By all means, if you work better in a shirt and tie, wear them. Someone who works better in shorts and T shirt should be able to wear that if he chooses (again barring safety concerns). You are making the typical mistake of projecting your mental state onto your others. Just because you need to dress the part and play-act it doesn't mean they need it too. Clothing shouldn't define the employee or the job, the skills possessed and the skills required should, respectively.
Beyond specific safety concerns (eg a plastic suit for a clean room, or steel toed boots in a factory), clothing choice is entirely irrelevant and should be left to the employee's level of comfort. The fewer distractions at work the better.
It is a cultural problem. A problem you've illustrated quite well. Why does a tie imply professionalism? Why not focus on how efficient your employees are and the accomplishments of your company instead of associating it with arbitrary fashion? This applies to your customers as well. I realize you're bowing to pragmatic reality, but fashion obsession is anything but professional (unless of course you work in the fashion biz).
I'm sure if we gave non whites enough other distractions "to be totally disgusted about", we could avoid having to respect their rights too. Doesn't make it right, however.
..and I'm sure you've made countless grammar nazis (and people who just listened during high school English), grit their teeth every time they had to read your docs.
Yeah because that isn't sexist at all. How about default to whatever the author wants to use? Typically, women would use 'she' and men would use 'he.' Problem solved, and it does not require ugly changes to the language.
..or how about each of us use the (correct) pronoun we want to use? 'They' is already taken. I think they knew that coming up with a whole new word is too much too soon. They'll wait a few more years and then start pushing for those new pronouns in the 'stylebook.' (they're welcome to as long as the stylebook is moved to the fiction section)
Maintaining integrity between the ideas of self and other(s) from different perspectives is a key component of language. This should not be messed with for the sake of feelings or arbitrary ideologies.
1. This has nothing to do with my ego. With all that babble about 'high standards,' I think it might have to do with yours, however.
2. These 'web stack' applications eat far too much host resource for given tasks, don't integrate well with targets, and, with all that extra often-redundant boilerplate code running, are more bug and exploit prone as a result. So much for meeting high expectations.
3. Dumbing down the development process to make programming more 'accessible' to less capable people costs too. These costs are passed to the customers. They (and their support staff) are then stuck running/supporting this slapped-together spaghetti code garbage linking a half dozen runtimes and frameworks that were never intended to do what they were kludged into doing. Again, so much for high standards.
4. You wanted examples of C/C++? What do you think those "polished interfaces" and "secure communications channels" are written in? Same goes for many of these runtimes you hold dear. The fact you think C programmers never use libraries (and even frameworks) shows your ignorance.
5. You talk about user experience yet you seem to have no idea what that means. That does not mean huge fonts, annoying transition animations (that can't be turned off), lots of wasted space, extremely limited functionality, no configurability, and custom tacky widgets that don't integrate with the target system's UI conventions. Oh and don't forget the here-today-changed-tomorrow-fuck-it-we-got-em-now user-hostile mentality that is central to SaaS. 'appy guy' here on slashdot parodies guys like you for a reason.
6. So does yours. 'The cloud' is a system too, complete with its own drawbacks, as I've partly illustrated. It's obvious you're quite blind to them. Perhaps you should do your users and the industry a favor and take your own advice.
You'd think the last 100 years of this dogmatic nonsense would've taught everyone a lesson by now. Communist states typically provided the worst environments with the least incentives for workers.
First, you need to give up your freedom. Be denied all contact with all other humans, and be cut off from the world. You'd need to accept spending years like that. For years, you will not see a sunrise, or a rolling ocean. For years, you cannot join a motorcycle club. For years, even the possibility of a pleasant walk will elude you. You'll miss the spring flowers, the greens of summer, and the spectacle of autumn - for years. And for years, you will not feel wind in your hair or the sun on your face.
Give me a break. Given the alternative is living on the streets, where arguably there's as much access to these things as possible, most would choose the prison offer. Hunger and cold are powerful motivators.
