Oh that's precious. You completely overshot my expectations. So you have decided (or I assume been told) that it refers strictly to the guns themselves being clean and in good working order?
Sounds like you (or whoever you get your opinions from) cherry picked out a frequently mis-applied list of 18th-19th century Oxford Dictionary definitions:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
So you pick the 3rd one since it is the only one that doesn't make your argument sound like nonsense, and you seal the deal with:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.
Obviously there is only one reasonable interpretation of all this, because 'well regulated militia' must surely be referring to their guns and not the militia themselves, right? Much like the meaning of 'well-regulated courts of justice' was that their tables were level and the chairs weren't squeaky? Surely it meant nothing to the effect that in order for a militia to actually be effective at anything, that maybe they should be trained and, I don't know, maybe have a plan of some sort?
There you have it - subjectivity from your supposed stone tablet. A reminder that disagreeing with your idiocy is not trolling, and that 'educate yourself' and 'read some fucking history' may as well mean 'somebody who sounded smart told me my opinion' - it's an appeal to authority so lazy that you couldn't even be bothered to cite the authority.
"well regulated" at the time of writing didnt mean what you think it does.
Oh is this like how they used to spell more words with 'e' on the end and wrote 's' with a big serif so it looked like an 'f', and the word 'regulate' used to mean 'fucking free-for-all'?
educate yourself
You seem to think there is a definitive opinion on this phrase that the rest of us fools consider to be subjective. We're all too dumb to find it, so please enlighten us with your interpretation of how 'regulated' means nothing of the sort, so that we can all google what right-wing nutjob blog you got it from and laugh at you.
Your understanding of history is questionable at best if you think that your 'Not there yet, but it won't be too much longer' event is analogous to the Revolutionary War. More like the Civil War since you are proposing the taking up of arms against a democratically elected government, not to mention all of your fellow citizens who elected that government. Still not even close to a parallel though, because at least the Confederacy had the decency to just try to secede instead of your 9 year old's wet dream of screaming 'Wolverines' as you shoot whoever it is that you deem to be at fault for whatever it is you decided was finally worth committing murder.
Not there yet, but it won't be too much longer unless something changes. People are tired of the bullshit politicians.
And what pray tell are you going to do? Who do you intend to shoot, and why? What end result are you hoping to achieve? Who are you fighting for, against and with? Use your fucking brain for two seconds and think through a scenario that involves you shooting police / federal agents / politicians / armed forces / your fellow citizens, and how exactly you picture that scenario ending to the benefit of yourself and the rest of democratic society. Then describe that scenario to me in great detail, because I really want to hear how it is that you and your plinkin' buddies intend to liberate me from the tyranny of my elected government by shooting people. I also really want to hear about how you plan to form a shining, righteous new democracy that's all eagles and freedoms and whatnot, also by shooting people. Lastly (and don't give too much detail lest you tip your strategic advantage), I'd truly love to hear about the command structure through which all gun owners will rise up at the same time, for the same reason, with the same goals and mount a coordinated uprising as opposed to just freaking the fuck out and shooting each other over who gets to hold the conch.
Maybe it is you that needs to revisit their high school American History, because I'm pretty sure the civics section on 'checks and balances' doesn't start and end with 'angriest delusional fuckwit with a weapon wins - check that motherfucker!'. I'm pretty frustrated with government too, but I'd sooner shoot you than any of them if you think this revolution of yours is anything but a masturbation fantasy.
Sorry, but I am not able to reconcile your 'intellectual' status with your obvious addiction to hyperbole and garbage media outlets. If I looked in the right (wrong) places, I could make myself upset about pretty much anything that I hear 'several times a day', and by which I am already predisposed to be offended. A big part of being an 'intellectual' is remaining rational enough to absorb information without immediately assigning it an emotional response, and not allowing other people or your own prejudices to severely warp your perspective. I don't think you are doing so hot on that front. An even bigger part of being an 'intellectual' is not calling yourself an 'intellectual'.
In 10 years of developing combined J2EE/C++ systems on Windows and deploying them to Linux, I have seen precisely these differences running the same Java code in different operating systems:
1) FS calls tend to be faster in Linux
2) FS paths are different if you are too stupid to use the abstraction API properly
3) One time a math function returned a different value. Turned out it was in the Wolfram.so file, which they patched.
I know the hate bandwagon is a tempting position when you're not too bright, but you really should try to think about what you say before you embarrass yourself.
Yeah, I don't know about that. Everybody in that list is trying to make an ever-increasing profit via a company or investment they control. Only some of the people in that list have a secondary goal to reshape the world in their narrow view (which coincidentally often involves them making more money). I don't think you can lump FB and Twitter in that second list, and the reason is very simple: their profits are directly and tangibly related in near real-time to the user's ongoing satisfaction and participation in their service.
