In the old days, people weren't afraid to fork a project in order to do their own damn thing.
That was true diversity: Prove your worth in the market place of ideas.
Until the marketplace of ideas stomps all over your little project for not having the scale or funding to survive. What's wrong with trying to make your own (very big successful) project appeal to a wider variety of people? I despair at the selfishness on this site.
The camera example is from the past and not really valid any more, but well documented, and the reasons are still valid.
In an ideal world having good feedback from users would fix this, but we never have that in real life. How many times have we heard that innovation is made by people scratching their own itch? Developers have a massive influence on the product because of all the tiny decisions that they make to make their own lives better, improvements that don't go through the bureaucracy of making a change request, justifying it, etc. How many little improvements do you make for *you* vs what someone's told you to do. And how well would you understand it even then?
You know as well as I do that "SJW" is a term made up specifically to group people you don't like and dismiss them en masse. But sure, deliberately pretend I mean the number of letters if it makes you feel better.
2. I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D.
Except you automatically lose out just by having a limited perspective... we all have that, it's just part of life. eg Text and UI controls requiring young levels of eyesight and motor control because nobody making the UI is old or disabled, Camera film being not very good at capturing black skin because it was calibrated by white people for white people, etc
Diversity is a net gain because it gives us perspectives that we can't hold ourselves, and we'll be able to build for everyone not just people who are similar to us. We just shouldn't go so far as to discourage anyone, but nobody is actually suggesting that apart from in the mad fantasies of the strawmen builders.
Or you could start acting as the bigger person instead of reverting to threats and childish three-letter-acronyms to belittle people who have opinions you don't like.
You could, you know, marry her and eliminate all doubt and fear about her future. It's been 10 years - what are you afraid of?
Firstly, her right to be here should have nothing to do with her relationship with me and how well that is going. Secondly, if you actually knew how immigration worked here, you'd know that marriage has little effect, it's far more about earning power and the constantly changing economic wishes of the Home Office.
Thirdly, our decision on our relationship has nothing to do with you.
Which British political parties are talking about kicking out Italians who have been here a decade? Because I'm pretty sure there are none: they've all said anyone already here can stay indefinitely.
Rees-Mogg, our prime minister-in-waiting (and if Corbyn has taught us anything it's that backbench MPs can become leaders unexpectedly), has said exactly that https://www.metro.news/rees-mo...
Your "fear" isn't justified by anything real, which rather proves Cederic's point.
That's easy to say, but the consequences for me if you are wrong are catestrophic.
And if there isn't anything to worry about, why haven't we had a unilateral declaration? It's all tied up in "nothing's agreed until it's all agreed", which is getting more and more sketchy as time goes on. A no deal Brexit by default will revoke all those people's right to stay, and action will have to be taken to give them it. How can there be nothing to worry about if the default state for April next year is 3 million people's status become's illegal?
As for the extremist overlords, you realise it's the EU itself that insists on a two year exit period during which partial de-integration is completely disallowed?
And it's the UK government that is desperate to get it all wrapped up before the next election. Or do you think a 21 month transition period is realistic?
And that it's the EU that has been responsible for the total lack of progress so far?
That's highly debatable. They have their rules, and a plethora of current options of integration or independence currently exist. Creating a new one for the UK isn't in their interests, even if what the UK was asking for made sense and in some cases it's hard to see how it can work. How is the Irish border solved by current UK proposals? Wishful thinking.
I'm not going to over-defend the EU, but they have their position and very little incentive to be nice to the UK especially given how they have been negotiated with.
But that's common to pretty much everyone that voted 'remain'. They're all just fucking scared.
Yes. We are scared. We should be scared, we're so blase about how our world works, it's complex and interconnected and we benefit from that far more than we can comprehend. Unpicking 40 years of integration is a massive risky task and will - should - take a decade. But our extremist overlords that control the ruling party are so worried that they will have their prize taken from them they're rather pull out uncoordinatedly and quickly.
