I was up for a role in NYC last year and a good 40% of the interview was about 'my school' which is totally bonkers because I graduated in 1978. WTF does that matter today but apparently it does to some recruiters. Far less it seems than my ability to do the job.
It matters to recruiters because they don't have the ability to actually scientifically measure how good one candidate is compared to another. Since they can't measure something essential, they measure something else and hope nobody will notice that they haven't got a clue. Hence the whole "keyword-matching" stupidity.
It's the whole "if all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem all over again.
If they could actually measure your ability to do they job, they would. They can't, so the fake it until they make it.
But your first job isn't about being picky about the day-to-day, it's about launching your career.
Let me fix that for you. "it's about launching your first career."
The days when people get out of school and stay in one career, or even one field, their entire lives are disappearing faster than a polar bear's natural habitat.
We knew this was going to happen 40 years ago, and yet a generation later we still haven't adapted our thinking. Why not?
The original contention was that ANY word by itself was meaningless, including swear words. I provided an experiment to prove otherwise. Hand-waving over how these single-word "meaningless noises" are suddenly meaningful is foolish - it acknowledges my point.
Read the post that drew my response. The poster claimed that individual words are just sounds, with no meaning. I posited an experiment to prove otherwise. The fact that both you and him are now adding rules and conditions shows the original thesis was wrong. Thank you for confirming that (hey, I give credit where it's due, right:-)
That's very easy to prove incorrect. Stephen Fry has a bigger vocabulary than you, I and everyone else here put together.
Oh, the old "argument from authority" - and probably false. Unlike Fry, I'm fluent in more than one language.
Each of those single words is in fact an example of an abbreviated sentence,
That's not what you said earlier.
How absolutely pointless. Words are just words. Sounds made by a human mouth, to which we've attached a meaning for the purpose of communication. They don't hurt anyone in and of themselves. Making an arbitrary division of words into "swear words" and "not swear words" and then not saying one category is ridiculous.
Sentences, on the other hand can and do cause offence and harm. Because they give words context. The offence in sentences doesn't come down to the individual words used, but the meaning of the idea being expressed.
You can't have it both ways. Those individual swear words are not, as you claimed, "just words".
Each of those single words is in fact an example of an abbreviated sentence, such as: "You are a motherfucker!"; "You are a cunt!"; "You are a cocksucker!" The context is that of a person walking up to you and insulting you in particular.
Come off it, you're making it up as you go along. I presented a simple experiment that would contradict your original statement, and now you have to add conditions under where even a single swear-word is now harmful. You're the one who posited that more than the individual swear word is required, and now you're realizing that's not always the case.
Remember when you wrote:
If anyone is impressed simply by avoidance of an arbitrary set of words, than they trivial people.
Can you do it? Go without swearing for, say, a year? If it's as trivial as you suggest, it should be easy-peesy:-)
There's also the practice of "resume collecting". HR knows they don't need any new bodies, but to justify THEIR jobs, they spend part of their time in the make-work process of keeping a pool of raw talent available. It's even worse for recruiting firms, who collect them so that they can brag to potential customers of how many workers they have access to.
And of course if there's a real job being offered, either by a company or another recruiting firm, many of the other recruiting firms will basically clone the offer, just because "if company A is looking for this, we'd better have a few candidates already at hand and ask companies B, C, and D if they're looking for similar talent."
The end result is that you have a plethora of ads all looking for someone for a job that, in most cases, doesn't exist.
Even worse, people will think that "oh, THIS is need-to-know technology", because all of a sudden you have 50 ads looking for a VB6 programmer.
Which is better? Grow your revenue by an order of magnitude today and destroy your development team, or carefully grow your development team and trust that opportunities will show up when the team is able to handle them? It's a very difficult call. Personally, I can't fault companies who expand quickly (like Cisco did) and who take the opportunities that were presented. That's what the business guys are paid to do.
Hey, it worked out great for NORTEL.
(or at least for the stockholders who managed to sell out before they went bankrupt)
You still haven't presented a valid argument, you are just arguing I don't know what I'm talking about because of some minor wording issue. I already knew some people get paid, some people don't, and said so. You think I should have said "MOST" when I said "FEW" and because of that difference I don't have any creditability here?