Mark Zuckerberg just wants the maximum number of FB users possible. He has figured that in order to keep users they need to be satisfied with the service, and in order to maintain their satisfaction it is necessary to curb the behavior of certain users who have a tendency of making it an overwhelmingly unpleasant place for a larger share of other users. Notice I'm not making a value judgement about each class of user here, I'm just describing an algorithm. As the owner of the largest collection of user metadata / demographics / behavioral statistics in the history of time, I have to assume that Zuckerberg's algorithm is correct with respect to its end goal (saying nothing of its ethical merits). If this 'censorship' was adversely impacting their subscription counts, you'd best believe it would stop right quick, and it hasn't. Just like in real social circles, when somebody in the group has an unpopular view and just can't shut the fuck up about it or at least discuss it civilly, everybody has a similar choice to make: disband the group, ostracize the outlier, or everybody just be miserable. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, when you find yourself on the wrong end of this logic, that is not 'social justice' or 'suppression', it is math.
I am confounded by this ongoing conflation of social dynamics (almost never fair) with constitutional freedoms (fair, but people never seem to know when they apply). FB and Twitter are not critical infrastructure or utilities requiring guaranteed access. Net neutrality does not mean that everybody has to listen to your shit, only that you have a right to put it on the internet. There is literally nothing stopping an ostracized group from creating a new virtual (or real) social circle. If the group was, as claimed, being unfairly targeted by a mean ol' minority with an agenda at the old spot, then this new circle will surely flourish as a place of freedom, right? Or, it could be a sad masturbatory echo chamber, which really ought to serve as a clue to said group. Neither outcome has shit-all to do with freedom and censorship, and it is hardly the bellwether of tyranny as you seem to imply.
And seriously, objectivity aside, how can you not see the immense irony in this particular set of views, which seems so often to revolve around 'the world is not PC, deal with it you thin-skinned baby', crying their goddamned heads off about how everybody's being so mean to them? Behind all those professional liberal PC reactionaries we all love to hate, there are plenty of real legitimate cases of people in the actual physical world who have had their shit severely messed with over matters of prejudice in some form or another. You'll have to forgive me if my heart does not exactly bleed for the guy who got his twitter badge taken away for posting a 'bitch, make me sandwich' joke and then cried to the White House like they were supposed to do something about it (which no doubt would be called tyranny if they did, and the sides were reversed).
For those who don't feel like clicking, it is a first-time poster tattling on APK to a hoster of his software about all his evil deeds here on./ in an attempt to get his software pulled. Don't get me wrong, I think that is an entirely appropriate if not overdue or at least kind of funny response. It does however seem to smell a little SJW-y, no? Leaving the forum of free discussion and attempting to cause real-life damage to somebody because of some shitty things they said online? We all (you guys) agreed that was bad when we (you guys) made up the term 'SJW', right?
And yet, we are all tired as fuck of reading these idiotic screeds and would probably prefer they not be here at all, and that the maniac who has been making them get some comeuppance for assaulting our eyeballs and mouse wheels all this time, right? Could this be the case that actually gets us to agree that each case of online assholery -> real life retribution is subjective and has it's potential merits and has to be judged individually? Or is it only when it specifically skews to a progressive political issue with which you disagree that it counts as 'SJW'?
Coren22, I have to assume that the poster is you for the simple reason that, christ, enough is enough right? Maybe it's not. Either way I am curious: as somebody who seems to be in the camp I described above, what is your take on this? Is it an attack on free speech, or just an asshole getting what is coming to him?
They might not be able to aim that impact very accurately
In orbital mechanics 'not very accurate', means 'possibly the sun, maybe the ocean, otherwise some sort of land...assuming it does not burn up in entry'.
Do not take comfort from this failure. North Korea has demonstrated that it can put payloads in orbit
I like it when you don't just bring me the news, but also tell me how to feel about it. I'd appreciate it if you could also provide me with the appropriate emotional cue for Trump's victory, because I have no idea how to feel about that.
From this achievement it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth.
'Any' continent is right. Hey guess what: I just put a hand grenade in a rubber raft and set it adrift in the Pacific Ocean. BE VERY AFRAID - IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR YOU!
What's the dominant factor in determining future temperatures on Earth? (Hint: it's yellow)
Are you suggesting that changes in the sun's output will cause more temperature variability than changes in the thermal retention of our atmosphere over the next 100 years?
* Politician wants an excuse to tax something new, to have new money to give to his friends
* Hey, climate science, we can use that!
* Grants approved, except any grant questioning the premise denied (as has been true for 20 years)
* Politician: Alarm! Disaster! Catastrophe! Sacrifice for the common good! Ka-ching.
OR...
* Politician wants money
* Petrol / auto / industrial / coal / etc gives it directly to him
Occam's Razor calls bullshit on your little conspiracy theory. The 'denier' money tap flows a hell of a lot faster than the roundabout silliness you are postulating. There is no denying that financial incentives and egos drive agendas all the way around this issue, but your logic for framing this as conspiracy of politicians / scientists is ridiculous. You can't make a 'follow the money' argument that completely ignores the side that actually has it all.
Certainly anyone working for an oil company can't really be a "climate scientist", right?
Using your same line of reasoning vis a vis $$$, how could you possibly trust them?
