Oh don't get me wrong, there are a very real contingent of legit folks out there who happen to have two X chromosomes. But they don't make a big deal out of it, and they probably share a lot of the formative experiences of their counterparts with a Y chromosome.
What's your problem with my last paragraph, by the by?
Snapping a photo, saving it off, uploading it, etc. Lets assume the person is really efficient, and figure 5 minutes per day, every day.
Thanks to xkcd, I already know that's six full days every five years. And not workdays, full 24 hour days! In other words, that's more than 26 hours of staff time each year for the lifetime of your restaurant. Since the job will require administrative access to the website, it'll need to be performed by someone with some responsibility, so lets figure $15.00/hr. Now you're right around $500 a year, and that's if it only takes five minutes a day.
So yes, it is too hard. Several daily manual steps that cost your business $500 each year, which could be eliminated with a one time investment in $100 of technology.
The problem is how to encourage underrepresented demographics to participate without discouraging over represented demographics from participating
What if one of the causes of participation by the well represented ("over-represented", after all, implies a predetermined desirable level of representation) is the very fact of under-representation by other groups? i.e. what if geekdom is-or-was a "safe space" for an oppressed group?
It isn't an accident that the image of "computer nerds" from the 1980s was what it was, nor was it some grand plan of the patriarchy to enable their heirs to carry on the torch of Y chromosomal world dominance. It was because we were the people who couldn't get dates, who got bullied, who retreated into our imaginations and creativity because what we found outside was so ugly and off-putting and predatory to us. We're The Mentor, and these people are still trying to spoon feed us baby food.
And now that we've won, we've actually built the shining city on the hill that stands a good chance of no less than saving the whole world from darkness, here come the barbarians to demand their share. Well if you ask me, they can fuck right off back to their hellish world of head chopping, marketing, buying, and hating. We built this, and we don't have to share it with assholes.
Statistically speaking, there is considerable evidence to support the claim that "chicks don't dig computers" in the same way that guys do. Your response was an ad hominem attack that failed to address the claim in any meaningful way. This is not how productive discussion occurs.
What's your gender? I ask in order to check my privlege, perhaps the contents of your underwear entitles your lame argument to more respect than I would otherwise award it?
Sorry, but why do we need to make an argument for a gender blind program, again? Has someone slipped a coherent and convincing argument in favor of gender discrimination past me? One that invalidates all the staid and dependable refutations of the "logic" of discrimination?
Here's my argument against programs like this, and there are no red pills involved:
People who aren't interested in tech aren't going to suddenly start caring about it because society found a way to be paternalistic and manipulative enough to coax them into it, or because some pedagogic official somewhere told them to be. Did any official tell us to be interested in this stuff? Is that how we got here? My sense is that the truth is closer to the opposite: geekdom is a counterculture, i.e. a rejection of the very mainstream collective that's now using its disgusting, lamentable techniques to try and sell our valuable and important ways to the muggles en masse.
It's killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We have this beautiful, productive, vibrant culture of tech geeks driving the world forward, and we say that we want to expand and grow it. So what is our solution? Of course, not to walk to the mountain by adapting ourselves to this new way that according to the evidence offers these advantages... instead, we want to disassemble the mountain and ship individual grains of dirt to each person, whether they even want a mountain or not. This is not a recipe for a mighty monument, but a tragic iconoclasm.
The Raspberry Pi's primary design goal was to be low cost.
Well, no. If its primary design goal was simply to be low cost, any pebble would do. Very low cost, those.
The Raspberry Pi's primary design goal was to err on the side of cost while maximizing compute power per dollar in a small form factor that enables hobbyist and amateur electronics experimentation.
The choice of this dated ARM architecture does not optimally advance that actual goal as well as some more modern choices might have.
Why bother denying this when it is true enough that a stroll through Shenzen can prove it beyond a doubt?
Exactly, this has been my preferred setup for a while. Terminals and other apps that lend themselves to landscape orientation maintain a home, and tasks like web browsing and document editing can have their more natural aspect ratio.
How much credence to you give to the theory recently put forward in a recent NPR Planet Money piece, ascribing the absence of women specifically in the computing industry to 1980s media representation of geeks and computer worker lifestyles?
