You've lived in some very unrepresentative neighborhoods if you think 12.5% of the human population is gay. Outside of TV shows and movies, mayyybe 4% of the real world population is gay or bisexual.
Do you have anything to back that up or are you just pulling a figure out of your arse?
...because you were tired of spending your limited time on earth staring at a TV? Because besides being $160/month richer, you also have a lot more time to actually do stuff and learn things and talk to people and take your dog for a walk?
Too many choices? If you say so. I think people can handle having choices. I personally choose not to participate.
And many would argue that experiencing art is one of the joys and points of being human. Whereas walking your dog is.... walking. With a dog.
It's fine that you don't feel you want to watch TV - go nuts. But not everything on TV is some valueless exercise, sometimes it's awesome art. Sometimes it's history. Sometimes it's that thing that you use to talk to and connected with other people.
You can rent or buy the DVD. Is there a rule you must watch it as it airs?
Well, yes, if you want to partake in out-of-viewing cultural discussion (which is a large part of the joy of watching) then yes you need to experience it at the same time as others.
Same thing for me. My Google Pixel XL is the last 'high-end' phone I bought. I just need a phone I can make calls (duh!), read my emails, send SMS, browser the web, take some random photos (don't need 999 megapixels resolution!),... THAT's IT. Don't need 4K resolution on a 5.7" screen! Don't need 3D [insert whatever here].... My next phone will cost me less than 300/400$ for sure.
Yeah, the mid-range is pretty solid at this point, I have a Moto Z Play and I don't want for anything. Anyway, your Pixel will get next year's big update too and will satisfactorily do that job for atleast a couple of years. By which point your requirements might be in budget territory... Yay competition.
Why would the device cease to function over time? It might just not accomodate any new formats or provide new features which would otherwise be available from the firmware updates. But it shouldn't the device still work with formats and features available at the time of manufacture? Is the Sonos really threatening to shut it down if you don't agree to their policy???
Probably they mean that the devices are no longer supported so when bugs get introduced, APIs change, get deprecated, etc, they will then start to fail. The devices themselves might not change but the servers that they have to communicate with probably will, and if Sonos stop testing with the old client firmware, or want to change something the over time that client won't be able to work with the server when the old API is switched off.
Or I drive my IC car to a gas station, fill up in two minutes, and am back on the road. . . And even though I live in a major metro area. ..there are a grand total of 4 SuperChargers. ..
Logistics is what **currently** makes EVs unsuitable for regular use for most people. ..
Still, you could easily still save time overall since you're not filling up at a station for the rest of the month. And has the potential to be cheaper to fuel, cheaper to service...
The killer problem for me is not the ultimate range, it's that I don't have a garage or a driveway, I can't sensibly run a lead to the street, so that convenience won't work for me either
I agree sortof, but the security issue is a real problem. Security fixes are almost never backported to old versions. I'm fairly fine with saying "you bought your phone with this featureset, that's all you get", and given that major OS updates often slow the device down in some cases I'd prefer that, but when a security problem arises then that needs to be patched and there's no way of doing that without the latest newest OS release. Same problem with iOS really, if you have an old device you have to upgrade it or you won't get security patches, even if that also makes it unusable slow.
Desktop OSs have had multiple major releases getting separate security updates for ever - we need this on phones too.
As a 48 year old, white, straight male I am constantly getting harassed by headhunters, and my current employer seems to be in a constant state of a nervous breakdown, afraid that I could leave for greener pastures at any time.
I understand that in some circles it is quite fashionable to be a victim, in order to seek sympathy and acceptance. I respectfully choose not to participate in the victim industry, or engage in victim mentality. Now, if you excuse me, I have to go back to hacking on this fine, beautiful weekend, in order to keep my skills up to date, and be employable...
As you say yourself, you are in demand, therefore have no reason to "act like a victim". I know it's really self-affirming to put your success down to your own actions and so implicitly judge others for their 'weakness', but if you're not in their situation. If you were in a situation where maybe there weren't so many jobs, and on the receiving end of discrimination at every turn, you might feel differently.
48 is not so old, try getting a new tech job at 60. Hopefully for us all by the time we get there the general culture will have changed.
I remember reading an article once that was talking about how important your email password (and security of whatever email provider you have) is. It's basically the easy backdoor to almost everything we have online because pretty much everything uses email as a forgot password - so if someone gets into your email they can reset absolutely everything. Scary as fuck... and yet that's one of the ones that many probably don't usually use the crazy-complex passwords for because 'it's just email'.
