Then at least you will be able to track down the responsible owner if a drone crashes on your property. The owner may not know where exactly his drone crashed, but willing to take responsibility for any damages if you contact him.
Here in NL this is not mandated by law for drones or RC aircraft, but most RC clubs require that operators put their name and address on a sticker inside the aircraft, and require the operator to join the national aviator's association as an RC Pilot member. Membership is €50 - €80 a year, and comes with insurance covering over €1,000,000 per incident.
This. I remember that at some point pop-ups were rife, as were sites plastered with ads everywhere. Then Google set a good standard for unobtrusive ads, which has held for a good while, but lately the ad wars of old have flared up again. I don't see many pop-ups (or rather: notifications that the browser has blocked one), but banners are getting noisier again. Sometimes literally, with roll-over sound and video, sometimes just in terms of bounciness. Now there are interstitials, interscrollers, and "sponsored content" disguised as actual content, to get around ad blockers. Until we figure out how to get around those. Ads were fine when it was just banners, but advertisers and web masters have pretty much crapped the beds they sleep in by reviving the online loudness war.
This law is the worst, dumbest idea in the history of bad ideas. Actually the intention itself isn't bad, but the law is. Because "collecting personal data" is also interpreted to mean cookies of pretty much any kind, meaning it applies to almost all website. Thus on almost every bloody site you visit, you first have to click through this stupid and pointless warning. The net effect has been pretty much zero; and as the article suggests it may actually be dangerous: people are now so used to clicking away these warnings that the do so without really looking at them. Thankfully an increasing number of companies and organisations are starting to ignore this law.
This is just classic data mining. In an increasing number of fields we are now able to collect vast amounts of data. The next steps are a lot harder: processing the data the right way (apply proper statistical methods), and making sense of it all. The latter involves asking the right questions before drawing conclusiions from the data, else you're just playing a variant of "regex golf", resulting in "rules" fitting the data but having zero predictive value outside the dataset at hand.
Oh, and I have seen very little good come of the use of dashboards of the Excel kind. Very little. They usually are flawed crutches for MBA's
There is absolutely no question about who inherited the rights to Anne's diary: her father Otto. And her father was free to transfer the copyrights to a foundation as he did. The ownership of the copyright is crystal clear
What we're talking about here is when that copyright will expire. The question that makes things complicated in a legal sense is: was her father also a co-author? If he was, the copyright won't expire for a good while. If he wasn't, then Anne's diary is already in the public domain.
To be clear: there are two Anne Frank Foundations, both founded by her dad Otto. The Swiss Anne Frank Fonds which owns the copyrights to the diary, and the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting which amongst other things manages the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam. The Fonds claims that the father is co-author and that this means their copyright holds until 70 years after his death. The Stichting disputes the claim that Anne's father should be considered a co-author.
One copyright expert has said that the claim of the Fonds has no legal basis whatsoever: a court will first have to recognize Otto as co-author, and it is very unlikely that they will do so for the original diary. Until that happens, they can not continue to claim copyright. One exception may be certain parts of the diary that have been published in 1986. Back then, copyright law in several European countries protected a work for 50 years after its first publication instead of until 70 years after the author's death.
Appeasement? Or at least the tendency of most leaders not to rush into a war from which very little can be gained. And history is repeating itself, albeit at a smaller scale: see Turkey and Erdogan.
Analysis is indeed the first step; you need to know what's broken if you are to fix it. Take a few days to take inventory of the issues. Is this indeed a mess of duplicates, resolved issues left open, and non-issues? Then you can remove those and set about fixing the bug registration and tracking process.
If these are real tickets though, then this is what I would suggest in the case as presented by the author of that article:
Start with a broad categorisation of open issues. Which issues are bugs, which are small enhancements, or larger feature requests? If you get a lot of enhancement or feature requests, it's time to talk to the business and make sure that the inflow of new requests slows down at least if they can't afford to stop it completely. Ask the steering group to approve each request and pass only the high priority stuff (if there is no steering group at this point, then you have bigger issues). If you are getting many small requests, then perhaps these can be combined into larger, more coherent requests. That in itself will not only help your ticket count, but it'll also help the steering group to affix the right priority, and help your designer to better make sense of what the business actually wants and design accordingly. In this case, what you may need is a business analyst on your project or embedded in the business to help draft better enhancement requests.