If it was nuclear powered, then it would have been much heavier
The Curiosity RTG weighed 3 times as much as the power source on Philae, but generated four times as much energy. IANANP, but absent some scaling factor that I'm missing, it would seem like a scaled-down RTG would have *saved* weight, not costed more.
I used it in its first versions, and it handled my 5.1 setup perfectly, switched to headphones when I plugged them. And it had per-application volume working out of the box.
AKA the "I like PulseAudio because I coincidentally owned the hardware it actually supported well" comment.
There are cognitive differences between any two men you might select too. To what grouping will you attribute those?
This is intellectually dishonest. A gender-based deviation in cognition exists, regardless of individual deviations that also do exist. You're not rebutting his argument, you're confusing the issue with an irrelevancy that attempts to pass as a rebuttal.
There are also many cognitive tasks where the range of difference within a gender is greater than the range of difference between genders.
Your use of "many" here betrays an understanding that you wish to deny: that some other cognitive tasks display the opposite results, which consitutes evidence in support of the claim you wish to rebut.
Binary logfiles: You're not supposed to keep important log files on the local machine.
Seriously? What? This is the most dishonest response to a legitimate gripe ever. You're not "supposed to" "KEEP" important log files on the local machine - because they're important data and should be backed up and secured. NOT because text log files are a bad idea or useless! Name one operating system that doesn't keep local human-readable logs! They are *that* useful!
Send them to your central logging facility
Why is a fucking init daemon dictating my business processes to me? Is that the UNIX philosophy... "one size fits all"? Fuck no it's not!
If the machine is still running, you can use the appropriate tools to look at the binary log files for debug.
Assuming that those tools work, and that corruption hasn't fucked up parsing, and...
Doesn't feel unixy: Get with the times. It's scriptable and tweakable more than ever.
I don't think you understand what the UNIX philosophy is about, so you're not evaluating this complaint in a legitimate way.
Dependency in services long startup times Location/circumstances specific profiles
All of these are feature gaps. None of these require a solution that completely departs from the UNIX philosophy and application structure. None require binary logging. None require one daemon to rule them all. There are simple, elegant, UNIX-y solutions to all of these problems. Lennart & company just haven't bothered to find them.
Career admin who is guilty of not wading into the debate at all until now, here. That is my view of systemd. It uses, and forces the user into, a "one service to rule them all" model that is exactly contrary to the UNIX philosophy of small, interoperable programs that do one thing and do it well. If 'ls' was designed with the systemd philosophy, 'chmod' and 'rm' would be arguments to 'ls' and everything would quickly become stupid and un-UNIXy.
So, when you said, "you asked in what way subsidiarity is an American tradition", what you meant was, "you asked a question that I could derail with a non sequitur".
You and people like you obviously favor other such policies as well, and even though they seem individually harmless, collectively they bring down democracies.
Baseless calumny is no substitute for an argument. If you have nothing to add but wild ad hominem attacks, lets conclude our discussion.
If your idea of a "political dictator and strongman" is someone increasing oversight of the nation's police forces, you've completely removed all meaning from those terms and are simply using them for rhetorical impact.
While body cameras clearly have benefits, they also have costs and effects that we don't know yet.
Then it is you who are jumping to conclusions. You've concluded that there are serious costs and negative effects, despite a total lack of evidence. I'm *refusing* to jump to conclusions by not assuming negative effects until they can be shown to exist.
No, what I stated is the American tradition.
Really? How do you figure, when I just gave you several historical examples of Congress doing the same thing you're objecting to?
The smoky backroom full of fat cats like Obama, Bush, congressmen, and the lobbyists and cronies that supply them with money and want power.
So, the most powerful policymakers in our country are conspiring to implement an agenda of increasing public supervision of the police? That's your conspiratorial agenda? That sounds like *doing their jobs properly* to me!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh don't get me wrong, there are a very real contingent of legit folks out there who happen to have two X chromosomes. But they don't make a big deal out of it, and they probably share a lot of the formative experiences of their counterparts with a Y chromosome.
What's your problem with my last paragraph, by the by?
Lets do the math.