Tell me oh massive brained one, how many passwords do you hold in your head? And how many will you still know in a year's time when you haven't used some of them for a while? Also, how many do you think you'll be able to hold in your head when you're 60? 70?
Passwords are a terrible solution for security, and a solution that we've never as a species had to deal with before. Remembering something that has absolutely no margin for error is hard for squishy brained organisms to do. Password managers are a solution but not exactly a widely spread well-known one, and they have their own issues.
Also, in your better-than-thou rant you haven't taking into account that worldwide security measures have to *work with stupid people too*. Someone who isn't too clever deserves decent security too, not just you and your Mensa brethren.
Even if that was the case, the question can't just be what is true right now, because the reasons for that are pretty complicated, and feeds back, and have been struggled with for hundreds of years by many social scholars. eg sexism breeds income differences which in turn breeds differences of outlook & example in the following generation. Racism breeds class differences that in turn justifies racism. You can't just look at the situation right now and assume that all is fine, the question should be what sort of a world do we *want*.
I've never seen any evidence supporting their hypothesis that men and women are equivalent
I'm not sure I think the term itself is that negative... like if you just take the words at face value without the only use they get now, it sounds awesome. Who isn't in favour of social justice?? But like any bit of language, it can be hijacked.
> Any discussion that tries to lump massive groups of population and assign traits to them is going to fail, and it's also going to harm individuals who are assigned to that group who don't fit the traits assumed. (And you can't get around that by liberally sprinkling the phrase 'on average'.)
Yep, that's the problem with the way Political correctness is handled these days: If I don't like what you say, I will not listen. If I hate the facts you are saying, I will deny that. 'On average' is a mathematical term; it DOES change the meaning of what is said. No, it's that you WANT to feel harmed and even if the person the meaning of what is said does not harm you in any way, you just *ignore* what the person said, change it (by selectively ignoring the *on average*) and feel harmed. Poor people..
But it does harm you. If you are being assumed to be less competent than other people based solely on some gender or racial division, that does harm you. The 'on average' doesn't help because you still have to exist in that assumed lack-of-competence group, and then prove yourself out of it. Which is clearly harmful, especially if you have to compete against people who get the opposite 'positive' assumption before they've even done anything because they 'look' right.
Firstly, yes I absolutely agree that many people on all sides of debate jump to conclusions, and put people in boxes.
...which is what you *just did yourself* by using that bullshit three-letter-acronym, which is only ever used to belittle and contain. Way to prove you are exactly the same as the people you're railing against.
On the one hand this memo is not the best thing ever to be written... it contains the same moral and intellectual certainty that afflicts programmers generally (and many on this site), and I just generally reject that sort of certainty, especially from someone young and sheltered. Any discussion that tries to lump massive groups of population and assign traits to them is going to fail, and it's also going to harm individuals who are assigned to that group who don't fit the traits assumed. (And you can't get around that by liberally sprinkling the phrase 'on average'.) A policy towards trying to break the human urge to hire copies of yourself should be assumed to be a good idea, in my opinion. You don't know what other sections of society will bring so it's probably a good idea to have representation from them. At the same time diversity of opinion should be encouraged, but a lecture to the entire company about how some groups are generally going to be less good at the job is more than just opinion, it's actively causing other people problems.
On the other had, firing him doesn't feel like the right thing to do at all, atleast not until he's proven that he's such a dick that nobody will work with him anymore (if that was to be the case). He's young and certain, and I think wrong. But that's not enough of a reason, if he's doing the job and open to rational debate then I can't see why he should be pushed out so quickly.
Wow, you're really easy to insult! I would say it's insulting to just assume that everybody is lazy rather than try to think of why the task might be just too hard. When software is still released buggy, when as an industry we still haven't worked out how to 'over-engineer' for safety without still throwing up catastrophic security holes or system crashes in important systems, when games are written by over-worked programmers in crunch mode for months on end... the whole industry is still horribly immature. But sure, it's laziness.
The world needs hundreds of thousands of programmers, and they're not all going to be at your level. The process of making software needs to be resilient enough to handle them, you can't simply wish everyone was as proficient because they're never going to be.