Using a sane person's line of reasoning, yes they are climate scientists. As we have learned in the last year, they are climate scientists who spent the better part of 30 years producing some very troubling findings on climate change, which were then promptly squashed by their employers, you know, because of money.
Translation: tech industry hype has settled down to the point where you actually have to be good at it to get a good salary. Getting into IT when it is not your natural aptitude because you think it is an automatic 6 figure salary is a fool's errand. As far as I am concerned, this is an improvement.
Cut the guy some slack, man. He has offered a position rational enough that the part of it we see as irrational is neatly compartmentalized into a space of mutual unknowns between both of our positions. I frankly don't care whether he thinks that the big bang happened when God poked a hole in the void with his finger or that life began when he dipped his balls in the primordial ooze, because both opinions are purely philosophical and of zero consequence to scientific findings regarding what happened after that.
This deist type perspective is fine with me, because it only speaks to a potential reason why these events happened but does not try to hijack discussion of their mechanics. As long as we all agree that AGTC is the coding language of life, I don't really care if somebody wants to say that God is the author of that language, because it simply does not matter in a scientific discussion. Since nobody can ever offer any falsifiable perspective on this matter, your harsh refutation of his opinion kind of makes you as much of a fanatic as you think he is.
Um, glossing over the fact that 'SJW' is a meaningless reductionist term used by idiots, it really doesn't get any more 'SJW' than passing Trojan Horse laws to squeeze your point of view back into schools / workplaces after the rest of us (including the supreme court) all agreed it doesn't belong there, all the while screaming persecution when you are in fact the aggressor and crying suppression when suppression is precisely what you are trying to achieve.
Being as how you felt the need to self-define the term 'SJW' right before you wielded it axiom-like to attack another person's opinion in an epic-level attempt at a strawman, I really don't see how it is any less a childish insult than 'turd burglar' (it is certainly less funny). Taking a fake word, defining it, ascribing it to another person, then using it as a basis for attacking them all in the same sentence is such a magnificent fallacy I'm not even sure it has a name, since they probably assumed nobody would be stupid enough to attempt it. Oh wait - that's pretty much exactly what happens every time somebody drags out the Bible in a non-theological argument. I guess we know where you learned this particular style of 'reasoning'. Thank you for bringing to this discussion a very real, tangible example of the damage that can be caused by feeding irrational garbage to children as fact.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that democrat policies are progressive, which generally entails a forward-looking 'into the bright new future' type rhetoric while republican policies lean more toward the nostalgic 'bring back the good old days, make America great again' lines.
There is plenty of opportunity for looking stupid on either side, but a difference in how the 2 kinds of stupid are perceived (pie-eyed naivety vs backwards rube-ism), and which one tends to be more embarrassing when it is called out. Overarching that is the fact that 'putting things back the way they were' is almost never a feasible plan when it comes to an ever-developing society, while 'working toward a better future' is at least potentially a good idea, and there tends to be a lot more falsifiability in the former (not saying less correctness per se, just more falsifiability), thus more opportunities for the stupid to be dragged out and paraded around in public.
One could argue that it is just an impression created by the above that republicans are dumber and that this impression has more to do with us skewing towards being a futuristic society than a nostalgic one, rather than the republican party actually containing stupider people.
</Objectivism>
They do look like a bunch of fucking ass clowns and I unfortunately have to assume the same about their constituents since they keep getting elected. I just thought I would take a stab at explaining it in a way that doesn't depress me.
There's two arguments there:
- Starting at a high level language will allow a wider audience, but they'll come out not knowing the fundamentals.
- Starting at a low level language will scare off many casuals, but those who stick with it will (typically) know a lot more in the end.
I think people keep turning this into a false choice by assuming that there is only only one end goal for education in coding, which is a career in programming. There are in fact many (and in another decade will surely be many more) careers where a secondary skill in 'light' coding (aka: scripting) is a huge benefit if not a requirement. Starting at the high level is dead wrong (IMO) if you intend to be a programmer, but is just fine if you are targeting basic code-literacy and the ability to write script-y stuff against existing APIs. Since public school is about maximum exposure to a wide area of topics, I think that it makes the most sense to teach high-level as the core class and supply low-level as an elective or AP course. The people who take the core class will still benefit from it even if they never pursue programming, just like those of us with decent grammar / math skills have a general leg up in the world even if we are not writers / mathematicians.
I really don't know why people don't get it that every time Obama or whoever says that we should get kids to 'code' they are referring to code-literacy as an avenue or compliment to many careers (STEM and otherwise), not turning an entire generation of children into career programmers. The latter is so patently absurd I have to assume this is a willful misinterpretation, but I guess it is no more ridiculous than a lot of the other things some folks around here ascribe to the government (or their phobia thereof) for the purposes of strawman-ing it to death.
Oh my, so many confusing terms! Surely they all refer to the exact same thing and were made by the exact same people for the sole purpose of running a long con, and their mere existence debunks the science of the people who are neither of the above, right? Also, somebody call physics and tell them we are on to their game. Which is it nerds: standard model, supersymmetry, strings, multiverse? You're all full of shit!