The constant unyielding unending march of useless abstraction.
hardware (hypervisor) -> kernel (per process hardware abstraction for userland) -> interpreted runtimes (nodejs/java/.net etc).
That last part is why modern 'apps' are bloated piles of garbage that need multighz machines to be responsive doing things that could be done on a 486 (eg winNT/mirc on a 486 vs discord on a haswell@4.7ghz). The argument is security and ease of development (zomg! cloud!). The former's been readily disproved and the latter sacrifices significant capability and performance. I think we're well past the point of diminishing returns and into the realm of significant drawbacks.
No.. 100/12.5=8. It's an 8 core (probably 4/8 HT). One core is being maxed out. Instead of idling, the code (chrome runtime) revolved around blinking the cursor is forcing the window context to refresh at the display refresh rate except only when it has to redraw (every 500ms).
here's a few.. 1. he promised to repeal PATRIOT. Instead he renewed it. 2. He promised to end gitmo style detainment. He didn't. 3. He supported modern 'intersectional' social justice with all its hypocrisy. 4. He imposed obamacare which doubled my monthly healthcare costs. The double whammy is that now it's mandatory, so if I'm ever in financial dire straits I can't cut my coverage down or completely in order to put food on the table or pay rent. The state now decides what that ratio must be. 5. His lax policy on immigration (which wasn't always the case btw). 6. His pro infinite-copyright stance. (which trump probably shares) 7. abandoned any pretense of government transparency
No they didn't vote for him based on religion. That was not a major point of his campaign, though he did try to pay lip service to it (and it was poorly done, to the point where I can't imagine any truly faithful christians to take him seriously). They voted for him because they were tired of tax creep and jobs going overseas (remember most people are not capable of 'knowledge' work), and Trump promised to bring the jobs back home (which I think is one of the things he's sincere about, we'll see). They voted for him because Clinton represents everything wrong with washington these days, which is where her 'experience' lies. Trump is no saint, but she's a corrupt crony capitalist parading herself off as a woman of the people. Her statement about having two faces, one for wall street and one for main street is a perfect example. She's smarter than Trump for sure, but her ego is just as big and intellect is not a good measure of intention, only of capability. It is very obvious from her body language and word choice that she thinks she's up 'here' while the rest of us are down 'there.' Rural voters can smell that shit a mile away. I'm not crazy about Romney either as he's also part of the establishment republican base which I have just as many issues with as I do the progressive stack.
Yup. Ideological purity is a sign of organizational illness and both parties have it in spades. Even going back a few years, Reagan and Bill Clinton made more sense than these clowns do. Speaking of ideological lensing, why would I trust cnn over msnbc, fox, npr, nyt, the guardian, or alex jones? Journalists are trained to latch onto left wing bias in college now. There are those who reject that only to hop on the right wing bandwagon instead are just as useless. Useless for anything but the most banal fact reporting.
I do agree with you that I worry about Trump's ability to lead during a crisis, but then again, I had similar views of Bush II and Obama. The stuff with the Russians isn't great, but because of all the smear campaigns in the media, I don't know what's fake news and what isn't.
The hypocrisy of modern social justice is one of the reasons Clinton lost with rural voters (remember her 'woman card' routine?). It's not surprising considering how blatant it's gotten lately. To address your specific example, if progressives want to protect pro-choice, it's about time it was applied to both sexes (equitably, not biologically obviously), but like the christian right's dogmatic fight against abortion, the feminist core on the left will never go for that. So much for equality.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
By all means, if you work better in a shirt and tie, wear them. Someone who works better in shorts and T shirt should be able to wear that if he chooses (again barring safety concerns). You are making the typical mistake of projecting your mental state onto your others. Just because you need to dress the part and play-act it doesn't mean they need it too. Clothing shouldn't define the employee or the job, the skills possessed and the skills required should, respectively.
Beyond specific safety concerns (eg a plastic suit for a clean room, or steel toed boots in a factory), clothing choice is entirely irrelevant and should be left to the employee's level of comfort. The fewer distractions at work the better.