Then start a more detailed categorisation and prioritisation. If there are a lot of nice-to-have low priority items, suggest to management that you take them off the tracker, archive them, and have a separate project to address them at a later time if management still feels that there is a business case for them. At this point you should have stopped new nice-to-haves from being submitted. Of course this is just a cosmetic measure, but if you can make a sizeable dent in the number of open tickets it will be a huge morale booster, and it makes priorities clear. For the remaining items, I would suggest using sprints and get the business and the development team to agree what'll get done in each sprint. At this stage it is crucial to get the business involved in the prioritization of the work in order to manage their expectations and get buy in, and Agile can be a good way to achieve that.
Finding out where the bugs are coming from is part of the long-term solution, but it does need to be addressed following the previous measures. Get the time and if necessary resources to find the root causes of these bugs, and start a process improvement track. If there is a fundamental issue such as software architecture or tool chain, you'll have to present a case to management to redesign or refactor the software, or re-tool. At this stage you should be able to do a cost estimate for this.
At several of my clients (not software development companies, but companies using a lot of bespoke software) I have noticed that often little or no money is being allocated to fixing bugs after the project completes. Not sure whose fault this is. The devs are hired hands who don't care about maintenance; they disappear after the project is completed. The sales manager of the company building the software doesn't want to rock the boat, neither does the business analyst doing the preliminary budgeting: they are afraid that showing high maintenance costs on the estimates will get the project nixed by management. And they are right to fear this: some departments have a separate budget for maintenance (one amount for all software they are responsible for) but it's always insufficient. And of course listing high maintenance costs for a new project means that the department budget for maintenance would have to be adjusted mid-year, which is a horror few bean countrs are willing to comtemplate much less consider. That's a good way to get your project proposal shot down.
In some cases they didn't even budget for enhancement requests. They figured that v1.0 of the software would be bug free (we're testing after all, right?) , would do exactly what they wanted, and that there would be no changes in the business in the foreseeable future.
This. And often the article behind the link isn't even gone, it has simply been moved. Sometimes a new CMS is rolled out, but some software provides links like "article x on page y", and of course as more articles get added, eventually article x will be pushed off that page, invalidating the link. If it's any consolation, it's far worse in most corporations I've worked with. They talk about knowledge management but they don't even know how to preserve it.
Probably depends on what constitutes a "vulnerability". This ranges from the serious "SMS remotely roots your phone without you knowing about it" to the less serious "If you jailbreak your phone and install this dodgy Chinese app, an attacker who gets his hand on your phone may be able to read your last Tweet without having to enter your PIN". Nr/ of vulnerabilities in itself is a crappy measure of security.
The comparison with 3D is interesting. On the one hand, both technologies have been tried before and failed. But where 3D TV has failed despite it being offered for free on most modern sets, 3D cinema has succeeded. For movies that are available in 3D, the 3D screenings are vastly more popular than the ones in 2D. And cinematographers are learning how to properly use 3D to enhance immersion. The reason for 3D TV failing is a simple one: optics. 3D just doesn't work well on small screens with smaller view distances. But for VR to work well you won't need a large room or expensive equipment: it'll work just as well at home.
On the other hand, making great VR content might not be all that easy. Even 3D has proven to be more difficult than just shooting with stereoscopic cameras and adding a few stuff-flies/pokes-into-your-face gimmicks. The art is improving, though, and I'd love to see what someone like Cameron does with VR. But another problem might be cost: shooting VR seems to be a lot more expensive, and the result is something that is as suitable for home viewing as for the cinemas, perhaps even more so. That requires a different business model. But when it comes to content, VR has one huge advantage: games. Adapting games to VR isn't all that difficult, and using VR to play games adds a lot of immersion and possibilities to enhance gameplay, whereas 3D for games was just some visual meh.
So they glued together a small touch lcd, computer, radio and battery, and they tell you it's a must have product? And Apple weren't even the first to do it. And yet... they were right. Point is: Apple didn't make the first smart phone but they perhaps (weasel word inserted to avoid discussion about that topic) made the first usable one. Same is happening with 3D and VR. It's not just the price coming down, the quality being improved, or the usability getting better, it's all of those. Until now VR had been either too expensive, too clunky, or not good enough (in terms of resolution or head tracking accuracy) to appeal even to hard core gamers. That's changing fast.