"...candidate showed a lack of aptitude bordering on open disdain for abstract thinking that leads one to wonder why on earth he chose this profession..."
"calculate the volume of the bus, which would be easy, and start throwing gold balls in a pool until I get the same amount of water displaced"
I don't see these problems as the magical divining rods that many interviewers do, but sometimes you get an answer that is so terrible that it immediately clears any doubt that it is time to move on to the next candidate. This is one of those answers
Not only do you just throw out the hardest part of the problem by asserting that it's 'easy' (it's not), you then proceed in such a way so as to guarantee that your estimate is at least 2x too high. Your answer is a perfect example of what these problems are meant to screen for. They are supposed to get you to demonstrate your ability to unpack a problem that may be easy to say and sounds simple then find all the weird little places where it is actually devilishly complicated, and come up with ways to address them. Because in the end, identifying and addressing 'all the weird little places' is where good and bad developers part ways. I'm generally happy if a single person can either identify them or address them. A person who can do both is gold. A person who can do neither is not getting hired.
I want to hire the guy who's response to this question is to ask me whether the bus has emergency exit hatches or any of those side-facing seats for the elderly, or if it is like some of the metros here in Seattle that have a split windshield with one panel angled in about 10 degrees at the top. I might at least settle for the guy who knows what happens when you try to fill a volume with spheres.
IT is not awful, it is just full of whiners who got into it for the wrong reasons and think that simply being able to code should automatically propel you into a 6 figure salary. My long hours don't come from employer abuse, they come from my love for what I do, so much so that I will stay up until 3 AM working on it because I am literally giddy to see the next piece drop into place and watch the gears turn. My employer no doubt capitalizes on this obsession, but they also pay well and give me lots of freedom. I would do the same for less because this is what I do, I did not choose it because it was trendy or appeared on a 'best careers' list. It seems to me that if you are right for IT, it is right for you.
Here is you from another post, pretending to be reasonable.
Once you accept that point, then we can talk about it. Maybe I'll change my mind. Maybe you'll convince enough people to take them. That's fine, you can argue your pro points all you like, so long as you respect the right to refuse.
Here is you apparently saying that you do not reject the efficacy/safety of vaccines, just the idea that they would be made mandatory.
Let me be clear. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM
Here is you equating a failure to predict an earthquake with refusing to get a vaccine that you know prevents a disease, then getting that disease, then giving it to other people, because you feel that your rights are impinged by the measures the rest of us put in place (the measures that you explicitly and knowingly circumvented) to prevent exactly that from happening.
It is right up there with Italy holding scientists responsible for not predicting an earthquake.
Seriously, man. Be real for a second. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think this is a reasonable statement? That the accountability in both cases is the same? That, if my child had died at 2 months because he was too young for the whooping cough vaccine and got it from you, because you didn't get vaccinated, and we have the same pediatrician, and you feel that you have the right to be wherever you want at all times and under all circumstances, that I should just be OK with that because you were just exercising your rights and freedoms and whatnot?
Oops, nevermind - I found the part that totally explains where you are coming from:
You keep thinking you'll change people's minds with facts.
Well I think that pretty much says it all, doesn't it. You have a completely irrational fear of vaccines, or needles, or the government, or whatever, and you have no logical defense for your reprehensible refusal to do one simple fucking thing that you don't like for the benefit of the rest of society, 'cuz freedoms and brownshirts or whatever. Libertarianism at its finest.
Enough with this dead horse. We all know big pharma is an evil industry primarily driven by obscene profits just like insurance. Meanwhile, each of these industries do actually dispense as a side effect, on a regular basis, lifesaving medicine and paid insurance claims. Despite what you think, the drugs are indeed developed by scientists, using science. The fact that these companies have unconscionable practices in pricing, management, testing and marketing does not automatically undo this and make all of their drugs voodoo sugar pills, it just makes the company in general a big bag of dicks. Using the former to argue the latter is just bad logic. I'm not defending pharma, but I'll be damned if I am going to sit here and let you take a crap on logic.
Did you buy that Logitech 'Hyperbolous Arguer' keyboard? The one with hotkeys for 'evil' and 'Hitler', and the function keys that let you incorrectly cite logical fallacies? I think your cat just walked on it.
Compulsory vaccination does not mean G-men strapping you down for the needle. It works from the other end. It means that if you refuse to get your child vaccinated, then you need to home school them and hope that they never want a job in food service or medical care. It means that enough places institute policies requiring vaccines that it becomes overwhelmingly inconvenient for you to not have them. It means that the rest of us are also free to make our choice in the matter and not have it reversed by you (hypothetical you, not you personally) and your ideology-driven health gamble that you are playing. You are still free to refuse, but seems like kind of a dick parent move if you ask me, especially when you throw in the risk of your child dying from a preventable disease.
And if you, say, lie on a school admission form that your kid has a required vaccine, or band together a bunch of paranoid PTA moms to remove the vaccine requirement altogether and kids get sick? Then yes, you are absolutely liable for that. Criminally or civilly doesn't matter to me, but that shit is your fault for making a willfully negligent decision.