Not even Civilization VI, the kind of game that possibly could use lots of cores for the computer's AI manages to use 8 cores.
That's a good illustration of that problem with developers isn't it? The number of times I've seen something struggling on one core when there are seven free is maddening. Games, especially very graphical ones with a simulated 3D environment and sound sources located in 3D have a lot of things they could be doing at once. The sensible thing is to divide threads by task (as said above) but there isn't a lot of that going on.
It's all very well offering armchair advice but the task of actually thinking through and making reliable logic in a parallel environment is beyond most humans, we just don't think that way and can't think that way. Until we come up with new programming paradigms that make this stuff easier & more reliable, we're always going to have this problem for general computing. Our languages and methods are designed around a single-threaded world.
I'm not on Facebook and people I know on Facebook know not to post photos of me there. They get excommunicated from my life if they disrespect my wishes in the matter.
Cool - but you must admit that's quite an extreme position to take, you have to be very sure to lay down such strong rules away-from-the-norm on your friends. Most people do not have such a tight control of their friends' actions. Nor do you actually know if your friends are actually following your wishes, since you're not on Facebook you can't check, therefore they may be posting and not telling you. Which brings us back to the original problem, of what companies are allowed to do with the information they collect, not just preventing the collection in the first place which in many ways is impractical.
Problem is - if you're friends *are* on Facebook then you're already there, your face is already in their photos and a great deal of info can be gleaned from your associated presence. It's not down to you anymore, we're going to need more than individual action.
Agreed. At some point we're going to have to start regulating data capture - it's just not good enough to let the 'market' decide because you can't control your own surroundings given how many devices exist and how easy they are to have around. Every smartphone could be a capture device and who doesn't have one of those now? It's not too many years away where processing all that data will be realistic.
We're in a new world now, one different from all of human history, so we're going to have to adapt and treat personal data as property.
Slashdot Mirror
You've lived in some very unrepresentative neighborhoods if you think 12.5% of the human population is gay. Outside of TV shows and movies, mayyybe 4% of the real world population is gay or bisexual.
Do you have anything to back that up or are you just pulling a figure out of your arse?
Ars think that Project Treble will make custom builds easier, not harder https://arstechnica.com/gadget...
(I dunno I haven't used done the legwork to form an opinion)
Too many choices? If you say so. I think people can handle having choices. I personally choose not to participate.
And many would argue that experiencing art is one of the joys and points of being human. Whereas walking your dog is.... walking. With a dog.
It's fine that you don't feel you want to watch TV - go nuts. But not everything on TV is some valueless exercise, sometimes it's awesome art. Sometimes it's history. Sometimes it's that thing that you use to talk to and connected with other people.
You may not need it but a lot of people want to watch Game of Thrones...
A lot of people have no life, and fantasize about murderous rampages with dragons.
A lot of people are so worried about the value of their own life they seek to increase it by putting down others' choices.
You can rent or buy the DVD. Is there a rule you must watch it as it airs?
Well, yes, if you want to partake in out-of-viewing cultural discussion (which is a large part of the joy of watching) then yes you need to experience it at the same time as others.
... you could, you know, just go outside and have a life away from screens.
Ah yes, I wondered how long it would be before some "I don't even *own* a TV!" elite would pitch in their condescending offtopic judgement...
Same thing for me. My Google Pixel XL is the last 'high-end' phone I bought. I just need a phone I can make calls (duh!), read my emails, send SMS, browser the web, take some random photos (don't need 999 megapixels resolution!), ... THAT's IT. Don't need 4K resolution on a 5.7" screen! Don't need 3D [insert whatever here]. ... My next phone will cost me less than 300/400$ for sure.
Yeah, the mid-range is pretty solid at this point, I have a Moto Z Play and I don't want for anything. Anyway, your Pixel will get next year's big update too and will satisfactorily do that job for atleast a couple of years. By which point your requirements might be in budget territory... Yay competition.
would be finding Oreo on a sub $400 phone. I am done paying $600+ for a phone that stops getting updates after 3 months.
Nexus 5x? Plus probably all that are listed here (eventually):
http://www.pocket-lint.com/new...
Why would the device cease to function over time? It might just not accomodate any new formats or provide new features which would otherwise be available from the firmware updates. But it shouldn't the device still work with formats and features available at the time of manufacture? Is the Sonos really threatening to shut it down if you don't agree to their policy???