My partner is Italian - we have to live every day with the uncertainty of actually being able to continue our lives. She came here a decade ago with the reasonable expectation that building a life here was something certain. Yeah it'll probably be OK, but do you trust the current government, the Home Office to act in a reasonable way, with all we know about how they've acted in the recent past?
You use 'scared' as an insult. But this is real lives, real people's futures that are being gambled. If you're not scared you're stupid.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Half of the stuff you list is rumours and projections.
You're right about one thing though, the brexiteers have not admitted to the bullshit that they spouted (and keep spouting), they will never take responsibility for the mess we're in and will be in. Everything is someone else's fault. The EU being uncooperative. Remainer conspiracy. They will never own anything. If it doesn't help then it's because you didn't believe enough. Because it wasn't a clean *enough* break.
The right kind of oversight would be limiting what kind of private user information Google collects, or at least forcing them to disclose it. The EU kind of oversight is just trying to handicap Google so a European competitor (hahahahaha) can take its place and do the exact same evil that Google does except while paying EU taxes.
I don't see the evidence for this. Apart from there being no credible european competitors that they are supposedly protecting, Google *have* done bad. We complain about them on this site *all the time*.
I doubt limiting what data they collect is available as a punishment. You can't just make up any rule, it's not a sport. They can only be punished for things that are actually against the law, and anitcompetitive behaviour is one of those things.
Though there are of course games being played here, much in the same way Microsoft did in the 90s. It could easily go the other way in practice, Google pay Apple billions to put their search engine in iOS Safari, so they think it has value. These prices are being set to make a political point.
As much as the more hysterical American/. contingent would prefer their companies to do what they want throughout the world, and the EU is flawed when it comes to regulation, do we really want Google to be able to do anything it wants? There has to be some oversight, so, what?
Android Things is not customizable by third-parties. All Android Things devices use an OS image direct from Google, and Google centrally distributes updates to all Android Things devices
In other words, Google will ship an always-online device that has a microphone, over which the user has no control, in exchange for $150.
Along with Echo, HomePod and other surveillance devices, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that some people want to be enslaved so bad they're ready to shell out money for it.
Do you own a smartphone? Or any mobile phone? Do you know what that device is doing all the time? These Things devices are essentially pluggin-in phones, they have the same capabilities and you ultimately there is very little different in trusting your phone to trusting these devices.
Like all things that you can't verify personally, it comes down to trust. What do you / who do you trust. I get why you wouldn't want to trust a home thingy, but it's much less personal than your smartphone (which has multiple cameras, comes with you, knows where it/you are) which you probably already are OK with.
What a hilarious headline. Microsoft isn't selling any of the Surface stuff. They are shipping it, but it isn't selling. They keep coming out with new model lines and price points, but it isn't working. How desperate are they to convince us? Really pathetic.
D'ya wanna back up your claims with any evidence? Or are you just gonna impotently scream 'fake'?
They are shipping it *somewhere*. Who's buying the stuff they ship year after year? Where's it going? Who's paying for it? Are you suggesting it just disappears? Landfill? What?
Well, one thing to do is.....DO NOT USE biometrics to access your phone.,
In this case, he'd been much better off using a long, complex passphrase/code for phone access.
Yeah, but do you want it convenient or secure?
Always the trade-off, and depends on the threats that you are defending against. Petty thieves are not particularly going to care about your data, they just want a phone to sell, so a fingerprint lock here is a good solution as it's easy to use all the time, and secure enough when you are separated from your phone. Biometrics are better for this case as you are much more likely to use them consistently than a long password.
Where in my post did I say anything about the US? The US is even worse in carbon emissions. You guys are so sensitive whenever anyone dares to criticize the holy EU.
And you are disingenuous. Desperate to stick a criticism into the EU despite it being not the subject of the story, and then play the innocent fact-giver when people get pissed off. "where in my post did I say anything about the US"... well exactly, the story is about the US.