Your ideas are evil, thankfully saner people are in charge.
Malevolence and sanity are two different axes. You would know that if you ever read your 1st edition player's handbook.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you (or whoever you get your opinions from) cherry picked out a frequently mis-applied list of 18th-19th century Oxford Dictionary definitions:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
So you pick the 3rd one since it is the only one that doesn't make your argument sound like nonsense, and you seal the deal with:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.
Obviously there is only one reasonable interpretation of all this, because 'well regulated militia' must surely be referring to their guns and not the militia themselves, right? Much like the meaning of 'well-regulated courts of justice' was that their tables were level and the chairs weren't squeaky? Surely it meant nothing to the effect that in order for a militia to actually be effective at anything, that maybe they should be trained and, I don't know, maybe have a plan of some sort?
There you have it - subjectivity from your supposed stone tablet. A reminder that disagreeing with your idiocy is not trolling, and that 'educate yourself' and 'read some fucking history' may as well mean 'somebody who sounded smart told me my opinion' - it's an appeal to authority so lazy that you couldn't even be bothered to cite the authority.
"well regulated" at the time of writing didnt mean what you think it does.
Oh is this like how they used to spell more words with 'e' on the end and wrote 's' with a big serif so it looked like an 'f', and the word 'regulate' used to mean 'fucking free-for-all'?
educate yourself
You seem to think there is a definitive opinion on this phrase that the rest of us fools consider to be subjective. We're all too dumb to find it, so please enlighten us with your interpretation of how 'regulated' means nothing of the sort, so that we can all google what right-wing nutjob blog you got it from and laugh at you.
Not there yet, but it won't be too much longer unless something changes. People are tired of the bullshit politicians.
And what pray tell are you going to do? Who do you intend to shoot, and why? What end result are you hoping to achieve? Who are you fighting for, against and with? Use your fucking brain for two seconds and think through a scenario that involves you shooting police / federal agents / politicians / armed forces / your fellow citizens, and how exactly you picture that scenario ending to the benefit of yourself and the rest of democratic society. Then describe that scenario to me in great detail, because I really want to hear how it is that you and your plinkin' buddies intend to liberate me from the tyranny of my elected government by shooting people. I also really want to hear about how you plan to form a shining, righteous new democracy that's all eagles and freedoms and whatnot, also by shooting people. Lastly (and don't give too much detail lest you tip your strategic advantage), I'd truly love to hear about the command structure through which all gun owners will rise up at the same time, for the same reason, with the same goals and mount a coordinated uprising as opposed to just freaking the fuck out and shooting each other over who gets to hold the conch.
Maybe it is you that needs to revisit their high school American History, because I'm pretty sure the civics section on 'checks and balances' doesn't start and end with 'angriest delusional fuckwit with a weapon wins - check that motherfucker!'. I'm pretty frustrated with government too, but I'd sooner shoot you than any of them if you think this revolution of yours is anything but a masturbation fantasy.
No shit. Now I know what question I'm asking the next time somebody needs to be let go.
Sorry, but I am not able to reconcile your 'intellectual' status with your obvious addiction to hyperbole and garbage media outlets. If I looked in the right (wrong) places, I could make myself upset about pretty much anything that I hear 'several times a day', and by which I am already predisposed to be offended. A big part of being an 'intellectual' is remaining rational enough to absorb information without immediately assigning it an emotional response, and not allowing other people or your own prejudices to severely warp your perspective. I don't think you are doing so hot on that front. An even bigger part of being an 'intellectual' is not calling yourself an 'intellectual'.
1) FS calls tend to be faster in Linux
2) FS paths are different if you are too stupid to use the abstraction API properly
3) One time a math function returned a different value. Turned out it was in the Wolfram .so file, which they patched.
I know the hate bandwagon is a tempting position when you're not too bright, but you really should try to think about what you say before you embarrass yourself.
Yeah, I don't know about that. Everybody in that list is trying to make an ever-increasing profit via a company or investment they control. Only some of the people in that list have a secondary goal to reshape the world in their narrow view (which coincidentally often involves them making more money). I don't think you can lump FB and Twitter in that second list, and the reason is very simple: their profits are directly and tangibly related in near real-time to the user's ongoing satisfaction and participation in their service.
Mark Zuckerberg just wants the maximum number of FB users possible. He has figured that in order to keep users they need to be satisfied with the service, and in order to maintain their satisfaction it is necessary to curb the behavior of certain users who have a tendency of making it an overwhelmingly unpleasant place for a larger share of other users. Notice I'm not making a value judgement about each class of user here, I'm just describing an algorithm. As the owner of the largest collection of user metadata / demographics / behavioral statistics in the history of time, I have to assume that Zuckerberg's algorithm is correct with respect to its end goal (saying nothing of its ethical merits). If this 'censorship' was adversely impacting their subscription counts, you'd best believe it would stop right quick, and it hasn't. Just like in real social circles, when somebody in the group has an unpopular view and just can't shut the fuck up about it or at least discuss it civilly, everybody has a similar choice to make: disband the group, ostracize the outlier, or everybody just be miserable. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, when you find yourself on the wrong end of this logic, that is not 'social justice' or 'suppression', it is math.