People have compared 3D with VR, arguing that home use of 3D hasn't really taken off despite it being included for free with most modern TV sets, and conclude that VR must meet with a similar fate. But the two are different. Note that cinemas are still offering plenty of movies in 3D. There's a simple reason: 3D works much better on large screens at larger viewing distances, a simple matter of optics. Avatar in cinematic 3D is a visually amazing movie, but the same movie viewed in 3D at home lacks that deep immersion. Home VR comes with no such drawbacks, and it offers something genuinely new to get exited about: head tracking. For movie directors this will be something really hard to get right at first (there's still only a handful of cinematographers who get 3D right), but for games it's a no-brainer and a (ha ha) game changer.
Even so, 5 million (for 100 or so people who are in this case) is ridiculous. At the utmost they deserve a free upgrade to an iPhone 5. But that's the problem with the notion of punitive damages: it encourages people to try and win the courtroom jackpot. It should be a fine, payable to the state, with victims receiving fair recompense for actual damages.
But in any case, I suspect that 5 million, after deducting the legal fees, will net the plaintiffs a $50 iTunes gift card each.
From a business point of view, the use of cloud components is not unnecessary but required, since they want to lock us in. Built-in vendor lock-in is nothing new either, companies have attempted it with patents, diverging standards and underhanded business practises for over a century.
Exactly, if only to grab the "first re-used 1st stage" medal, after Blue Origin nabbed the one for "first soft-landed 1st stage", even if their accomplishment isn't really in the same league as SpaceX's
Ideally there is such an enforced coding standard, but I have worked in situations with merged teams or projects where coding styles were rather mixed. From what I could see, cosmetic stuff like braces and indentations caused some annoyance but it didn't really lead to much lost coding time, increased effort in fixing or changing things, or an increase in bugs.
Anyway, brace placement won't survive compilation so this method is useless for rooting out the K&R traitors.
Not all of them will disappear. The basic income will be deemed either insufficient for a single person or too high for a couple living together. And it will certainly be insufficient for single parents, unless the basic income is granted to kids as well. Which will make the income ridiculously high for, say, a family of 5. Or think of the chronically ill with health care bills to pay, or healthy persons without such bills. Keep in mind that here in the Netherlands, we like to think that we can put everyone into a fitting family category, then tweak that category's income to the 5th decimal. Only when we can let go of that notion will a basic income scheme make any sense.
I'm also not convinced about the incentive to work at all under such a scheme. In Denmark (I think it was there) they are trying the opposite: the procedure for getting fired is short (by European standards) and the unemployment benefit is generous but rather short (after that you go on a much lower basic stipend). This seems to work well to keep the job market dynamic.
It's good you mention training. I suspect that a fair few people will elect to work only part time, not just to retrain but also to have more leisure time or time with their families. That sounds nice, but it does mean that tax revenues will take another serious hit, and they'd have to get the shortfall somewhere else. Meaning even less benefit from working harder or longer, and less incentive to do so.
Not really. The left, at least in the Netherlands (and worryingly also in Brussels) increasingly ask the government to take a stance to protect religion and to condemn and even punish those who insult, criticize or ridicule religion (especially Islam). The same left calling for what amounts to anti-blasphemy laws to protect Christianty a few decades ago is unthinkable
"'The left", for lack of a better word, have never been anti-religion or even anti-establishment (they are the establishment now, in most of Europe). They are against conservative, nationalist, content people, and will back anything that upsets them. Even if it means backing a religion with vile values (in scripture as well as practise) next to which the supposed inequities of their former enemy Christianity pale in comparison. And in that sense the left is truly anti-conservative: they never sit still, always look for ways to further "improve" society. And if they have nothing to improve, to fix, or to complain about, by god they will find something. See "Zwarte Piet", "micro-inequities", and other such nonsense. Maybe they don't really dislike a specific group of people, but just need to be in a constant state of agitation. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they grew up protesting in the turbulent 70s. A bit like those hard core separatists who keep bombing stuff even if their own erstwhile supporters beg them to stop: it's what gave them purpose in life, and it's all they know.
Slashdot Mirror
Then at least you will be able to track down the responsible owner if a drone crashes on your property. The owner may not know where exactly his drone crashed, but willing to take responsibility for any damages if you contact him.
Here in NL this is not mandated by law for drones or RC aircraft, but most RC clubs require that operators put their name and address on a sticker inside the aircraft, and require the operator to join the national aviator's association as an RC Pilot member. Membership is €50 - €80 a year, and comes with insurance covering over €1,000,000 per incident.