Snapping a photo, saving it off, uploading it, etc. Lets assume the person is really efficient, and figure 5 minutes per day, every day.
Thanks to xkcd, I already know that's six full days every five years. And not workdays, full 24 hour days! In other words, that's more than 26 hours of staff time each year for the lifetime of your restaurant. Since the job will require administrative access to the website, it'll need to be performed by someone with some responsibility, so lets figure $15.00/hr. Now you're right around $500 a year, and that's if it only takes five minutes a day.
So yes, it is too hard. Several daily manual steps that cost your business $500 each year, which could be eliminated with a one time investment in $100 of technology.
The problem is how to encourage underrepresented demographics to participate without discouraging over represented demographics from participating
What if one of the causes of participation by the well represented ("over-represented", after all, implies a predetermined desirable level of representation) is the very fact of under-representation by other groups? i.e. what if geekdom is-or-was a "safe space" for an oppressed group?
It isn't an accident that the image of "computer nerds" from the 1980s was what it was, nor was it some grand plan of the patriarchy to enable their heirs to carry on the torch of Y chromosomal world dominance. It was because we were the people who couldn't get dates, who got bullied, who retreated into our imaginations and creativity because what we found outside was so ugly and off-putting and predatory to us. We're The Mentor, and these people are still trying to spoon feed us baby food.
And now that we've won, we've actually built the shining city on the hill that stands a good chance of no less than saving the whole world from darkness, here come the barbarians to demand their share. Well if you ask me, they can fuck right off back to their hellish world of head chopping, marketing, buying, and hating. We built this, and we don't have to share it with assholes.
Statistically speaking, there is considerable evidence to support the claim that "chicks don't dig computers" in the same way that guys do. Your response was an ad hominem attack that failed to address the claim in any meaningful way. This is not how productive discussion occurs.
What's your gender? I ask in order to check my privlege, perhaps the contents of your underwear entitles your lame argument to more respect than I would otherwise award it?
Sorry, but why do we need to make an argument for a gender blind program, again? Has someone slipped a coherent and convincing argument in favor of gender discrimination past me? One that invalidates all the staid and dependable refutations of the "logic" of discrimination?
Here's my argument against programs like this, and there are no red pills involved:
People who aren't interested in tech aren't going to suddenly start caring about it because society found a way to be paternalistic and manipulative enough to coax them into it, or because some pedagogic official somewhere told them to be. Did any official tell us to be interested in this stuff? Is that how we got here? My sense is that the truth is closer to the opposite: geekdom is a counterculture, i.e. a rejection of the very mainstream collective that's now using its disgusting, lamentable techniques to try and sell our valuable and important ways to the muggles en masse.
It's killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We have this beautiful, productive, vibrant culture of tech geeks driving the world forward, and we say that we want to expand and grow it. So what is our solution? Of course, not to walk to the mountain by adapting ourselves to this new way that according to the evidence offers these advantages... instead, we want to disassemble the mountain and ship individual grains of dirt to each person, whether they even want a mountain or not. This is not a recipe for a mighty monument, but a tragic iconoclasm.
The Raspberry Pi's primary design goal was to be low cost.
Well, no. If its primary design goal was simply to be low cost, any pebble would do. Very low cost, those.
The Raspberry Pi's primary design goal was to err on the side of cost while maximizing compute power per dollar in a small form factor that enables hobbyist and amateur electronics experimentation.
The choice of this dated ARM architecture does not optimally advance that actual goal as well as some more modern choices might have.
Why bother denying this when it is true enough that a stroll through Shenzen can prove it beyond a doubt?
If the kid felt he was bullird then he probably was bullied
I feel bullied by the stupidity of this comment.
Exactly, this has been my preferred setup for a while. Terminals and other apps that lend themselves to landscape orientation maintain a home, and tasks like web browsing and document editing can have their more natural aspect ratio.
How much credence to you give to the theory recently put forward in a recent NPR Planet Money piece, ascribing the absence of women specifically in the computing industry to 1980s media representation of geeks and computer worker lifestyles?
If it was nuclear powered, then it would have been much heavier
The Curiosity RTG weighed 3 times as much as the power source on Philae, but generated four times as much energy. IANANP, but absent some scaling factor that I'm missing, it would seem like a scaled-down RTG would have *saved* weight, not costed more.
