If $420 was actually discussed and fell through he wouldn't be in this trouble.
At this point, nothing is publicly known about what was discussed or not discussed. There's rumors that financing didn't exist, and other rumors that financing was all-but-complete, and rumors of somewhere in between.
Funding at 420 fell through because it was too much money. Musk starts talking about child rapist again, acts a bit more erratic, now this SEC lawsuit. Telsa stock drops. It's no longer too much money to take Tesla private.
Guess what, not everybody is Linus, or one of the many pioneers of the industry. These are whiners who can't compete at that level and this is how their jealously is expressed. By attacking the very human flaws that make these individuals the amazing contributors to our industry that they are.
In my opinion, the issue isn't Linus himself. It's the people who aren't actually "amazing contributors" who take their cues from him.
In my experience, around 50% of coders think they are the top 10%. One of the few ways to maintain that illusion is to exclude others. This can be through things like closed source to not documenting anything to hurling insults and slurs at those with questions to refusing to collaborate in various ways. They need to keep people out so that they can't see exactly how the sausage is made because then people will figure out it's not that great.
Now, in open source you can't just hide your shitty code. So that requires more gatekeeping by those who are "merely competent" but need to maintain the illusion of superiority.
And let me be clear, "competent" is still really good. You're not going to fundamentally change the world, but we need a hell of a lot more competent developers to actually implement the insights of the brilliant.
If someone who actually has fundamentally changed the world acts in a particular way, it gives a degree of license to act in the same way.
that all emotion is stripped out of any given text transmission. Any emotions you feel when reading text were likely never intended by the author
Um.....no.
If I write, "You are a fucking moron and should never reproduce your shitbag of genes", it is quite obvious that I am intending to convey emotion.
The difficulty with text is that text can not convey the secondary cues that indicate emotion - me yelling that quote indicates a different set of emotions than me laughing while I say it.
Which means everyone reading it is somewhat autistic in that nobody gets those secondary cues, not that the author can not convey emotion.
It's more the people lining up to oppose the code of conduct than those it would actually apply to. The people you cite aren't going to be on LKML, but they vehemently oppose a code of conduct applied to it.
Your free speech rights are not more valuable than those who use their free speech to oppose you.
Violent protests to prevent speech from happening
And there go the goalposts. I could have sword they were right here.....
Also, universities might as well be the government for these purposes.
Public universities are the government. Private universities are not, and retain their rights of association.
Universities shutting down free discussion of ideas
Your free speech rights do not trump other's rights of association. They have the right to exclude you from their club, even if said club has university approval.
And the reason you're being excluded is your utter unwillingness to actually discuss ideas. Discussion implies you'd be willing to listen to the other side and possibly modify your position. And we both know that's not happening. After all, you just launched the goalposts into orbit to avoid discussing.
There are some devs who are perfectly decent human beings who simply don't want political agendas pushed through software development code of conducts. Is that so unreasonable?
This is things like saying "That is a bad idea because of (insert reason here)" instead of "you are fucking retard".
What, exactly, is the horrible political agenda with that?
Your dichotomy is false. There is no requirement that the "political correct" response include accepting the idea. Your 3rd example is also "politically correct".
The insistence that being "politically correct" requires the equivalent of handing out participation trophies is something those opposed to the idea came up with in an attempt to discredit it.
I'm guessing you aren't very familiar with construction techniques. Concrete is compacted using vibration because air pockets make concrete weak and causes cracking.
I'm guessing you aren't very familiar with construction techniques. Concrete is almost never compacted using vibration, because you actually want air bubbles in it in most applications. It's also very easy to over-vibrate the concrete, causing the aggregate and cement to separate (the rocks sink, the cement rises).
There are some situations where you want to compact cement, but cement is not concrete.
Millennials have been brought up in environments which were overly protective, and that produces people who are weak and lacking in understanding of how the world works.
Psssst.....you made that environment. You were the adults, they were the kids. Participation trophies? You were the parents creating them and handing them out.
So time to actually take responsibility for the world you created and help us clean it up....oh wait, your'e a Boomer. We'll have to clean it up after you die because you can't take responsibility for anything your generation does.
Not like this generation. Hippies, despite all the shit I give them, had enough basic life skills when they started out. When I came out of high school, at the age of 18, I knew how to create a budget, balance a checkbook, type, cook a basic meal, buy and maintain a car, look for, apply for, and get a job. Any many other basic skills.
And then your generation voted to gut school funding and tie it to standardized tests that do not involve any "basic life skills". And you are apparently surprised by the results of your votes.