I am confounded by this ongoing conflation of social dynamics (almost never fair) with constitutional freedoms (fair, but people never seem to know when they apply). FB and Twitter are not critical infrastructure or utilities requiring guaranteed access. Net neutrality does not mean that everybody has to listen to your shit, only that you have a right to put it on the internet. There is literally nothing stopping an ostracized group from creating a new virtual (or real) social circle. If the group was, as claimed, being unfairly targeted by a mean ol' minority with an agenda at the old spot, then this new circle will surely flourish as a place of freedom, right? Or, it could be a sad masturbatory echo chamber, which really ought to serve as a clue to said group. Neither outcome has shit-all to do with freedom and censorship, and it is hardly the bellwether of tyranny as you seem to imply.
And seriously, objectivity aside, how can you not see the immense irony in this particular set of views, which seems so often to revolve around 'the world is not PC, deal with it you thin-skinned baby', crying their goddamned heads off about how everybody's being so mean to them? Behind all those professional liberal PC reactionaries we all love to hate, there are plenty of real legitimate cases of people in the actual physical world who have had their shit severely messed with over matters of prejudice in some form or another. You'll have to forgive me if my heart does not exactly bleed for the guy who got his twitter badge taken away for posting a 'bitch, make me sandwich' joke and then cried to the White House like they were supposed to do something about it (which no doubt would be called tyranny if they did, and the sides were reversed).
.
I guess if you are a billionaire it's ok to attempt to force the world into your narrow view?
Oh wow, so you must really hate Rupert Murdoch then, right?
Here's an interesting twist on this discussion of censorship, trolls, SJWs et al:
http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
For those who don't feel like clicking, it is a first-time poster tattling on APK to a hoster of his software about all his evil deeds here on ./ in an attempt to get his software pulled. Don't get me wrong, I think that is an entirely appropriate if not overdue or at least kind of funny response. It does however seem to smell a little SJW-y, no? Leaving the forum of free discussion and attempting to cause real-life damage to somebody because of some shitty things they said online? We all (you guys) agreed that was bad when we (you guys) made up the term 'SJW', right?
And yet, we are all tired as fuck of reading these idiotic screeds and would probably prefer they not be here at all, and that the maniac who has been making them get some comeuppance for assaulting our eyeballs and mouse wheels all this time, right? Could this be the case that actually gets us to agree that each case of online assholery -> real life retribution is subjective and has it's potential merits and has to be judged individually? Or is it only when it specifically skews to a progressive political issue with which you disagree that it counts as 'SJW'?
Coren22, I have to assume that the poster is you for the simple reason that, christ, enough is enough right? Maybe it's not. Either way I am curious: as somebody who seems to be in the camp I described above, what is your take on this? Is it an attack on free speech, or just an asshole getting what is coming to him?
They might not be able to aim that impact very accurately
In orbital mechanics 'not very accurate', means 'possibly the sun, maybe the ocean, otherwise some sort of land...assuming it does not burn up in entry'.
Do not take comfort from this failure. North Korea has demonstrated that it can put payloads in orbit
I like it when you don't just bring me the news, but also tell me how to feel about it. I'd appreciate it if you could also provide me with the appropriate emotional cue for Trump's victory, because I have no idea how to feel about that.
From this achievement it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth.
'Any' continent is right. Hey guess what: I just put a hand grenade in a rubber raft and set it adrift in the Pacific Ocean. BE VERY AFRAID - IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR YOU!
What's the dominant factor in determining future temperatures on Earth? (Hint: it's yellow)
Are you suggesting that changes in the sun's output will cause more temperature variability than changes in the thermal retention of our atmosphere over the next 100 years?
But nowadays we apparently have thin-skinned man-children creating self-contradictory codes of conduct
Why yes you are right, I do believe I have just spotted one.
* Politician wants an excuse to tax something new, to have new money to give to his friends
* Hey, climate science, we can use that!
* Grants approved, except any grant questioning the premise denied (as has been true for 20 years)
* Politician: Alarm! Disaster! Catastrophe! Sacrifice for the common good! Ka-ching.
OR...
* Politician wants money
* Petrol / auto / industrial / coal / etc gives it directly to him
Occam's Razor calls bullshit on your little conspiracy theory. The 'denier' money tap flows a hell of a lot faster than the roundabout silliness you are postulating. There is no denying that financial incentives and egos drive agendas all the way around this issue, but your logic for framing this as conspiracy of politicians / scientists is ridiculous. You can't make a 'follow the money' argument that completely ignores the side that actually has it all.
Certainly anyone working for an oil company can't really be a "climate scientist", right?
Using your same line of reasoning vis a vis $$$, how could you possibly trust them?
Using a sane person's line of reasoning, yes they are climate scientists. As we have learned in the last year, they are climate scientists who spent the better part of 30 years producing some very troubling findings on climate change, which were then promptly squashed by their employers, you know, because of money.
