only overly broad in certain areas, but also incomplete. What should the community do with a mentally disabled person? Should they be made to feel welcome despite spamming every discussion with kindergarten-level understanding? On the other hand, what if someone is being ridiculed for having pink hair? Hair color isn't in the list. Why bother making a list when you can just say "We pledge to make participation in our project a harassment-free experience for everyone"? Is it any less clear? Can someone say "oh but I only harassed them due to their gender" and get away with it? No!
And then we have this gem:
Maintainers have the right and responsibility ... to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
So the rest of the CoC talks about harassment, which has a commonly-agreed upon definition, but now suddenly it's taken to a new level of stupidity with "inappropriate" and "offensive". Well everything can be inappropriate or offensive. Wearing red on St. Patricks day is inappropriate. Maintaining eye contact with a stranger for longer than 2 seconds is inappropriate. Smoking is offensive to nonsmokers. Eating shrimp is offensive to wahhabists. Discussing Emacs is offensive to Vim developers. Using spaces is offensive to tab users. Running non-free software triggers RMS. Need I to go on?
This entire CoC is pointless. It says very little using a lot of words. Including SJW terminology unnecessarily triggers the anti-SJW camp and generates internet drama. At best it drives away a few devs who don't want politics in their software. At worst it can end up splitting the community.
And frankly, I can come up with a better CoC in 2 words: "Be civil."
Do you honestly think anyone smart enough to learn to code wouldn't also be smart enough to see it's a language with no future? Indian or not, they'll be gone as soon as they find something better.
Seriously? Millions of records overnight is 230 records per second. I think even JS running on a cell phone could handle that.
Any implementation in a respectable programming language would be bounded by IO, not CPU or lack of programmers.
500,000,000 years is enough time to build Earth a giant space sombrero.
I imagine most people don't bother asking for birth certificates before hooking up, so this could've happened to anyone. The problem is that the law draws a very thin line between "100% ok" and "life in prison", which is simply stupid.
I'm not particularly surprised the Chirstian conservatives like this since they think it'll reduce the amount of sex people have, but what I am surprised by is all the liberals going along with it.
I think the setup GP implied is faking the entire thing to get him back in the states. Once there, these charges would be quietly dropped and other gun-printing-related charges brought forward.
What's funny is you thinking laws will stop horny 16-year-olds.
Sounds like you don't have the skills it takes to negotiate a better schedule. The entire power dynamic flips on its head when you're the only guy in the company who knows how to keep the business-critical stuff running and rival companies are offering 30% raises to jump ship.
Slow and bloated code is not necessarily low quality. To take an absurd example, you can code your entire application in x86 assembly, and it will be much faster than code compiled from any other language.
That does not mean, however, that the code is high quality. To start with, it's almost impossible to find developers who can work on it, so you'll be in a team of one. Next, there is no abstraction at all, which means it not only takes forever to write and it's also nearly impossible to understand anything you wrote a month ago. Finally, it's missing every kind of safeguard that will alert you to problems, which means you'll have a hell of a time debugging.
Can you still do it? Sure, but it will suck in every way except speed.
Trust is an obsolete way to do things. Now that we have the internet, we can replace trust with direct knowledge.
Whether it's consumer products, vacation destinations, restaurants or even plumbers, I've never been let down by anything highly rated.
Likewise, I might get the right answer 60% of the time when asking people for directions, but Google Maps can do it 99% of the time.
Besides, there's a scale to trust. If someone wanted to borrow $5 from me, I'd probably let them have it. If they're borrowing $500,000 though, that's a different story. And I suspect even in what you consider a trustworthy society, people don't go around lending their live savings without a paper trail.
I don't think you addressed my comment. It's certainly fine for service and consumer industries, but other industries need deliveries more often than once a day.
Even if you include all men, they aren't the majority either.
* We believe that interpersonal skills are at least as important as technical skills. - You believe instead that technical skills are more important than technical skills (either in software in general, or OSS in general, or Linux in particular? unclear).
There's no place on the swimming team for people who can't swim.
* We can add the most value as professionals by drawing on the diversity... - About race/sex diversity, you believe that the quantity/quality of a team's technical contributions is unaffected by this. About background/international diversity, you believe that the quantity/quality of a team's technical contributions is increased a little by this in some areas.
Don't judge people by the color of their skin.
* We have the obligation to use our positions of privilege, however tenuous, to improve the lives of others. - You believe instead that there is no such obligation. (or, I guess, you believe it's an acceptable exercise of free speech for a project to adopt this as a rule, but you believe the quality of the project will suffer for it).
Being helped is a privilege, not a right.
* We must make room for people who are not like us to enter our field and succeed there. - You believe instead that there's no obligation on anyone to make room.
Cheetahs should not be forced to have snails on their relay team.
* We have an ethical responsibility to refuse to work on software that will negatively impact the well-being of other people. - You instead believe there is no such ethical responsibility, maybe because every action has some positive and some negative impact. (It was unclear to me how this relates - is there a logical step which says "anything which can be used for good and bad obviates the developer of evaluating the good/bad likely effects because that's solely down to the users"?)
Software don't kill people, people kill people.
* We acknowledge the value of non-technical contributors as equal to the value of technical contributors. - You believe instead that that value of technical contributors is higher.
On a swim team, people who can swim are more valuable.
* We understand that working in our field is a privilege, not a right. - You instead believe that working in OSS is a right, indeed just a special case of the freedom of speech+expression. (I don't think that you and the manifesto have the same definition of "field" and "work" on this point?)
You don't need a software job to write free software.
* The negative impact of toxic people in the workplace or the larger community is not offset by their technical contributions. - You instead believe that "toxic person" is too loaded/dangerous a term to ever be used (in this context? or in general? unclear).
Labels are tools of dictators. They can be used to remove anyone you dislike.
Consequences like inventing all of our modern conveniences?
Go plow the fields by hand and see for yourself how great "hard work" is.
You can write a browser plugin though.
Correlation does not equal causation. Is he good because he had that policy, or in spite of it?
I've had very good professors who were quite lax with assignments. Though my definition of "very good" refers to how much I learned from them, not how many other students they failed.
By that logic the shift should be infinitely long so no handoffs are ever needed.
Reality is, after a certain period of time on the shift, people are no longer able to pay attention, resulting in all sorts of errors being made, including forgetting to mention things during the handoff.
Besides, if the problem are bad handoffs, maybe the ICU should devote a bit more time and effort to training people to do it properly.
The other classic is:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Actually the answer is no. "Stopped beating" described a transition from "beating" to "not beating". Since "beating" never occurred, the transition never occurred either.