Skipping town implies knowingly ducking a responsibility
To quote myself, "skipping town before the woman even knows she's pregnant"
It's kinda hard to duck a responsibility that you can not possibly know you have.
and in the process affirmatively surrendering the right to be a parent
That doesn't exist. You can surrender your right to visitation and/or custody. You can not surrender your responsibility for child support.
A sperm donor was never to be considered the father
Texas law says he is, because there's no carve-out in the law about biological fathers for sperm donors. The extra kicker is the woman and her wife moved to Texas after having the kid, so even a "don't donate sperm in Texas" plan would have not gotten him around responsibility.
And again, you are conflating the two ways you can end up being responsible for child support: 1) Provide the sperm that becomes a child. 2) Act as the father to a child, regardless of whether or not you provided the sperm.
Those two are independent. You do not have to do both to be responsible for child support.
but there are plenty of cases where the courts willfully assume that with facts not in evidence just to save the state a few bucks
[Citation Required]
There's lots and lots of cases where dad didn't want to change his spending, and thus "could not afford" the payments. And he will complain quite loudly that the evil judge is forcing him to pay more than he can afford, leading to claims such as yours.
Break out your 1040 and/or paystub, show you can't actually afford it, and the payment is reduced.
Not that the whole story isn't a bit absurd just to make a point, but the grandparent didn't say he wanted to see the results, just that he wanted to see what pre-employment processes the CEO had to complete.
The fact that they took a test (or not) is also covered by HIPAA. HR can say "all employees take this drug test", they can't say "This particular employee took this drug test"
Slashdot Mirror
You get more leverage with criminal charges than with a lawsuit. So if leverage was the goal, you wouldn't start with a civil case.
You're missing that the "space heater" was run for less than a second.
If $420 was actually discussed and fell through he wouldn't be in this trouble.
At this point, nothing is publicly known about what was discussed or not discussed. There's rumors that financing didn't exist, and other rumors that financing was all-but-complete, and rumors of somewhere in between.
It depends on what the goals of SEC are, and what is the time frame they want to achieve them in
There is not a long line in front of the "file criminal charges here" clerk. Civil charges are not particularly slow to file.
Also, it is quite possible that more charges will be filed. This is likely the first action, not the last.
You generally don't start with the smallest possible action when you are planning more than one.
Conspiracy Theory:
Funding at 420 fell through because it was too much money.
Musk starts talking about child rapist again, acts a bit more erratic, now this SEC lawsuit.
Telsa stock drops.
It's no longer too much money to take Tesla private.
Between the Lunar Gateway and the Space Launch System, NASA won't have any money left over to go to the Moon's surface itself.
Which is why you propose going there, try to get some popular support, then go ask Congress for money.
Why did you read "reduce all of the risks" means "eliminate all of the risks"?
Guess what, not everybody is Linus, or one of the many pioneers of the industry. These are whiners who
can't compete at that level and this is how their jealously is expressed. By attacking the very human flaws
that make these individuals the amazing contributors to our industry that they are.
In my opinion, the issue isn't Linus himself. It's the people who aren't actually "amazing contributors" who take their cues from him.
In my experience, around 50% of coders think they are the top 10%. One of the few ways to maintain that illusion is to exclude others. This can be through things like closed source to not documenting anything to hurling insults and slurs at those with questions to refusing to collaborate in various ways. They need to keep people out so that they can't see exactly how the sausage is made because then people will figure out it's not that great.
Now, in open source you can't just hide your shitty code. So that requires more gatekeeping by those who are "merely competent" but need to maintain the illusion of superiority.
And let me be clear, "competent" is still really good. You're not going to fundamentally change the world, but we need a hell of a lot more competent developers to actually implement the insights of the brilliant.
If someone who actually has fundamentally changed the world acts in a particular way, it gives a degree of license to act in the same way.
that all emotion is stripped out of any given text transmission. Any emotions you feel when reading text were likely never intended by the author
Um.....no.
If I write, "You are a fucking moron and should never reproduce your shitbag of genes", it is quite obvious that I am intending to convey emotion.
The difficulty with text is that text can not convey the secondary cues that indicate emotion - me yelling that quote indicates a different set of emotions than me laughing while I say it.
Which means everyone reading it is somewhat autistic in that nobody gets those secondary cues, not that the author can not convey emotion.
It's more the people lining up to oppose the code of conduct than those it would actually apply to. The people you cite aren't going to be on LKML, but they vehemently oppose a code of conduct applied to it.
I'm really struggling to see how we got from "maybe don't call gay people faggots any more" to "maybe don't criticise anymore".
The first position is difficult-to-impossible to defend. So those in opposition moved on to the latter argument in an attempt to protect the former.
And it should be noted it's not that they really, really want to use various slurs. They want the feeling of superiority inherent in the slurs.