Getting into tech now is a fool's errand
Translation: tech industry hype has settled down to the point where you actually have to be good at it to get a good salary. Getting into IT when it is not your natural aptitude because you think it is an automatic 6 figure salary is a fool's errand. As far as I am concerned, this is an improvement.
Cut the guy some slack, man. He has offered a position rational enough that the part of it we see as irrational is neatly compartmentalized into a space of mutual unknowns between both of our positions. I frankly don't care whether he thinks that the big bang happened when God poked a hole in the void with his finger or that life began when he dipped his balls in the primordial ooze, because both opinions are purely philosophical and of zero consequence to scientific findings regarding what happened after that.
This deist type perspective is fine with me, because it only speaks to a potential reason why these events happened but does not try to hijack discussion of their mechanics. As long as we all agree that AGTC is the coding language of life, I don't really care if somebody wants to say that God is the author of that language, because it simply does not matter in a scientific discussion. Since nobody can ever offer any falsifiable perspective on this matter, your harsh refutation of his opinion kind of makes you as much of a fanatic as you think he is.
Um, glossing over the fact that 'SJW' is a meaningless reductionist term used by idiots, it really doesn't get any more 'SJW' than passing Trojan Horse laws to squeeze your point of view back into schools / workplaces after the rest of us (including the supreme court) all agreed it doesn't belong there, all the while screaming persecution when you are in fact the aggressor and crying suppression when suppression is precisely what you are trying to achieve.
Being as how you felt the need to self-define the term 'SJW' right before you wielded it axiom-like to attack another person's opinion in an epic-level attempt at a strawman, I really don't see how it is any less a childish insult than 'turd burglar' (it is certainly less funny). Taking a fake word, defining it, ascribing it to another person, then using it as a basis for attacking them all in the same sentence is such a magnificent fallacy I'm not even sure it has a name, since they probably assumed nobody would be stupid enough to attempt it. Oh wait - that's pretty much exactly what happens every time somebody drags out the Bible in a non-theological argument. I guess we know where you learned this particular style of 'reasoning'. Thank you for bringing to this discussion a very real, tangible example of the damage that can be caused by feeding irrational garbage to children as fact.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that democrat policies are progressive, which generally entails a forward-looking 'into the bright new future' type rhetoric while republican policies lean more toward the nostalgic 'bring back the good old days, make America great again' lines.
There is plenty of opportunity for looking stupid on either side, but a difference in how the 2 kinds of stupid are perceived (pie-eyed naivety vs backwards rube-ism), and which one tends to be more embarrassing when it is called out. Overarching that is the fact that 'putting things back the way they were' is almost never a feasible plan when it comes to an ever-developing society, while 'working toward a better future' is at least potentially a good idea, and there tends to be a lot more falsifiability in the former (not saying less correctness per se, just more falsifiability), thus more opportunities for the stupid to be dragged out and paraded around in public.
One could argue that it is just an impression created by the above that republicans are dumber and that this impression has more to do with us skewing towards being a futuristic society than a nostalgic one, rather than the republican party actually containing stupider people.
</Objectivism>
They do look like a bunch of fucking ass clowns and I unfortunately have to assume the same about their constituents since they keep getting elected. I just thought I would take a stab at explaining it in a way that doesn't depress me.
There's two arguments there: - Starting at a high level language will allow a wider audience, but they'll come out not knowing the fundamentals. - Starting at a low level language will scare off many casuals, but those who stick with it will (typically) know a lot more in the end.
I think people keep turning this into a false choice by assuming that there is only only one end goal for education in coding, which is a career in programming. There are in fact many (and in another decade will surely be many more) careers where a secondary skill in 'light' coding (aka: scripting) is a huge benefit if not a requirement. Starting at the high level is dead wrong (IMO) if you intend to be a programmer, but is just fine if you are targeting basic code-literacy and the ability to write script-y stuff against existing APIs. Since public school is about maximum exposure to a wide area of topics, I think that it makes the most sense to teach high-level as the core class and supply low-level as an elective or AP course. The people who take the core class will still benefit from it even if they never pursue programming, just like those of us with decent grammar / math skills have a general leg up in the world even if we are not writers / mathematicians.
I really don't know why people don't get it that every time Obama or whoever says that we should get kids to 'code' they are referring to code-literacy as an avenue or compliment to many careers (STEM and otherwise), not turning an entire generation of children into career programmers. The latter is so patently absurd I have to assume this is a willful misinterpretation, but I guess it is no more ridiculous than a lot of the other things some folks around here ascribe to the government (or their phobia thereof) for the purposes of strawman-ing it to death.
Oh my, so many confusing terms! Surely they all refer to the exact same thing and were made by the exact same people for the sole purpose of running a long con, and their mere existence debunks the science of the people who are neither of the above, right? Also, somebody call physics and tell them we are on to their game. Which is it nerds: standard model, supersymmetry, strings, multiverse? You're all full of shit!
"...candidate showed a lack of aptitude bordering on open disdain for abstract thinking that leads one to wonder why on earth he chose this profession..."