Are you going to tell the one's that saw their friends blown to pieces that they should "Butch the fuck up" when they are having a flashback? Actually: yes!
They should have not been there in the first place. After WWII there hardly was any engagement that was justified by anything... american soldiers simply should stay at home. The world would be a better place then.
Yeah, the military doesn't work that way. You go where you're told.
Good work ignoring everything I said. I'll say it again - the US has a large military because it wants one, not because the rest of the works wants it to have one.
Europeans have 1 month vacations because America grants Europe a massive $150 billion in subsidies in the form of horribly unfair trade deals. Moreover America pays for European defense, saving their countries another ton of cash. Imagine the nice things Americans could have if they didn't have to pay for a continent of ungrateful jerks.
Are you *fucking* kidding me? European holiday is paid for by America. Yeah. Sure.
American military is several times bigger than it needs to be, it's that big because American *wants* a big military. Politically and socially you *love* your military. No politician can ever reduce it, not because of the rest of the world, but because the American people wouldn't support it.
You're honestly telling me that if European countries upped their military then Trump would cut the US's? Bullshit, you don't believe that, nobody does.
We humans keep trying to cheat the basic laws of economics, time and again, thinking that surely this time must be the time things will automagically work. How many millions will starve to death before this kind of foolishness is considered a crime against humanity?
Hard to take you seriously with hyperbole like that.
Humans have been easily fulfilling the needs for survival for centuries. We work now for shiny things, or because the deck has been stacked heavily against most so that the 1% can get absurdly, impossibly rich at the expense of everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
In the old days, people weren't afraid to fork a project in order to do their own damn thing.
That was true diversity: Prove your worth in the market place of ideas.
Until the marketplace of ideas stomps all over your little project for not having the scale or funding to survive. What's wrong with trying to make your own (very big successful) project appeal to a wider variety of people? I despair at the selfishness on this site.
The camera example is from the past and not really valid any more, but well documented, and the reasons are still valid.
In an ideal world having good feedback from users would fix this, but we never have that in real life. How many times have we heard that innovation is made by people scratching their own itch? Developers have a massive influence on the product because of all the tiny decisions that they make to make their own lives better, improvements that don't go through the bureaucracy of making a change request, justifying it, etc. How many little improvements do you make for *you* vs what someone's told you to do. And how well would you understand it even then?
You know as well as I do that "SJW" is a term made up specifically to group people you don't like and dismiss them en masse. But sure, deliberately pretend I mean the number of letters if it makes you feel better.
I will communicate with people how I feel they deserve to be communicated with.
Indeed, please do. And those communities will be just as free to shun you for being an arsehole.
2. I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a
specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't
think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there
is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. Rather, the
problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out
on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in
demographic D.
Except you automatically lose out just by having a limited perspective... we all have that, it's just part of life. eg Text and UI controls requiring young levels of eyesight and motor control because nobody making the UI is old or disabled, Camera film being not very good at capturing black skin because it was calibrated by white people for white people, etc
Diversity is a net gain because it gives us perspectives that we can't hold ourselves, and we'll be able to build for everyone not just people who are similar to us. We just shouldn't go so far as to discourage anyone, but nobody is actually suggesting that apart from in the mad fantasies of the strawmen builders.
Only if the SJWs call off their social justice war. Or if the 80% of the rest of us who oppose political correctness decide to stick up for ourselves and stop being pushed around by toxic bullies.
Or you could start acting as the bigger person instead of reverting to threats and childish three-letter-acronyms to belittle people who have opinions you don't like.
You could, you know, marry her and eliminate all doubt and fear about her future. It's been 10 years - what are you afraid of?
Firstly, her right to be here should have nothing to do with her relationship with me and how well that is going. Secondly, if you actually knew how immigration worked here, you'd know that marriage has little effect, it's far more about earning power and the constantly changing economic wishes of the Home Office.