You mean "Soilent". It's what plants crave.
Monster probably beat you to it...
This. I remember that at some point pop-ups were rife, as were sites plastered with ads everywhere. Then Google set a good standard for unobtrusive ads, which has held for a good while, but lately the ad wars of old have flared up again. I don't see many pop-ups (or rather: notifications that the browser has blocked one), but banners are getting noisier again. Sometimes literally, with roll-over sound and video, sometimes just in terms of bounciness. Now there are interstitials, interscrollers, and "sponsored content" disguised as actual content, to get around ad blockers. Until we figure out how to get around those. Ads were fine when it was just banners, but advertisers and web masters have pretty much crapped the beds they sleep in by reviving the online loudness war.
This law is the worst, dumbest idea in the history of bad ideas. Actually the intention itself isn't bad, but the law is. Because "collecting personal data" is also interpreted to mean cookies of pretty much any kind, meaning it applies to almost all website. Thus on almost every bloody site you visit, you first have to click through this stupid and pointless warning. The net effect has been pretty much zero; and as the article suggests it may actually be dangerous: people are now so used to clicking away these warnings that the do so without really looking at them. Thankfully an increasing number of companies and organisations are starting to ignore this law.
This is just classic data mining. In an increasing number of fields we are now able to collect vast amounts of data. The next steps are a lot harder: processing the data the right way (apply proper statistical methods), and making sense of it all. The latter involves asking the right questions before drawing conclusiions from the data, else you're just playing a variant of "regex golf", resulting in "rules" fitting the data but having zero predictive value outside the dataset at hand.
Oh, and I have seen very little good come of the use of dashboards of the Excel kind. Very little. They usually are flawed crutches for MBA's
There is absolutely no question about who inherited the rights to Anne's diary: her father Otto. And her father was free to transfer the copyrights to a foundation as he did. The ownership of the copyright is crystal clear
What we're talking about here is when that copyright will expire. The question that makes things complicated in a legal sense is: was her father also a co-author? If he was, the copyright won't expire for a good while. If he wasn't, then Anne's diary is already in the public domain.
To be clear: there are two Anne Frank Foundations, both founded by her dad Otto. The Swiss Anne Frank Fonds which owns the copyrights to the diary, and the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting which amongst other things manages the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam. The Fonds claims that the father is co-author and that this means their copyright holds until 70 years after his death. The Stichting disputes the claim that Anne's father should be considered a co-author.
One copyright expert has said that the claim of the Fonds has no legal basis whatsoever: a court will first have to recognize Otto as co-author, and it is very unlikely that they will do so for the original diary. Until that happens, they can not continue to claim copyright. One exception may be certain parts of the diary that have been published in 1986. Back then, copyright law in several European countries protected a work for 50 years after its first publication instead of until 70 years after the author's death.
Appeasement? Or at least the tendency of most leaders not to rush into a war from which very little can be gained. And history is repeating itself, albeit at a smaller scale: see Turkey and Erdogan.
Analysis is indeed the first step; you need to know what's broken if you are to fix it. Take a few days to take inventory of the issues. Is this indeed a mess of duplicates, resolved issues left open, and non-issues? Then you can remove those and set about fixing the bug registration and tracking process.
If these are real tickets though, then this is what I would suggest in the case as presented by the author of that article:
Start with a broad categorisation of open issues. Which issues are bugs, which are small enhancements, or larger feature requests? If you get a lot of enhancement or feature requests, it's time to talk to the business and make sure that the inflow of new requests slows down at least if they can't afford to stop it completely. Ask the steering group to approve each request and pass only the high priority stuff (if there is no steering group at this point, then you have bigger issues). If you are getting many small requests, then perhaps these can be combined into larger, more coherent requests. That in itself will not only help your ticket count, but it'll also help the steering group to affix the right priority, and help your designer to better make sense of what the business actually wants and design accordingly. In this case, what you may need is a business analyst on your project or embedded in the business to help draft better enhancement requests.