Why should anyone trust your evaluation when you come up with factoids that are demonstrably false by anyone who has kept half an eye on kernel development over the last couple of decades? Your other claims come into doubt because you have refused, despite repeated opportunities, to supply ANY proof, just more unsubstantiated opinions.
I offered several ways for you to prove otherwise, even though that's certainly not my job when someone makes a claim, and you rejected them because you are not interested, not qualified, it would be too hard because Linus as too much of a lead, whatever... even though if you were right, this would be a great business opportunity.
where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says
I didn't attack you personally, I attacked your claims. You on the other hand...
Come off it, you made a claim that was grossly inaccurate when you wrote "For example, few kernel developers get paid for their efforts." One that took only seconds to search for the facts.
Your point doesn't stand; it's based entirely on anecdotal musings based on your experience, and not on evidence.
But let's expand my original test. There are others who could also have forked the kernel under a "kinder, more humane" approach, and reaped tangible benefits. Nobody has. Certainly not Mark "My Way or the Highway" Shuttleworth with Ubuntu.
Why not?
Paid contributors have to meet certain expectations in terms of quality to their employers. That sets a standard. You don't want someone who doesn't get the rules to submit a bunch of code in c++, for example. If they don't get why it's in c only, it's not up to the maintainers to educate them. There's just too much of a gap to make that a profitable use of one's time.
Which is why we now have cyber-bullying laws. BTW, when you talk about Jon Stewart, his audience is adults. Far less vulnerable than a 13-year-old. If there were no qualitative difference, we'd be giving 13-year-olds the vote.
The roots for that success were laid by his predecessor. Here's what Microsoft under Ballmer looks like:
Former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates handed the reigns to Steve Ballmer in January 2000. Today, the company announced Ballmer will retire within 12 months, and Microsoft stock has surged on the news. That can't feel good if you're Ballmer. Under his 13-year leadership, Microsoft stock has fallen over 40%.
Amid a dynamic and ever changing marketplace, Microsoft—which declined to comment for this article—became a high-tech equivalent of a Detroit car-maker, bringing flashier models of the same old thing off of the assembly line even as its competitors upended the world. Most of its innovations have been financial debacles or of little consequence to the bottom line. And the performance showed on Wall Street; despite booming sales and profits from its flagship products, in the last decade Microsoft’s stock barely budged from around $30, while Apple’s stock is worth more than 20 times what it was 10 years ago. In December 2000, Microsoft had a market capitalization of $510 billion, making it the world’s most valuable company. As of June it is No. 3, with a market cap of $249 billion. In December 2000, Apple had a market cap of $4.8 billion and didn’t even make the list. As of this June it is No. 1 in the world, with a market cap of $541 billion.
... and..
“I see Microsoft as technology’s answer to Sears,” said Kurt Massey, a former senior marketing manager. “In the 40s, 50s, and 60s, Sears had it nailed. It was top-notch, but now it’s just a barren wasteland. And that’s Microsoft. The company just isn’t cool anymore.”
Cool is what tech consumers want. Exhibit A: today the iPhone brings in more revenue than the entirety of Microsoft.
No, really.
One Apple product, something that didn’t exist five years ago, has higher sales than everything Microsoft has to offer. More than Windows, Office, Xbox, Bing, Windows Phone, and every other product that Microsoft has created since 1975. In the quarter ended March 31, 2012, iPhone had sales of $22.7 billion; Microsoft Corporation, $17.4 billion.
A new Linux Kernel Development report (informally known as "Who Writes Linux") released today by the Linux Foundation names Samsung and Google as the seventh and eighth most frequent corporate contributors, behind Red Hat, Intel, Texas Instruments, Linaro, SUSE, and IBM. The report covers almost 92,000 changes to Linux from 3,738 individuals since version 3.3 in March 2012. Most Linux developers contribute to the kernel as part of their employment.
Only 13.6% of code contributions are from people who are not paid by employers to do so. Those who are working for companies are devoting time to the kernel because both they and their employer see it's worth doing. If they were uncomfortable with the process, they are certainly in a position to demand changes.
How absolutely pointless. Words are just words. Sounds made by a human mouth, to which we've attached a meaning for the purpose of communication. They don't hurt anyone in and of themselves. Making an arbitrary division of words into "swear words" and "not swear words" and then not saying one category is ridiculous.