Thirdly, our decision on our relationship has nothing to do with you.
Which British political parties are talking about kicking out Italians who have been here a decade? Because I'm pretty sure there are none: they've all said anyone already here can stay indefinitely.
Rees-Mogg, our prime minister-in-waiting (and if Corbyn has taught us anything it's that backbench MPs can become leaders unexpectedly), has said exactly that https://www.metro.news/rees-mo...
Your "fear" isn't justified by anything real, which rather proves Cederic's point.
That's easy to say, but the consequences for me if you are wrong are catestrophic.
And if there isn't anything to worry about, why haven't we had a unilateral declaration? It's all tied up in "nothing's agreed until it's all agreed", which is getting more and more sketchy as time goes on. A no deal Brexit by default will revoke all those people's right to stay, and action will have to be taken to give them it. How can there be nothing to worry about if the default state for April next year is 3 million people's status become's illegal?
As for the extremist overlords, you realise it's the EU itself that insists on a two year exit period during which partial de-integration is completely disallowed?
And it's the UK government that is desperate to get it all wrapped up before the next election. Or do you think a 21 month transition period is realistic?
And that it's the EU that has been responsible for the total lack of progress so far?
That's highly debatable. They have their rules, and a plethora of current options of integration or independence currently exist. Creating a new one for the UK isn't in their interests, even if what the UK was asking for made sense and in some cases it's hard to see how it can work. How is the Irish border solved by current UK proposals? Wishful thinking.
I'm not going to over-defend the EU, but they have their position and very little incentive to be nice to the UK especially given how they have been negotiated with.
But that's common to pretty much everyone that voted 'remain'. They're all just fucking scared.
Yes. We are scared. We should be scared, we're so blase about how our world works, it's complex and interconnected and we benefit from that far more than we can comprehend. Unpicking 40 years of integration is a massive risky task and will - should - take a decade. But our extremist overlords that control the ruling party are so worried that they will have their prize taken from them they're rather pull out uncoordinatedly and quickly.
My partner is Italian - we have to live every day with the uncertainty of actually being able to continue our lives. She came here a decade ago with the reasonable expectation that building a life here was something certain. Yeah it'll probably be OK, but do you trust the current government, the Home Office to act in a reasonable way, with all we know about how they've acted in the recent past?
You use 'scared' as an insult. But this is real lives, real people's futures that are being gambled. If you're not scared you're stupid.
lie
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Half of the stuff you list is rumours and projections.
You're right about one thing though, the brexiteers have not admitted to the bullshit that they spouted (and keep spouting), they will never take responsibility for the mess we're in and will be in. Everything is someone else's fault. The EU being uncooperative. Remainer conspiracy. They will never own anything. If it doesn't help then it's because you didn't believe enough. Because it wasn't a clean *enough* break.
Troll skills - poor... too obvious...
Wow, are you really that much of a shut-in loser? The basic nuances of human communications seem utterly lost on you.
and then
(AspieTip
Classy...
The right kind of oversight would be limiting what kind of private user information Google collects, or at least forcing them to disclose it. The EU kind of oversight is just trying to handicap Google so a European competitor (hahahahaha) can take its place and do the exact same evil that Google does except while paying EU taxes.
I don't see the evidence for this. Apart from there being no credible european competitors that they are supposedly protecting, Google *have* done bad. We complain about them on this site *all the time*.
I doubt limiting what data they collect is available as a punishment. You can't just make up any rule, it's not a sport. They can only be punished for things that are actually against the law, and anitcompetitive behaviour is one of those things.
Bullshit. EU is just as anal about European companies behaviour.
Though there are of course games being played here, much in the same way Microsoft did in the 90s. It could easily go the other way in practice, Google pay Apple billions to put their search engine in iOS Safari, so they think it has value. These prices are being set to make a political point.