Probably they mean that the devices are no longer supported so when bugs get introduced, APIs change, get deprecated, etc, they will then start to fail. The devices themselves might not change but the servers that they have to communicate with probably will, and if Sonos stop testing with the old client firmware, or want to change something the over time that client won't be able to work with the server when the old API is switched off.
Or I drive my IC car to a gas station, fill up in two minutes, and am back on the road. . . And even though I live in a major metro area. . .there are a grand total of 4 SuperChargers. . .
Logistics is what **currently** makes EVs unsuitable for regular use for most people. . .
Still, you could easily still save time overall since you're not filling up at a station for the rest of the month. And has the potential to be cheaper to fuel, cheaper to service...
The killer problem for me is not the ultimate range, it's that I don't have a garage or a driveway, I can't sensibly run a lead to the street, so that convenience won't work for me either
I agree sortof, but the security issue is a real problem. Security fixes are almost never backported to old versions. I'm fairly fine with saying "you bought your phone with this featureset, that's all you get", and given that major OS updates often slow the device down in some cases I'd prefer that, but when a security problem arises then that needs to be patched and there's no way of doing that without the latest newest OS release. Same problem with iOS really, if you have an old device you have to upgrade it or you won't get security patches, even if that also makes it unusable slow.
Desktop OSs have had multiple major releases getting separate security updates for ever - we need this on phones too.
As a 48 year old, white, straight male I am constantly getting harassed by headhunters, and my current employer seems to be in a constant state of a nervous breakdown, afraid that I could leave for greener pastures at any time.
I understand that in some circles it is quite fashionable to be a victim, in order to seek sympathy and acceptance. I respectfully choose not to participate in the victim industry, or engage in victim mentality. Now, if you excuse me, I have to go back to hacking on this fine, beautiful weekend, in order to keep my skills up to date, and be employable...
As you say yourself, you are in demand, therefore have no reason to "act like a victim". I know it's really self-affirming to put your success down to your own actions and so implicitly judge others for their 'weakness', but if you're not in their situation. If you were in a situation where maybe there weren't so many jobs, and on the receiving end of discrimination at every turn, you might feel differently.
48 is not so old, try getting a new tech job at 60. Hopefully for us all by the time we get there the general culture will have changed.
I remember reading an article once that was talking about how important your email password (and security of whatever email provider you have) is. It's basically the easy backdoor to almost everything we have online because pretty much everything uses email as a forgot password - so if someone gets into your email they can reset absolutely everything. Scary as fuck... and yet that's one of the ones that many probably don't usually use the crazy-complex passwords for because 'it's just email'.
Tell me oh massive brained one, how many passwords do you hold in your head? And how many will you still know in a year's time when you haven't used some of them for a while? Also, how many do you think you'll be able to hold in your head when you're 60? 70?
Passwords are a terrible solution for security, and a solution that we've never as a species had to deal with before. Remembering something that has absolutely no margin for error is hard for squishy brained organisms to do. Password managers are a solution but not exactly a widely spread well-known one, and they have their own issues.
Also, in your better-than-thou rant you haven't taking into account that worldwide security measures have to *work with stupid people too*. Someone who isn't too clever deserves decent security too, not just you and your Mensa brethren.
As you lump "programmers generally" and assign "moral and intellectual certainty" to them your argument fails.
Hah! Oh... yeah, that's hilarious...
Even if that was the case, the question can't just be what is true right now, because the reasons for that are pretty complicated, and feeds back, and have been struggled with for hundreds of years by many social scholars. eg sexism breeds income differences which in turn breeds differences of outlook & example in the following generation. Racism breeds class differences that in turn justifies racism. You can't just look at the situation right now and assume that all is fine, the question should be what sort of a world do we *want*.
I've never seen any evidence supporting their hypothesis that men and women are equivalent
I feel confident in assuming you haven't looked.
Did they? I wasn't aware of that.
I'm not sure I think the term itself is that negative... like if you just take the words at face value without the only use they get now, it sounds awesome. Who isn't in favour of social justice?? But like any bit of language, it can be hijacked.
> Any discussion that tries to lump massive groups of population and assign traits to them is going to fail, and it's also going to harm individuals who are assigned to that group who don't fit the traits assumed. (And you can't get around that by liberally sprinkling the phrase 'on average'.)