Sentences, on the other hand can and do cause offence and harm. Because they give words context. The offence in sentences doesn't come down to the individual words used, but the meaning of the idea being expressed.
So go up to the every cop you see and say one word to them as loud as you can. "Motherf***er".
And to every woman you see and say "C*nt".
And every man you see and say "C*cksucker"
Let us know how it works. After all, these are single words, without context, in your own words.
If anyone is impressed simply by avoidance of an arbitrary set of words, than (sic) they trivial people.
There are many ways to express an idea, an emotion, a concept, or a thought. Funny thing is, the people who habitually swear a lot seem to lack the facile access to a sufficient vocabulary to express themselves without swearing. When they have to "watch what comes out of their mouth", they become a bit tongue-tied, as they now can't just "fill in the blanks" in their speech with swear words. Worse, they don't normally realize the true extent of their swearing.
Of course, once they start hanging around regularly with someone who doesn't swear, the quantity of their swearing drops. Swearing starts off as mimicry in children, who certainly don't know the meaning of the words the first time they utter them since they're just learning to talk, and continues throughout life. "Monkey see, monkey do" in adults shouldn't impress anyone.
People do judge you by what comes out of your mouth. I have no problem listening to a comedian swearing when it's part of the joke - it's their job.
But I'm not doing stand-up comedy.
People also react to what comes out of your mouth. The same statement, but without the f-bombs thrown in, is less likely to rile the listener and to get a reasoned response. "What is the problem?" as opposed to "What the f*** is the f***ing problem?"
Simple - take away any smartphones, remove their access from any computers, and inform other parents that you've taken these measures. If there's a court order mandating same, you can also tell other parents and the school that if they give access to the net, they will be charged with knowingly violating a court order.
The short answer is that identity theft is a crime. Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.
"fraud OR deception". There was definitely deception involved here. That it wasn't for economic gain is irrelevant. "typically" as opposed to a necessary ingredient of the crime.
How about identity theft and impersonation? Your argument shields both those acts as "free speech", even though this is exactly what happened.
I am not condoning any of this behavior. I am saying that the correct way to combat this kind of behavior is not to shutdown freedom of speech, but rather to use more speech to publicly shame people who deserve it. That's what free societies do.
That's what societies do with adults. Children are a whole different ballgame. First, because they are children, they do not have the same ability to stand up for their rights, second because they do not have the legal competence to make such decisions themselves.
Since this is open-source, and you think the documentation is poor, why don't you fix it?
You don't need to be a baker to know the bread is stale.
No, but if you don't like stale bread and you don't want to shop elsewhere, you can either bake your own or continue to eat the stale bread.
Can't bake? Well, you can always learn, or sponsor someone else to bake for you. Same as open source, and how large portions of the competitive economy work. If you're not satisfied with a product, switch suppliers.
1. If you're not satisfied with a product, switch suppliers.
2. No alternative suppliers? Congratulations, you've discovered a market niche you can exploit.
3. PROFIT!
That assumes that I'm as good as Linus technically and all other things are equal. Neither of these assumptions are likely true. He already has the name recondition, I would have none. He has the technical experience with the kernel, mine is limited. So your test isn't exactly apples to apples.
So what you're saying is "I don't think he's doing it the right way but I can't do better." How does that add ANYTHING helpful to the debate?
I'm betting that over the decades some of these people could have been valuable to the project. Seems obvious to me, but you are free to be wrong about it..
You say "you're betting that over the decades..." - you're not betting anything. By your own admission, you have zero skin in the game. You have admitted that you have neither the inclination nor the ability to do better, but you'll sit there and continue to throw rocks. Talk is cheaper than ever, I guess...
You have zero proof for your claim that kernel development has suffered. You were offered a way to prove it in a constructive fashion, but now admit you don't have the qualifications to. So how do you think that you have the qualifications to make your claim that kernel development has suffered?
It doesn't make sense, any more than management coming in and adding yet another stupid requirement that is actually contrary to the client's needs, "because we know better", with no metrics to back it up, or even a request from end users. And then people wonder why developers are sometimes rude or insensitive.
Slashdot Mirror
I was up for a role in NYC last year and a good 40% of the interview was about 'my school' which is totally bonkers because I graduated in 1978. WTF does that matter today but apparently it does to some recruiters. Far less it seems than my ability to do the job.