As much as the more hysterical American /. contingent would prefer their companies to do what they want throughout the world, and the EU is flawed when it comes to regulation, do we really want Google to be able to do anything it wants? There has to be some oversight, so, what?
I love how the people arguing against this are demonstrating the exact problem in their posts...
In other words, Google will ship an always-online device that has a microphone, over which the user has no control, in exchange for $150.
Along with Echo, HomePod and other surveillance devices, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that some people want to be enslaved so bad they're ready to shell out money for it.
Do you own a smartphone? Or any mobile phone? Do you know what that device is doing all the time? These Things devices are essentially pluggin-in phones, they have the same capabilities and you ultimately there is very little different in trusting your phone to trusting these devices.
Like all things that you can't verify personally, it comes down to trust. What do you / who do you trust. I get why you wouldn't want to trust a home thingy, but it's much less personal than your smartphone (which has multiple cameras, comes with you, knows where it/you are) which you probably already are OK with.
You misunderstand. Any info that doesn't fit his predetermined view is just labelled FAKE. That's the level of discussion these days.
What a hilarious headline. Microsoft isn't selling any of the Surface stuff. They are shipping it, but it isn't selling. They keep coming out with new model lines and price points, but it isn't working. How desperate are they to convince us? Really pathetic.
D'ya wanna back up your claims with any evidence? Or are you just gonna impotently scream 'fake'?
They are shipping it *somewhere*. Who's buying the stuff they ship year after year? Where's it going? Who's paying for it? Are you suggesting it just disappears? Landfill? What?
Well, one thing to do is.....DO NOT USE biometrics to access your phone.,
In this case, he'd been much better off using a long, complex passphrase/code for phone access.
Yeah, but do you want it convenient or secure?
Always the trade-off, and depends on the threats that you are defending against. Petty thieves are not particularly going to care about your data, they just want a phone to sell, so a fingerprint lock here is a good solution as it's easy to use all the time, and secure enough when you are separated from your phone. Biometrics are better for this case as you are much more likely to use them consistently than a long password.
Where in my post did I say anything about the US? The US is even worse in carbon emissions. You guys are so sensitive whenever anyone dares to criticize the holy EU.
And you are disingenuous. Desperate to stick a criticism into the EU despite it being not the subject of the story, and then play the innocent fact-giver when people get pissed off. "where in my post did I say anything about the US"... well exactly, the story is about the US.
Are you going to tell the one's that saw their friends blown to pieces that they should "Butch the fuck up" when they are having a flashback?
Actually: yes!
They should have not been there in the first place. After WWII there hardly was any engagement that was justified by anything ... american soldiers simply should stay at home. The world would be a better place then.
Yeah, the military doesn't work that way. You go where you're told.
Good work ignoring everything I said. I'll say it again - the US has a large military because it wants one, not because the rest of the works wants it to have one.
Europeans have 1 month vacations because America grants Europe a massive $150 billion in subsidies in the form of horribly unfair trade deals. Moreover America pays for European defense, saving their countries another ton of cash. Imagine the nice things Americans could have if they didn't have to pay for a continent of ungrateful jerks.
Are you *fucking* kidding me? European holiday is paid for by America. Yeah. Sure.
American military is several times bigger than it needs to be, it's that big because American *wants* a big military. Politically and socially you *love* your military. No politician can ever reduce it, not because of the rest of the world, but because the American people wouldn't support it.
You're honestly telling me that if European countries upped their military then Trump would cut the US's? Bullshit, you don't believe that, nobody does.
We humans keep trying to cheat the basic laws of economics, time and again, thinking that surely this time must be the time things will automagically work. How many millions will starve to death before this kind of foolishness is considered a crime against humanity?
Hard to take you seriously with hyperbole like that.
Humans have been easily fulfilling the needs for survival for centuries. We work now for shiny things, or because the deck has been stacked heavily against most so that the 1% can get absurdly, impossibly rich at the expense of everyone else.