And of course the important corollary; always analyze best practices and follow them except when you've identified a good reason not to.
Always analyze? Yes. Always follow? It should always be about picking and choosing, and shouldn't be a corollary. The corollary should be "don't be afraid to look at solutions already out there.".
Developers should abandon their tendency to be cargo cultists. Don't do things just because that's the way it's always been done. Don't do things just because someone labelled them Best Practice. Don't do things just because other people have done it and it worked out for them.
The only method that works is to try it out and see where it leads, be super observant about where the pitfalls start appearing, and give yourself enough leeway to try something else if it isn't working out.
How far does parental discretion go? Too much parental discretion leads to deaths by Christian parenting and/or medicine denial, and "lesser" problems like obesity, malnutrition, alcoholism and drug addiction.
You're the reason why nerds get beat up, and I no longer feel sorry about nerds getting beaten up since you're arseholes to people who are trying something new.
When was the last time you tried something completely new and outside of your skillset?
The problem with you nerds is that you think he's writing for you. He's not. He's writing for the readers of that publication who are not familiar with what we do. He's establishing to his readers that he's approaching this from where they are - with no idea of what he's about to get into. Articles like that are about telling a story to his readers - in this case a story of how he is trying to get to know a subject - not some boring technical manual.
If people bothered making their way through the whole article, you'd realize he actually put in effort to learn completely new stuff that the industry thinks is beyond someone his age, let alone start from complete scratch. That is much more can be said by whiny Slashdotters who complain about having to learn new stuff in just their own domain, let alone something completely outside it.
Seriously, complaining about jargon? There are tons of professional programmers on Slashdot complaining about some language or another to hide their own inadequacies all the time.
Why does the article need ridicule? Here's a middle aged person with no skill in the subject, putting himself through something difficult to a lot of people just to get insight about something, rather than be scared of it.
Why do you want to ridicule that?
Compare to the average Slashdotter who whinges about the stupidest programming horrors and refusing to learn anything new or difficult and preferring to remain stuck in whatever they were taught or learnt at the time. Then they ridicule other people who do learn the stuff they refuse to learn, and speaking completely from ignorance.
Kudos to this person who didn't do that, and actually tried his hand at something completely foreign to him.
No, not a "wee bit of difference" at all. Unlike what libertarians and other history-deniers would have us belief, most governments have done as "wished". The only governments that really did aim to screw over people constantly were the nomadic raider cultures like the Huns and the Mongols. Most other governments were actually about trying to look after the people they ruled over.
Those that didn't were overthrown either internally, or by another government that had its shit together.
Having weapons means you'll automatically win, does it?
Having weapons means no one will suddenly decide to join the "other side" because it has a bigger pay off, would it?
Why, every small country always survive purely because of the availability of weapons! Because weapons are magic! Because they'll have weapons, they'll magically hold off other people who also have weapons, and also can keep trying and trying again.
No matter how bad our science was, that proves it was actually great!
You're switching between two different uses of science there. Your first use, "science", was referring to the data of the previous study. But what the OP meant by "it" was the scientific process in general.
The alternative is to not admit to any errors, when there are. Which is not scientific at all.
Your position is self-contradictory.
Science works because it admits errors and works to identify and fix them. Even trying to remove errors before proceeding is still having to admit errors and identifying them. You can't wait for perfect knowledge before working on the science, because the science wouldn't exist at all.
Ocean acidification and global warming are already covered under other programs
Name them. Meanwhile, here's something for your perusal:
https://www.smh.com.au/politic...
"And in a report last week, the independent Climate Change Authority recommended against Australian companies using international credits to meet domestic obligations, arguing it would slow down our transition to a lower-carbon economy. It cited a submission from energy giant AGL stating such a scheme would "effectively defer Australia's own decarbonisation"."
I'm sure you know more about this topic than the 200 employees of that department that have made it their life's work.
Show me where I doubted the department's credentials on the reef? I'm talking about the allocation of money and targetting of policy, not the reef science.
There isn't just one specific thing. Strawmen challenges are pointless. If there was just one specific thing, then the problem would have been solved long ago. Point to any specific thing, and watch the goalposts shift.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course the important corollary; always analyze best practices and follow them except when you've identified a good reason not to.
Always analyze? Yes. Always follow? It should always be about picking and choosing, and shouldn't be a corollary. The corollary should be "don't be afraid to look at solutions already out there.".
Developers should abandon their tendency to be cargo cultists. Don't do things just because that's the way it's always been done. Don't do things just because someone labelled them Best Practice. Don't do things just because other people have done it and it worked out for them.
The only method that works is to try it out and see where it leads, be super observant about where the pitfalls start appearing, and give yourself enough leeway to try something else if it isn't working out.
How far does parental discretion go? Too much parental discretion leads to deaths by Christian parenting and/or medicine denial, and "lesser" problems like obesity, malnutrition, alcoholism and drug addiction.