It matters to recruiters because they don't have the ability to actually scientifically measure how good one candidate is compared to another. Since they can't measure something essential, they measure something else and hope nobody will notice that they haven't got a clue. Hence the whole "keyword-matching" stupidity.
It's the whole "if all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem all over again.
If they could actually measure your ability to do they job, they would. They can't, so the fake it until they make it.
But your first job isn't about being picky about the day-to-day, it's about launching your career.
Let me fix that for you. "it's about launching your first career."
The days when people get out of school and stay in one career, or even one field, their entire lives are disappearing faster than a polar bear's natural habitat.
We knew this was going to happen 40 years ago, and yet a generation later we still haven't adapted our thinking. Why not?
The original contention was that ANY word by itself was meaningless, including swear words. I provided an experiment to prove otherwise. Hand-waving over how these single-word "meaningless noises" are suddenly meaningful is foolish - it acknowledges my point.
I up-voted this in the firehose because sound is still a problem. As are disappearing sound settings. Ignore the noise (pun intended :-)
Read the post that drew my response. The poster claimed that individual words are just sounds, with no meaning. I posited an experiment to prove otherwise. The fact that both you and him are now adding rules and conditions shows the original thesis was wrong. Thank you for confirming that (hey, I give credit where it's due, right :-)
That's very easy to prove incorrect. Stephen Fry has a bigger vocabulary than you, I and everyone else here put together.
Oh, the old "argument from authority" - and probably false. Unlike Fry, I'm fluent in more than one language.
Each of those single words is in fact an example of an abbreviated sentence,
That's not what you said earlier.
How absolutely pointless. Words are just words. Sounds made by a human mouth, to which we've attached a meaning for the purpose of communication. They don't hurt anyone in and of themselves. Making an arbitrary division of words into "swear words" and "not swear words" and then not saying one category is ridiculous.
Sentences, on the other hand can and do cause offence and harm. Because they give words context. The offence in sentences doesn't come down to the individual words used, but the meaning of the idea being expressed.
You can't have it both ways. Those individual swear words are not, as you claimed, "just words".
Each of those single words is in fact an example of an abbreviated sentence, such as: "You are a motherfucker!"; "You are a cunt!"; "You are a cocksucker!" The context is that of a person walking up to you and insulting you in particular.
Come off it, you're making it up as you go along. I presented a simple experiment that would contradict your original statement, and now you have to add conditions under where even a single swear-word is now harmful. You're the one who posited that more than the individual swear word is required, and now you're realizing that's not always the case.
Remember when you wrote:
If anyone is impressed simply by avoidance of an arbitrary set of words, than they trivial people.
Can you do it? Go without swearing for, say, a year? If it's as trivial as you suggest, it should be easy-peesy :-)
There's also the practice of "resume collecting". HR knows they don't need any new bodies, but to justify THEIR jobs, they spend part of their time in the make-work process of keeping a pool of raw talent available. It's even worse for recruiting firms, who collect them so that they can brag to potential customers of how many workers they have access to.
And of course if there's a real job being offered, either by a company or another recruiting firm, many of the other recruiting firms will basically clone the offer, just because "if company A is looking for this, we'd better have a few candidates already at hand and ask companies B, C, and D if they're looking for similar talent."
The end result is that you have a plethora of ads all looking for someone for a job that, in most cases, doesn't exist.
Even worse, people will think that "oh, THIS is need-to-know technology", because all of a sudden you have 50 ads looking for a VB6 programmer.
Which is better? Grow your revenue by an order of magnitude today and destroy your development team, or carefully grow your development team and trust that opportunities will show up when the team is able to handle them? It's a very difficult call. Personally, I can't fault companies who expand quickly (like Cisco did) and who take the opportunities that were presented. That's what the business guys are paid to do.
Hey, it worked out great for NORTEL.
(or at least for the stockholders who managed to sell out before they went bankrupt)
Looks pretty bad. Maybe you can invent a new meme: Never underestimate the bandwidth of a pigeon with a load of flash drives.
What if the disaster is that Facebook is down?
You have a strange definition of disaster, friend :-)
Disaster:
The term you are looking for is "fortuitous"
and the ability to mark Grandma as okay even if her internet is down
Neither RFC 1149 - IP over Avian Carriers nor RFC 2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with QoS protocol are implemented by my local carrier pigeon, you ignorant clod!