Yep, that's the problem with the way Political correctness is handled these days: If I don't like what you say, I will not listen. If I hate the facts you are saying, I will deny that. 'On average' is a mathematical term; it DOES change the meaning of what is said. No, it's that you WANT to feel harmed and even if the person the meaning of what is said does not harm you in any way, you just *ignore* what the person said, change it (by selectively ignoring the *on average*) and feel harmed. Poor people..
But it does harm you. If you are being assumed to be less competent than other people based solely on some gender or racial division, that does harm you. The 'on average' doesn't help because you still have to exist in that assumed lack-of-competence group, and then prove yourself out of it. Which is clearly harmful, especially if you have to compete against people who get the opposite 'positive' assumption before they've even done anything because they 'look' right.
Firstly, yes I absolutely agree that many people on all sides of debate jump to conclusions, and put people in boxes.
...which is what you *just did yourself* by using that bullshit three-letter-acronym, which is only ever used to belittle and contain. Way to prove you are exactly the same as the people you're railing against.
On the one hand this memo is not the best thing ever to be written... it contains the same moral and intellectual certainty that afflicts programmers generally (and many on this site), and I just generally reject that sort of certainty, especially from someone young and sheltered. Any discussion that tries to lump massive groups of population and assign traits to them is going to fail, and it's also going to harm individuals who are assigned to that group who don't fit the traits assumed. (And you can't get around that by liberally sprinkling the phrase 'on average'.) A policy towards trying to break the human urge to hire copies of yourself should be assumed to be a good idea, in my opinion. You don't know what other sections of society will bring so it's probably a good idea to have representation from them. At the same time diversity of opinion should be encouraged, but a lecture to the entire company about how some groups are generally going to be less good at the job is more than just opinion, it's actively causing other people problems.
On the other had, firing him doesn't feel like the right thing to do at all, atleast not until he's proven that he's such a dick that nobody will work with him anymore (if that was to be the case). He's young and certain, and I think wrong. But that's not enough of a reason, if he's doing the job and open to rational debate then I can't see why he should be pushed out so quickly.
That is insulting.
Wow, you're really easy to insult! I would say it's insulting to just assume that everybody is lazy rather than try to think of why the task might be just too hard. When software is still released buggy, when as an industry we still haven't worked out how to 'over-engineer' for safety without still throwing up catastrophic security holes or system crashes in important systems, when games are written by over-worked programmers in crunch mode for months on end... the whole industry is still horribly immature. But sure, it's laziness.
The world needs hundreds of thousands of programmers, and they're not all going to be at your level. The process of making software needs to be resilient enough to handle them, you can't simply wish everyone was as proficient because they're never going to be.
That's a good illustration of that problem with developers isn't it?
The number of times I've seen something struggling on one core when there are seven free is maddening.
Games, especially very graphical ones with a simulated 3D environment and sound sources located in 3D have a lot of things they could be doing at once. The sensible thing is to divide threads by task (as said above) but there isn't a lot of that going on.
It's all very well offering armchair advice but the task of actually thinking through and making reliable logic in a parallel environment is beyond most humans, we just don't think that way and can't think that way. Until we come up with new programming paradigms that make this stuff easier & more reliable, we're always going to have this problem for general computing. Our languages and methods are designed around a single-threaded world.
I'm not on Facebook and people I know on Facebook know not to post photos of me there. They get excommunicated from my life if they disrespect my wishes in the matter.
Cool - but you must admit that's quite an extreme position to take, you have to be very sure to lay down such strong rules away-from-the-norm on your friends. Most people do not have such a tight control of their friends' actions. Nor do you actually know if your friends are actually following your wishes, since you're not on Facebook you can't check, therefore they may be posting and not telling you. Which brings us back to the original problem, of what companies are allowed to do with the information they collect, not just preventing the collection in the first place which in many ways is impractical.
Problem is - if you're friends *are* on Facebook then you're already there, your face is already in their photos and a great deal of info can be gleaned from your associated presence. It's not down to you anymore, we're going to need more than individual action.
Agreed. At some point we're going to have to start regulating data capture - it's just not good enough to let the 'market' decide because you can't control your own surroundings given how many devices exist and how easy they are to have around. Every smartphone could be a capture device and who doesn't have one of those now? It's not too many years away where processing all that data will be realistic.
We're in a new world now, one different from all of human history, so we're going to have to adapt and treat personal data as property.