[Citation Required]
the "hecklers veto" prevents free speech
The heckler's veto is more free speech.
Your free speech rights are not more valuable than those who use their free speech to oppose you.
Violent protests to prevent speech from happening
And there go the goalposts. I could have sword they were right here.....
Also, universities might as well be the government for these purposes.
Public universities are the government. Private universities are not, and retain their rights of association.
Universities shutting down free discussion of ideas
Your free speech rights do not trump other's rights of association. They have the right to exclude you from their club, even if said club has university approval.
And the reason you're being excluded is your utter unwillingness to actually discuss ideas. Discussion implies you'd be willing to listen to the other side and possibly modify your position. And we both know that's not happening. After all, you just launched the goalposts into orbit to avoid discussing.
I think progressives really do believe that
Who benefits from the suppression of free speech in America?
I'm going to have a hard time trusting your analysis of other people when you don't even know what free speech actually is.
Free speech is you can't get arrested for what you say. Everyone else also has the free speech rights to say you are a fucking asshole for saying it.
There are some devs who are perfectly decent human beings who simply don't want political agendas pushed through software development code of conducts. Is that so unreasonable?
This is things like saying "That is a bad idea because of (insert reason here)" instead of "you are fucking retard".
What, exactly, is the horrible political agenda with that?
Your dichotomy is false. There is no requirement that the "political correct" response include accepting the idea. Your 3rd example is also "politically correct".
The insistence that being "politically correct" requires the equivalent of handing out participation trophies is something those opposed to the idea came up with in an attempt to discredit it.
But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.
Coming soon to this thread: Those people.
I'm guessing you aren't very familiar with construction techniques. Concrete is compacted using vibration because air pockets make concrete weak and causes cracking.
I'm guessing you aren't very familiar with construction techniques. Concrete is almost never compacted using vibration, because you actually want air bubbles in it in most applications. It's also very easy to over-vibrate the concrete, causing the aggregate and cement to separate (the rocks sink, the cement rises).
There are some situations where you want to compact cement, but cement is not concrete.
Millennials have been brought up in environments which were overly protective, and that produces people who are weak and lacking in understanding of how the world works.
Psssst.....you made that environment. You were the adults, they were the kids. Participation trophies? You were the parents creating them and handing them out.
So time to actually take responsibility for the world you created and help us clean it up....oh wait, your'e a Boomer. We'll have to clean it up after you die because you can't take responsibility for anything your generation does.
The article also starts Millennials at 1973, resulting in an even more lopsided grouping of people.....and apparent GenX doesn't exist again.
Not like this generation. Hippies, despite all the shit I give them, had enough basic life skills when they started out. When I came out of high school, at the age of 18, I knew how to create a budget, balance a checkbook, type, cook a basic meal, buy and maintain a car, look for, apply for, and get a job. Any many other basic skills.
And then your generation voted to gut school funding and tie it to standardized tests that do not involve any "basic life skills". And you are apparently surprised by the results of your votes.
Like Millennials, we did our activism when we were younger.
The fact that you don't know about it kinda indicates the power dynamic of a much smaller generation versus two larger generations.
Skipping town implies knowingly ducking a responsibility
To quote myself, "skipping town before the woman even knows she's pregnant"
It's kinda hard to duck a responsibility that you can not possibly know you have.
and in the process affirmatively surrendering the right to be a parent
That doesn't exist. You can surrender your right to visitation and/or custody. You can not surrender your responsibility for child support.
A sperm donor was never to be considered the father
Texas law says he is, because there's no carve-out in the law about biological fathers for sperm donors. The extra kicker is the woman and her wife moved to Texas after having the kid, so even a "don't donate sperm in Texas" plan would have not gotten him around responsibility.
And again, you are conflating the two ways you can end up being responsible for child support:
1) Provide the sperm that becomes a child.
2) Act as the father to a child, regardless of whether or not you provided the sperm.
Those two are independent. You do not have to do both to be responsible for child support.
but there are plenty of cases where the courts willfully assume that with facts not in evidence just to save the state a few bucks
[Citation Required]
There's lots and lots of cases where dad didn't want to change his spending, and thus "could not afford" the payments. And he will complain quite loudly that the evil judge is forcing him to pay more than he can afford, leading to claims such as yours.
Break out your 1040 and/or paystub, show you can't actually afford it, and the payment is reduced.
Not that the whole story isn't a bit absurd just to make a point, but the grandparent didn't say he wanted to see the results, just that he wanted to see what pre-employment processes the CEO had to complete.
The fact that they took a test (or not) is also covered by HIPAA. HR can say "all employees take this drug test", they can't say "This particular employee took this drug test"