Then start a more detailed categorisation and prioritisation. If there are a lot of nice-to-have low priority items, suggest to management that you take them off the tracker, archive them, and have a separate project to address them at a later time if management still feels that there is a business case for them. At this point you should have stopped new nice-to-haves from being submitted. Of course this is just a cosmetic measure, but if you can make a sizeable dent in the number of open tickets it will be a huge morale booster, and it makes priorities clear. For the remaining items, I would suggest using sprints and get the business and the development team to agree what'll get done in each sprint. At this stage it is crucial to get the business involved in the prioritization of the work in order to manage their expectations and get buy in, and Agile can be a good way to achieve that.
Finding out where the bugs are coming from is part of the long-term solution, but it does need to be addressed following the previous measures. Get the time and if necessary resources to find the root causes of these bugs, and start a process improvement track. If there is a fundamental issue such as software architecture or tool chain, you'll have to present a case to management to redesign or refactor the software, or re-tool. At this stage you should be able to do a cost estimate for this.
Good point about budgeting for bugs.
At several of my clients (not software development companies, but companies using a lot of bespoke software) I have noticed that often little or no money is being allocated to fixing bugs after the project completes. Not sure whose fault this is. The devs are hired hands who don't care about maintenance; they disappear after the project is completed. The sales manager of the company building the software doesn't want to rock the boat, neither does the business analyst doing the preliminary budgeting: they are afraid that showing high maintenance costs on the estimates will get the project nixed by management. And they are right to fear this: some departments have a separate budget for maintenance (one amount for all software they are responsible for) but it's always insufficient. And of course listing high maintenance costs for a new project means that the department budget for maintenance would have to be adjusted mid-year, which is a horror few bean countrs are willing to comtemplate much less consider. That's a good way to get your project proposal shot down.
In some cases they didn't even budget for enhancement requests. They figured that v1.0 of the software would be bug free (we're testing after all, right?) , would do exactly what they wanted, and that there would be no changes in the business in the foreseeable future.
This. And often the article behind the link isn't even gone, it has simply been moved. Sometimes a new CMS is rolled out, but some software provides links like "article x on page y", and of course as more articles get added, eventually article x will be pushed off that page, invalidating the link. If it's any consolation, it's far worse in most corporations I've worked with. They talk about knowledge management but they don't even know how to preserve it.
A quick peak at my local cinema's lineup:
3D
- Star Wars TFA
- The Hunger Games Mockingjay 2
- Point Break
- In the heart of the sea
Non-3D
- Bon Bini Holland
- Mannenharten
- Spectre
- The Hateful Eight
- Bridge of spies
- Krampus
- Burnt
Pretty mainstream I'd say, especially in the big ticket action genre, which has a lot of potential benefit from 3D. Drama or comedy not so much.
Probably depends on what constitutes a "vulnerability". This ranges from the serious "SMS remotely roots your phone without you knowing about it" to the less serious "If you jailbreak your phone and install this dodgy Chinese app, an attacker who gets his hand on your phone may be able to read your last Tweet without having to enter your PIN". Nr/ of vulnerabilities in itself is a crappy measure of security.
The comparison with 3D is interesting. On the one hand, both technologies have been tried before and failed. But where 3D TV has failed despite it being offered for free on most modern sets, 3D cinema has succeeded. For movies that are available in 3D, the 3D screenings are vastly more popular than the ones in 2D. And cinematographers are learning how to properly use 3D to enhance immersion. The reason for 3D TV failing is a simple one: optics. 3D just doesn't work well on small screens with smaller view distances. But for VR to work well you won't need a large room or expensive equipment: it'll work just as well at home.
On the other hand, making great VR content might not be all that easy. Even 3D has proven to be more difficult than just shooting with stereoscopic cameras and adding a few stuff-flies/pokes-into-your-face gimmicks. The art is improving, though, and I'd love to see what someone like Cameron does with VR. But another problem might be cost: shooting VR seems to be a lot more expensive, and the result is something that is as suitable for home viewing as for the cinemas, perhaps even more so. That requires a different business model. But when it comes to content, VR has one huge advantage: games. Adapting games to VR isn't all that difficult, and using VR to play games adds a lot of immersion and possibilities to enhance gameplay, whereas 3D for games was just some visual meh.
So they glued together a small touch lcd, computer, radio and battery, and they tell you it's a must have product? And Apple weren't even the first to do it. And yet... they were right. Point is: Apple didn't make the first smart phone but they perhaps (weasel word inserted to avoid discussion about that topic) made the first usable one. Same is happening with 3D and VR. It's not just the price coming down, the quality being improved, or the usability getting better, it's all of those. Until now VR had been either too expensive, too clunky, or not good enough (in terms of resolution or head tracking accuracy) to appeal even to hard core gamers. That's changing fast.