Nice try, Lennart.
I used it in its first versions, and it handled my 5.1 setup perfectly, switched to headphones when I plugged them. And it had per-application volume working out of the box.
AKA the "I like PulseAudio because I coincidentally owned the hardware it actually supported well" comment.
There are cognitive differences between any two men you might select too. To what grouping will you attribute those?
This is intellectually dishonest. A gender-based deviation in cognition exists, regardless of individual deviations that also do exist. You're not rebutting his argument, you're confusing the issue with an irrelevancy that attempts to pass as a rebuttal.
There are also many cognitive tasks where the range of difference within a gender is greater than the range of difference between genders.
Your use of "many" here betrays an understanding that you wish to deny: that some other cognitive tasks display the opposite results, which consitutes evidence in support of the claim you wish to rebut.
Binary logfiles: You're not supposed to keep important log files on the local machine.
Seriously? What? This is the most dishonest response to a legitimate gripe ever. You're not "supposed to" "KEEP" important log files on the local machine - because they're important data and should be backed up and secured. NOT because text log files are a bad idea or useless! Name one operating system that doesn't keep local human-readable logs! They are *that* useful!
Send them to your central logging facility
Why is a fucking init daemon dictating my business processes to me? Is that the UNIX philosophy... "one size fits all"? Fuck no it's not!
If the machine is still running, you can use the appropriate tools to look at the binary log files for debug.
Assuming that those tools work, and that corruption hasn't fucked up parsing, and...
Doesn't feel unixy: Get with the times. It's scriptable and tweakable more than ever.
I don't think you understand what the UNIX philosophy is about, so you're not evaluating this complaint in a legitimate way.
Dependency in services
long startup times
Location/circumstances specific profiles
All of these are feature gaps. None of these require a solution that completely departs from the UNIX philosophy and application structure. None require binary logging. None require one daemon to rule them all. There are simple, elegant, UNIX-y solutions to all of these problems. Lennart & company just haven't bothered to find them.
But journald is part of systemd, so it's perfect and will never break!
Career admin who is guilty of not wading into the debate at all until now, here. That is my view of systemd. It uses, and forces the user into, a "one service to rule them all" model that is exactly contrary to the UNIX philosophy of small, interoperable programs that do one thing and do it well. If 'ls' was designed with the systemd philosophy, 'chmod' and 'rm' would be arguments to 'ls' and everything would quickly become stupid and un-UNIXy.
8 edgy me
That's all great. Now stop telling everyone else how to live as an excuse to tout your superiority, fitness boy.
I want to see you bike to work in Las Vegas summers.
So, when you said, "you asked in what way subsidiarity is an American tradition", what you meant was, "you asked a question that I could derail with a non sequitur".
You asked in what way subsidiarity is an American tradition.
No, I didn't. If you insist that I did, please quote me.
How about making your own arguments? Reading de Tocqueville doesn't tell me what you took away from it or how you think it relates to our discussion.
I'm not concluding anything
OK, then.
You and people like you obviously favor other such policies as well, and even though they seem individually harmless, collectively they bring down democracies.
Baseless calumny is no substitute for an argument. If you have nothing to add but wild ad hominem attacks, lets conclude our discussion.
If your idea of a "political dictator and strongman" is someone increasing oversight of the nation's police forces, you've completely removed all meaning from those terms and are simply using them for rhetorical impact.
While body cameras clearly have benefits, they also have costs and effects that we don't know yet.
Then it is you who are jumping to conclusions. You've concluded that there are serious costs and negative effects, despite a total lack of evidence. I'm *refusing* to jump to conclusions by not assuming negative effects until they can be shown to exist.
No, what I stated is the American tradition.
Really? How do you figure, when I just gave you several historical examples of Congress doing the same thing you're objecting to?
The smoky backroom full of fat cats like Obama, Bush, congressmen, and the lobbyists and cronies that supply them with money and want power.
So, the most powerful policymakers in our country are conspiring to implement an agenda of increasing public supervision of the police? That's your conspiratorial agenda? That sounds like *doing their jobs properly* to me!