Anyone searching for "tor router" is going to see competing products + negative stories about anonabox.
In short, "It's dead, Jim!"
But I'm not doing stand-up comedy.
One of your better decisions.
Just like a broken clock, I've got to be right sometimes :-)
You still haven't presented a valid argument, you are just arguing I don't know what I'm talking about because of some minor wording issue. I already knew some people get paid, some people don't, and said so. You think I should have said "MOST" when I said "FEW" and because of that difference I don't have any creditability here?
Why should anyone trust your evaluation when you come up with factoids that are demonstrably false by anyone who has kept half an eye on kernel development over the last couple of decades? Your other claims come into doubt because you have refused, despite repeated opportunities, to supply ANY proof, just more unsubstantiated opinions.
I offered several ways for you to prove otherwise, even though that's certainly not my job when someone makes a claim, and you rejected them because you are not interested, not qualified, it would be too hard because Linus as too much of a lead, whatever ... even though if you were right, this would be a great business opportunity.
where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says
I didn't attack you personally, I attacked your claims. You on the other hand ...
You sir are nit picking
That I take personal offense to.
Come off it, you made a claim that was grossly inaccurate when you wrote "For example, few kernel developers get paid for their efforts." One that took only seconds to search for the facts.
Your point doesn't stand; it's based entirely on anecdotal musings based on your experience, and not on evidence.
But let's expand my original test. There are others who could also have forked the kernel under a "kinder, more humane" approach, and reaped tangible benefits. Nobody has. Certainly not Mark "My Way or the Highway" Shuttleworth with Ubuntu.
Why not?
Paid contributors have to meet certain expectations in terms of quality to their employers. That sets a standard. You don't want someone who doesn't get the rules to submit a bunch of code in c++, for example. If they don't get why it's in c only, it's not up to the maintainers to educate them. There's just too much of a gap to make that a profitable use of one's time.
Which is why we now have cyber-bullying laws. BTW, when you talk about Jon Stewart, his audience is adults. Far less vulnerable than a 13-year-old. If there were no qualitative difference, we'd be giving 13-year-olds the vote.
Former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates handed the reigns to Steve Ballmer in January 2000. Today, the company announced Ballmer will retire within 12 months, and Microsoft stock has surged on the news. That can't feel good if you're Ballmer. Under his 13-year leadership, Microsoft stock has fallen over 40%.
And this article gets it right
Amid a dynamic and ever changing marketplace, Microsoft—which declined to comment for this article—became a high-tech equivalent of a Detroit car-maker, bringing flashier models of the same old thing off of the assembly line even as its competitors upended the world. Most of its innovations have been financial debacles or of little consequence to the bottom line. And the performance showed on Wall Street; despite booming sales and profits from its flagship products, in the last decade Microsoft’s stock barely budged from around $30, while Apple’s stock is worth more than 20 times what it was 10 years ago. In December 2000, Microsoft had a market capitalization of $510 billion, making it the world’s most valuable company. As of June it is No. 3, with a market cap of $249 billion. In December 2000, Apple had a market cap of $4.8 billion and didn’t even make the list. As of this June it is No. 1 in the world, with a market cap of $541 billion.
... and ..
“I see Microsoft as technology’s answer to Sears,” said Kurt Massey, a former senior marketing manager. “In the 40s, 50s, and 60s, Sears had it nailed. It was top-notch, but now it’s just a barren wasteland. And that’s Microsoft. The company just isn’t cool anymore.”
Cool is what tech consumers want. Exhibit A: today the iPhone brings in more revenue than the entirety of Microsoft.
No, really.
One Apple product, something that didn’t exist five years ago, has higher sales than everything Microsoft has to offer. More than Windows, Office, Xbox, Bing, Windows Phone, and every other product that Microsoft has created since 1975. In the quarter ended March 31, 2012, iPhone had sales of $22.7 billion; Microsoft Corporation, $17.4 billion.
For example, few kernel developers get paid for their efforts.
That's not true.
A new Linux Kernel Development report (informally known as "Who Writes Linux") released today by the Linux Foundation names Samsung and Google as the seventh and eighth most frequent corporate contributors, behind Red Hat, Intel, Texas Instruments, Linaro, SUSE, and IBM. The report covers almost 92,000 changes to Linux from 3,738 individuals since version 3.3 in March 2012. Most Linux developers contribute to the kernel as part of their employment.