It is a cultural problem. A problem you've illustrated quite well. Why does a tie imply professionalism? Why not focus on how efficient your employees are and the accomplishments of your company instead of associating it with arbitrary fashion? This applies to your customers as well. I realize you're bowing to pragmatic reality, but fashion obsession is anything but professional (unless of course you work in the fashion biz).
I'm sure if we gave non whites enough other distractions "to be totally disgusted about", we could avoid having to respect their rights too. Doesn't make it right, however.
While I don't approve of this outcome at all, the browsing habits of the wealthy are up for sale just like the rest.
but do they really go away?
..and I'm sure you've made countless grammar nazis (and people who just listened during high school English), grit their teeth every time they had to read your docs.
..and what you're missing is that we shouldn't muddy the language for the sake of peoples' sexual fantasies.
Yeah because that isn't sexist at all. How about default to whatever the author wants to use? Typically, women would use 'she' and men would use 'he.' Problem solved, and it does not require ugly changes to the language.
..or how about each of us use the (correct) pronoun we want to use? 'They' is already taken. I think they knew that coming up with a whole new word is too much too soon. They'll wait a few more years and then start pushing for those new pronouns in the 'stylebook.' (they're welcome to as long as the stylebook is moved to the fiction section)
Maintaining integrity between the ideas of self and other(s) from different perspectives is a key component of language. This should not be messed with for the sake of feelings or arbitrary ideologies.
Yes.. and those who own/run the machines will have way too much power over the rest of us.
Yeah.. it's not like they hide their ideological bias much.. Look at the story's url.
https://boingboing.net/2017/03/25/late-stage-capitalism-3.html
'late-stage-capitalism-3.html'
Seriously?
Spoken like a true Stalinist. Protip: You're not any different than the stereotype described.
1. This has nothing to do with my ego. With all that babble about 'high standards,' I think it might have to do with yours, however.
2. These 'web stack' applications eat far too much host resource for given tasks, don't integrate well with targets, and, with all that extra often-redundant boilerplate code running, are more bug and exploit prone as a result. So much for meeting high expectations.
3. Dumbing down the development process to make programming more 'accessible' to less capable people costs too. These costs are passed to the customers. They (and their support staff) are then stuck running/supporting this slapped-together spaghetti code garbage linking a half dozen runtimes and frameworks that were never intended to do what they were kludged into doing. Again, so much for high standards.
4. You wanted examples of C/C++? What do you think those "polished interfaces" and "secure communications channels" are written in? Same goes for many of these runtimes you hold dear. The fact you think C programmers never use libraries (and even frameworks) shows your ignorance.
5. You talk about user experience yet you seem to have no idea what that means. That does not mean huge fonts, annoying transition animations (that can't be turned off), lots of wasted space, extremely limited functionality, no configurability, and custom tacky widgets that don't integrate with the target system's UI conventions. Oh and don't forget the here-today-changed-tomorrow-fuck-it-we-got-em-now user-hostile mentality that is central to SaaS. 'appy guy' here on slashdot parodies guys like you for a reason.
6. So does yours. 'The cloud' is a system too, complete with its own drawbacks, as I've partly illustrated. It's obvious you're quite blind to them. Perhaps you should do your users and the industry a favor and take your own advice.
You'd think the last 100 years of this dogmatic nonsense would've taught everyone a lesson by now. Communist states typically provided the worst environments with the least incentives for workers.
First, you need to give up your freedom. Be denied all contact with all other humans, and be cut off from the world. You'd need to accept spending years like that. For years, you will not see a sunrise, or a rolling ocean. For years, you cannot join a motorcycle club. For years, even the possibility of a pleasant walk will elude you. You'll miss the spring flowers, the greens of summer, and the spectacle of autumn - for years. And for years, you will not feel wind in your hair or the sun on your face.