He's actually pretty practical.
He even wrote about how it was actually ethical to sell exceptions to the GPL.
But his practicality is hidden in plain sight - the GPL works with copyright, and doesn't seek to overthrow it.
But Some Surveillance Is Necessary
Only extremists talks in compromises!
Give it a fucking rest. You did not learn how to program on your own.
And he DID dive in and learn. That was the point of the article you didn't read.
He just also explained his thoughts and processes along the way, instead of pretending to be a "hard man" like you are trying so hard to.
You're the reason why nerds get beat up, and I no longer feel sorry about nerds getting beaten up since you're arseholes to people who are trying something new.
When was the last time you tried something completely new and outside of your skillset?
The problem with you nerds is that you think he's writing for you. He's not. He's writing for the readers of that publication who are not familiar with what we do. He's establishing to his readers that he's approaching this from where they are - with no idea of what he's about to get into. Articles like that are about telling a story to his readers - in this case a story of how he is trying to get to know a subject - not some boring technical manual.
If people bothered making their way through the whole article, you'd realize he actually put in effort to learn completely new stuff that the industry thinks is beyond someone his age, let alone start from complete scratch. That is much more can be said by whiny Slashdotters who complain about having to learn new stuff in just their own domain, let alone something completely outside it.
Seriously, complaining about jargon? There are tons of professional programmers on Slashdot complaining about some language or another to hide their own inadequacies all the time.
Grow up and realize it's not all about you.
The point is - he tried. He didn't know something, and went to find out what it is.
Unlike people like you, who never try anything out of their comfort zone.
That's just amazingly petty.
Why does the article need ridicule? Here's a middle aged person with no skill in the subject, putting himself through something difficult to a lot of people just to get insight about something, rather than be scared of it.
Why do you want to ridicule that?
Compare to the average Slashdotter who whinges about the stupidest programming horrors and refusing to learn anything new or difficult and preferring to remain stuck in whatever they were taught or learnt at the time. Then they ridicule other people who do learn the stuff they refuse to learn, and speaking completely from ignorance.
Kudos to this person who didn't do that, and actually tried his hand at something completely foreign to him.
Empirical data shows that many adults cannot be trusted to be treated as adults.
No, not a "wee bit of difference" at all. Unlike what libertarians and other history-deniers would have us belief, most governments have done as "wished". The only governments that really did aim to screw over people constantly were the nomadic raider cultures like the Huns and the Mongols. Most other governments were actually about trying to look after the people they ruled over.
Those that didn't were overthrown either internally, or by another government that had its shit together.
Having weapons means you'll automatically win, does it?
Having weapons means no one will suddenly decide to join the "other side" because it has a bigger pay off, would it?
Why, every small country always survive purely because of the availability of weapons! Because weapons are magic! Because they'll have weapons, they'll magically hold off other people who also have weapons, and also can keep trying and trying again.
The Republican Party must be 23 years old then.
No matter how bad our science was, that proves it was actually great!
You're switching between two different uses of science there. Your first use, "science", was referring to the data of the previous study. But what the OP meant by "it" was the scientific process in general.
The alternative is to not admit to any errors, when there are. Which is not scientific at all.
Your position is self-contradictory.
Science works because it admits errors and works to identify and fix them. Even trying to remove errors before proceeding is still having to admit errors and identifying them. You can't wait for perfect knowledge before working on the science, because the science wouldn't exist at all.
China? Nope. They'd like to rule the world, too.
Why do people keep thinking this? They may want to become an economic superpower, but not rule the world in the sense that America does.
Colonial competition and the imposition of ideas is purely a European thing (and also adopted by Japan).
Hmm... where is sexconker's arse kissing this time?
He was so sure about Trump fixing North Korea completely in his life time.
That dude must have started his own religion now, having magically disappeared of the face of the Earth for no reason.
Turns out it was right next to the Time Cube.
Ocean acidification and global warming are already covered under other programs
Name them. Meanwhile, here's something for your perusal: https://www.smh.com.au/politic... "And in a report last week, the independent Climate Change Authority recommended against Australian companies using international credits to meet domestic obligations, arguing it would slow down our transition to a lower-carbon economy. It cited a submission from energy giant AGL stating such a scheme would "effectively defer Australia's own decarbonisation"."
I'm sure you know more about this topic than the 200 employees of that department that have made it their life's work.
Show me where I doubted the department's credentials on the reef? I'm talking about the allocation of money and targetting of policy, not the reef science.
Idiot.
Then point to that specific thing
There isn't just one specific thing. Strawmen challenges are pointless. If there was just one specific thing, then the problem would have been solved long ago. Point to any specific thing, and watch the goalposts shift.
Almost all of them. Just because there was no directive to select male directors doesn't mean there isn't a natural bias in the selection.
Give women the freedom to choose, and then let them follow their own choices.
The point is they don't have freedom to choose.