"calculate the volume of the bus, which would be easy, and start throwing gold balls in a pool until I get the same amount of water displaced"
I don't see these problems as the magical divining rods that many interviewers do, but sometimes you get an answer that is so terrible that it immediately clears any doubt that it is time to move on to the next candidate. This is one of those answers
Not only do you just throw out the hardest part of the problem by asserting that it's 'easy' (it's not), you then proceed in such a way so as to guarantee that your estimate is at least 2x too high. Your answer is a perfect example of what these problems are meant to screen for. They are supposed to get you to demonstrate your ability to unpack a problem that may be easy to say and sounds simple then find all the weird little places where it is actually devilishly complicated, and come up with ways to address them. Because in the end, identifying and addressing 'all the weird little places' is where good and bad developers part ways. I'm generally happy if a single person can either identify them or address them. A person who can do both is gold. A person who can do neither is not getting hired.
I want to hire the guy who's response to this question is to ask me whether the bus has emergency exit hatches or any of those side-facing seats for the elderly, or if it is like some of the metros here in Seattle that have a split windshield with one panel angled in about 10 degrees at the top. I might at least settle for the guy who knows what happens when you try to fill a volume with spheres.
IT is not awful, it is just full of whiners who got into it for the wrong reasons and think that simply being able to code should automatically propel you into a 6 figure salary. My long hours don't come from employer abuse, they come from my love for what I do, so much so that I will stay up until 3 AM working on it because I am literally giddy to see the next piece drop into place and watch the gears turn. My employer no doubt capitalizes on this obsession, but they also pay well and give me lots of freedom. I would do the same for less because this is what I do, I did not choose it because it was trendy or appeared on a 'best careers' list. It seems to me that if you are right for IT, it is right for you.
Once you accept that point, then we can talk about it. Maybe I'll change my mind. Maybe you'll convince enough people to take them. That's fine, you can argue your pro points all you like, so long as you respect the right to refuse.
Here is you apparently saying that you do not reject the efficacy/safety of vaccines, just the idea that they would be made mandatory.
Let me be clear. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM
Here is you equating a failure to predict an earthquake with refusing to get a vaccine that you know prevents a disease, then getting that disease, then giving it to other people, because you feel that your rights are impinged by the measures the rest of us put in place (the measures that you explicitly and knowingly circumvented) to prevent exactly that from happening.
It is right up there with Italy holding scientists responsible for not predicting an earthquake.
Seriously, man. Be real for a second. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think this is a reasonable statement? That the accountability in both cases is the same? That, if my child had died at 2 months because he was too young for the whooping cough vaccine and got it from you, because you didn't get vaccinated, and we have the same pediatrician, and you feel that you have the right to be wherever you want at all times and under all circumstances, that I should just be OK with that because you were just exercising your rights and freedoms and whatnot?
Oops, nevermind - I found the part that totally explains where you are coming from:
You keep thinking you'll change people's minds with facts.
Well I think that pretty much says it all, doesn't it. You have a completely irrational fear of vaccines, or needles, or the government, or whatever, and you have no logical defense for your reprehensible refusal to do one simple fucking thing that you don't like for the benefit of the rest of society, 'cuz freedoms and brownshirts or whatever. Libertarianism at its finest.
Enough with this dead horse. We all know big pharma is an evil industry primarily driven by obscene profits just like insurance. Meanwhile, each of these industries do actually dispense as a side effect, on a regular basis, lifesaving medicine and paid insurance claims. Despite what you think, the drugs are indeed developed by scientists, using science. The fact that these companies have unconscionable practices in pricing, management, testing and marketing does not automatically undo this and make all of their drugs voodoo sugar pills, it just makes the company in general a big bag of dicks. Using the former to argue the latter is just bad logic. I'm not defending pharma, but I'll be damned if I am going to sit here and let you take a crap on logic.
Did you buy that Logitech 'Hyperbolous Arguer' keyboard? The one with hotkeys for 'evil' and 'Hitler', and the function keys that let you incorrectly cite logical fallacies? I think your cat just walked on it.
Compulsory vaccination does not mean G-men strapping you down for the needle. It works from the other end. It means that if you refuse to get your child vaccinated, then you need to home school them and hope that they never want a job in food service or medical care. It means that enough places institute policies requiring vaccines that it becomes overwhelmingly inconvenient for you to not have them. It means that the rest of us are also free to make our choice in the matter and not have it reversed by you (hypothetical you, not you personally) and your ideology-driven health gamble that you are playing. You are still free to refuse, but seems like kind of a dick parent move if you ask me, especially when you throw in the risk of your child dying from a preventable disease.
And if you, say, lie on a school admission form that your kid has a required vaccine, or band together a bunch of paranoid PTA moms to remove the vaccine requirement altogether and kids get sick? Then yes, you are absolutely liable for that. Criminally or civilly doesn't matter to me, but that shit is your fault for making a willfully negligent decision.
Your ideas are evil, thankfully saner people are in charge.
Malevolence and sanity are two different axes. You would know that if you ever read your 1st edition player's handbook.