Only 13.6% of code contributions are from people who are not paid by employers to do so. Those who are working for companies are devoting time to the kernel because both they and their employer see it's worth doing. If they were uncomfortable with the process, they are certainly in a position to demand changes.
How absolutely pointless. Words are just words. Sounds made by a human mouth, to which we've attached a meaning for the purpose of communication. They don't hurt anyone in and of themselves. Making an arbitrary division of words into "swear words" and "not swear words" and then not saying one category is ridiculous.
Sentences, on the other hand can and do cause offence and harm. Because they give words context. The offence in sentences doesn't come down to the individual words used, but the meaning of the idea being expressed.
So go up to the every cop you see and say one word to them as loud as you can. "Motherf***er".
And to every woman you see and say "C*nt".
And every man you see and say "C*cksucker"
Let us know how it works. After all, these are single words, without context, in your own words.
If anyone is impressed simply by avoidance of an arbitrary set of words, than (sic) they trivial people.
There are many ways to express an idea, an emotion, a concept, or a thought. Funny thing is, the people who habitually swear a lot seem to lack the facile access to a sufficient vocabulary to express themselves without swearing. When they have to "watch what comes out of their mouth", they become a bit tongue-tied, as they now can't just "fill in the blanks" in their speech with swear words. Worse, they don't normally realize the true extent of their swearing.
Of course, once they start hanging around regularly with someone who doesn't swear, the quantity of their swearing drops. Swearing starts off as mimicry in children, who certainly don't know the meaning of the words the first time they utter them since they're just learning to talk, and continues throughout life. "Monkey see, monkey do" in adults shouldn't impress anyone.
But I'm not doing stand-up comedy.
People also react to what comes out of your mouth. The same statement, but without the f-bombs thrown in, is less likely to rile the listener and to get a reasoned response. "What is the problem?" as opposed to "What the f*** is the f***ing problem?"
Internet access isn't a basic right.
The short answer is that identity theft is a crime. Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.
"fraud OR deception". There was definitely deception involved here. That it wasn't for economic gain is irrelevant. "typically" as opposed to a necessary ingredient of the crime.
I am not condoning any of this behavior. I am saying that the correct way to combat this kind of behavior is not to shutdown freedom of speech, but rather to use more speech to publicly shame people who deserve it. That's what free societies do.
That's what societies do with adults. Children are a whole different ballgame. First, because they are children, they do not have the same ability to stand up for their rights, second because they do not have the legal competence to make such decisions themselves.
Since this is open-source, and you think the documentation is poor, why don't you fix it?
You don't need to be a baker to know the bread is stale.
No, but if you don't like stale bread and you don't want to shop elsewhere, you can either bake your own or continue to eat the stale bread.
Can't bake? Well, you can always learn, or sponsor someone else to bake for you. Same as open source, and how large portions of the competitive economy work. If you're not satisfied with a product, switch suppliers.
1. If you're not satisfied with a product, switch suppliers.
2. No alternative suppliers? Congratulations, you've discovered a market niche you can exploit.
3. PROFIT!
That assumes that I'm as good as Linus technically and all other things are equal. Neither of these assumptions are likely true. He already has the name recondition, I would have none. He has the technical experience with the kernel, mine is limited. So your test isn't exactly apples to apples.
So what you're saying is "I don't think he's doing it the right way but I can't do better." How does that add ANYTHING helpful to the debate?
I'm betting that over the decades some of these people could have been valuable to the project. Seems obvious to me, but you are free to be wrong about it..
You say "you're betting that over the decades ..." - you're not betting anything. By your own admission, you have zero skin in the game. You have admitted that you have neither the inclination nor the ability to do better, but you'll sit there and continue to throw rocks. Talk is cheaper than ever, I guess ...
You have zero proof for your claim that kernel development has suffered. You were offered a way to prove it in a constructive fashion, but now admit you don't have the qualifications to. So how do you think that you have the qualifications to make your claim that kernel development has suffered?
It doesn't make sense, any more than management coming in and adding yet another stupid requirement that is actually contrary to the client's needs, "because we know better", with no metrics to back it up, or even a request from end users. And then people wonder why developers are sometimes rude or insensitive.