Give me a break. Given the alternative is living on the streets, where arguably there's as much access to these things as possible, most would choose the prison offer. Hunger and cold are powerful motivators.
The constant unyielding unending march of useless abstraction.
hardware (hypervisor) -> kernel (per process hardware abstraction for userland) -> interpreted runtimes (nodejs/java/.net etc).
That last part is why modern 'apps' are bloated piles of garbage that need multighz machines to be responsive doing things that could be done on a 486 (eg winNT/mirc on a 486 vs discord on a haswell@4.7ghz). The argument is security and ease of development (zomg! cloud!). The former's been readily disproved and the latter sacrifices significant capability and performance. I think we're well past the point of diminishing returns and into the realm of significant drawbacks.
No.. 100/12.5=8. It's an 8 core (probably 4/8 HT). One core is being maxed out. Instead of idling, the code (chrome runtime) revolved around blinking the cursor is forcing the window context to refresh at the display refresh rate except only when it has to redraw (every 500ms).
It duplicates functionality and kills performance
A professional is someone who is paid for his work. If I didn't do what was asked of me I wouldn't get paid and I would not be a professional.
or don't bring one at all..
Yeah because democrats never do or say any of those things. Exactly what I expect from the toadies on both sides.
For middle class economics I'd say they have been.. If they weren't, Clinton would've won easily.
Ok I won't.
here's a few..
1. he promised to repeal PATRIOT. Instead he renewed it.
2. He promised to end gitmo style detainment. He didn't.
3. He supported modern 'intersectional' social justice with all its hypocrisy.
4. He imposed obamacare which doubled my monthly healthcare costs. The double whammy is that now it's mandatory, so if I'm ever in financial dire straits I can't cut my coverage down or completely in order to put food on the table or pay rent. The state now decides what that ratio must be.
5. His lax policy on immigration (which wasn't always the case btw).
6. His pro infinite-copyright stance. (which trump probably shares)
7. abandoned any pretense of government transparency
I did say he was incompetent.
No they didn't vote for him based on religion. That was not a major point of his campaign, though he did try to pay lip service to it (and it was poorly done, to the point where I can't imagine any truly faithful christians to take him seriously). They voted for him because they were tired of tax creep and jobs going overseas (remember most people are not capable of 'knowledge' work), and Trump promised to bring the jobs back home (which I think is one of the things he's sincere about, we'll see). They voted for him because Clinton represents everything wrong with washington these days, which is where her 'experience' lies. Trump is no saint, but she's a corrupt crony capitalist parading herself off as a woman of the people. Her statement about having two faces, one for wall street and one for main street is a perfect example. She's smarter than Trump for sure, but her ego is just as big and intellect is not a good measure of intention, only of capability. It is very obvious from her body language and word choice that she thinks she's up 'here' while the rest of us are down 'there.' Rural voters can smell that shit a mile away. I'm not crazy about Romney either as he's also part of the establishment republican base which I have just as many issues with as I do the progressive stack.
Yup. Ideological purity is a sign of organizational illness and both parties have it in spades. Even going back a few years, Reagan and Bill Clinton made more sense than these clowns do. Speaking of ideological lensing, why would I trust cnn over msnbc, fox, npr, nyt, the guardian, or alex jones? Journalists are trained to latch onto left wing bias in college now. There are those who reject that only to hop on the right wing bandwagon instead are just as useless. Useless for anything but the most banal fact reporting.
I do agree with you that I worry about Trump's ability to lead during a crisis, but then again, I had similar views of Bush II and Obama. The stuff with the Russians isn't great, but because of all the smear campaigns in the media, I don't know what's fake news and what isn't.
The hypocrisy of modern social justice is one of the reasons Clinton lost with rural voters (remember her 'woman card' routine?). It's not surprising considering how blatant it's gotten lately. To address your specific example, if progressives want to protect pro-choice, it's about time it was applied to both sexes (equitably, not biologically obviously), but like the christian right's dogmatic fight against abortion, the feminist core on the left will never go for that. So much for equality.