People have compared 3D with VR, arguing that home use of 3D hasn't really taken off despite it being included for free with most modern TV sets, and conclude that VR must meet with a similar fate. But the two are different. Note that cinemas are still offering plenty of movies in 3D. There's a simple reason: 3D works much better on large screens at larger viewing distances, a simple matter of optics. Avatar in cinematic 3D is a visually amazing movie, but the same movie viewed in 3D at home lacks that deep immersion. Home VR comes with no such drawbacks, and it offers something genuinely new to get exited about: head tracking. For movie directors this will be something really hard to get right at first (there's still only a handful of cinematographers who get 3D right), but for games it's a no-brainer and a (ha ha) game changer.
Even so, 5 million (for 100 or so people who are in this case) is ridiculous. At the utmost they deserve a free upgrade to an iPhone 5. But that's the problem with the notion of punitive damages: it encourages people to try and win the courtroom jackpot. It should be a fine, payable to the state, with victims receiving fair recompense for actual damages.
But in any case, I suspect that 5 million, after deducting the legal fees, will net the plaintiffs a $50 iTunes gift card each.
From a business point of view, the use of cloud components is not unnecessary but required, since they want to lock us in. Built-in vendor lock-in is nothing new either, companies have attempted it with patents, diverging standards and underhanded business practises for over a century.
IIRC Armadillo never flew anything to space, and they certainly didn't land anything from it.
Exactly, if only to grab the "first re-used 1st stage" medal, after Blue Origin nabbed the one for "first soft-landed 1st stage", even if their accomplishment isn't really in the same league as SpaceX's
It's not exactly a new notion either. Look up Belbin's team roles.
Ideally there is such an enforced coding standard, but I have worked in situations with merged teams or projects where coding styles were rather mixed. From what I could see, cosmetic stuff like braces and indentations caused some annoyance but it didn't really lead to much lost coding time, increased effort in fixing or changing things, or an increase in bugs.
Anyway, brace placement won't survive compilation so this method is useless for rooting out the K&R traitors.
Not all of them will disappear. The basic income will be deemed either insufficient for a single person or too high for a couple living together. And it will certainly be insufficient for single parents, unless the basic income is granted to kids as well. Which will make the income ridiculously high for, say, a family of 5. Or think of the chronically ill with health care bills to pay, or healthy persons without such bills. Keep in mind that here in the Netherlands, we like to think that we can put everyone into a fitting family category, then tweak that category's income to the 5th decimal. Only when we can let go of that notion will a basic income scheme make any sense.
I'm also not convinced about the incentive to work at all under such a scheme. In Denmark (I think it was there) they are trying the opposite: the procedure for getting fired is short (by European standards) and the unemployment benefit is generous but rather short (after that you go on a much lower basic stipend). This seems to work well to keep the job market dynamic.
It's good you mention training. I suspect that a fair few people will elect to work only part time, not just to retrain but also to have more leisure time or time with their families. That sounds nice, but it does mean that tax revenues will take another serious hit, and they'd have to get the shortfall somewhere else. Meaning even less benefit from working harder or longer, and less incentive to do so.
Not really. The left, at least in the Netherlands (and worryingly also in Brussels) increasingly ask the government to take a stance to protect religion and to condemn and even punish those who insult, criticize or ridicule religion (especially Islam). The same left calling for what amounts to anti-blasphemy laws to protect Christianty a few decades ago is unthinkable
"'The left", for lack of a better word, have never been anti-religion or even anti-establishment (they are the establishment now, in most of Europe). They are against conservative, nationalist, content people, and will back anything that upsets them. Even if it means backing a religion with vile values (in scripture as well as practise) next to which the supposed inequities of their former enemy Christianity pale in comparison. And in that sense the left is truly anti-conservative: they never sit still, always look for ways to further "improve" society. And if they have nothing to improve, to fix, or to complain about, by god they will find something. See "Zwarte Piet", "micro-inequities", and other such nonsense. Maybe they don't really dislike a specific group of people, but just need to be in a constant state of agitation. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they grew up protesting in the turbulent 70s. A bit like those hard core separatists who keep bombing stuff even if their own erstwhile supporters beg them to stop: it's what gave them purpose in life, and it's all they know.