I do sometimes muse about 10 "hour" days, which would make a work day 3 decimal-hours (d-hours, dours?), 'spare' time another 3, sleep 3, and 1 left over for some slop/leeway. You can bet employers would want 3.5 or even 4 dour work days though.
Hotels have regulations to follow which Airbnb washes it's hands. Airbnb doesn't care about negative reviews because you can't post them. When things go wrong Airbnb doesn't care, doesn't allow you to post about it on the site, and doesn't refund the payments. It has to hit the media in order for Airbnb to react. When it does hit the media the wash their hands of it by claiming to delist the owner only to find them back
That's BS. Clearly you never hosted with Airbnb. Hosts get severely punished for bad reviews over time and many hosts have to go overboard in order to avoid bad reviews. 95% of people are reasonable but that last 5% will bitch no matter what. They seem to expect a hotel room for half the cost of a hotel room and if its not up to high-end hotel standards, they bitch endlessly. To counteract those folks Airbnb weights many reviews before taking action and usually the hosts have to cut their rates after just one or two bad reviews. The effect of Airbnb on cities probably isn't good, but you don't need to go making up facts when the actual facts are already in your favor. Also, being a host can be a miserable experience and I expect the corporate hosts to be the bulk of Airbnb's stock in the future.
The people complaining about SV's "leftist echo chamber" are socially conservative...to put it lightly. Often they're techno-commercialist neoreactionaries who are into scientific bigotry like it's 1899 if they're locals (Hi Thiel and Damore!), or just angry frothing deplorables likely to goose-step with tiki torches on the weekend if they're not.
Wow, you complain about something in the first paragraph that you do in the second paragraph. The folks you call socially conservative are most likely just those that object to quota systems for hiring. You seem smart but completely lacking in self-awareness and are doing the exact behaviors that you complain about. The certainty of youth is certainly attractive but its old why older folks don't listen to the young as much as perhaps you wished...
Mitigating failure and taking fewer risks costs you time and opportunities. That's radioactive rat poison in the fast-paced tech company world. You get your lunch eaten moving slowly and deliberately as more agile and stupid companies innovate ahead of you. Fast paced innovating start-up companies aren't being run by conservatives and that's a basic statement of fact. I think you can ascribe risk taking to political bent though I would more classify it as philosophy than one's own politics. I do this simply because big C Conservatism as a political force has been deviating far from little c conservatism as a philosophy.
I've seen this attitude cripple and break more startups than I care to count. Its great to innovate, but first do the basics correctly and without those basics your innovation means shit. Example, spending all your time experimenting with Machine Learning while your site has > 4 sec latency costing the company over a billion dollars a year in revenue. And this isn't the unique weird case, this is the typical case. You are making the classic mistake of thinking you can learn from other's success. That's proof by induction (which isn't valid) and very prone to missing the reasons for success. Learning happens best after failure, not success and perhaps that's your real problem, you don't learn from your failures very well and repeat them often which is something SV has done quite a bit.
Java really needs a Unicode character type built into the language, and not that 16-bit mish-mash that they used. It was a reasonable choice when they made it, but it's really a drag on it's general utility. Last I checked the language didn't even have a usable "is punctuation" function. You had to write it yourself. Either standardize on utf-8 or utf-32 (I think they call that UCS4 or some such). Either is a reasonable choice, Utf-8 matches external media, and utf-32 is better for internal manipulation. Utf-16 is neither fish nor fowl, but only foul. You need to maintain it for backwards compatibility, but really it should be deprecated, and planned for elimination in a decade or so.
I would say that the Unicode character type is built into the language and that's part of the problem. A native UTF-8 char type string is what is really needed but that's really because of performance. The character abstractions built into Java are just fine and deal with anything you mentioned. is_punctuation is a weird concept that would have to be built into a locale somehow as punctuation isn't a universal concept. Also, it would be very difficult to implement correctly 100% of the time and is subject to frequent change and is locale specific. So its exclusion from the standard runtime is probably for the best. Java has issues with characters and strings but you didn't really state what's wrong with it and if you have to deal with i18n issues its the best of the languages for handling those issues that's I've seen.
The Divas are not team players either and if they won't follow the direction SET by the manager, then they are definitely not worth the trouble that they create.
Its likely that you are the real problem. If the divas are the top devs (and likely they are, otherwise they wouldn't be divas) then they likely should be the ones setting the technical direction of the project and not you. You are likely setting a bad course and won't take a hint when they tell you so. So instead of saying, "maybe I'm in the wrong here", you label them "assholes". Perhaps you are the real problem and not the divas. Perhaps they are only divas when a manager without their technical skills tries to "set the direction" in the wrong way. Just a thought...
I've never seen ability to code as being what makes a good developer, at least among workers at least capable of writing a good program. In the environments I've worked in, the programs are all too large for one person to work on so the only way to progress the program is to work with the other people responsible for the rest of the program. Are employers just figuring this out?
For companies that sell software to other companies yes, this is true...for that what, 2% of the industry. For the rest, the modules are much smaller, often composed of smaller modules, each of which has its own team. For projects like that that I've been on, there hasn't been a single project that a single decent developer couldn't handle by themselves. Having an entire team handle that module of code rather than a single developer is about parallelism, not necessity. And the cost of that parallelism is usually office politics and that ruins most things. You sound like part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Instead of posting something content free, except an appeal to your own authority, why don't you say something at least worth further conversation? What is it you think git has or is lacking that makes it not a blockchain implementation?
I think you forgot the sarcasm tag there...if not, git is a scm, it works on diffs and merges diffs from different sources together. Git has nothing to do with a blockchain which is an entirely different thing.
why do you assume the repeated attacks are not also a reaction?
there's a reason people started berating straight white males. they've been the ones deciding things and benefiting for centuries already. now people aren't kissing white ass anymore and you're all butthurt. white people are not fucking victims because minorities finally decided to stand up for themselves. gay people got tired of having to hide their sexuality. black people got tired of being called n*ggers and treated as property. hispanic people got tired of being told that they're all fucking criminals. women got tired of men telling them what they cant do with their bodies. minorities are tired of white people's bullshit.
white people got tired of...? what, exactly? being told that they shouldn't be fucking assholes? for not even a decade? poor you.
That's the SJW version of the elders of Zion. Throughout recent history a few white men have had power. Yes many if not almost all the power people of western Europe and the US have been white men. Shocking considering that's where most of the white people in the world live. At the same time, there were 100000x more white men living in poverty and under the boot of others in those same places. And you are painting both groups (actually the descendants of both groups) with the same brush.
And specifically in this case, the white men you are targeting have very little power. You seem to have no sense of self-awareness as that rant is way too similar to the tactics of anti-Semites throughout history. Its actually quite terrifying that people like you don't seem to recognize the parallels.
How the two major parties of the most powerful nation on Earth selected an idiot slimeball and a scheming crook as their preferred candidates, I'll never understand. As a conservative-leaning libertarian I don't think I've been given an actual good candidate for president since, well, ever, but 2016 set some kind of record for shitty choices.
(And, no, I didn't vote for either of them.)
She's not a crook, by saying that you are buying into the propaganda. What she was was a Washington insider and that's where the hate comes from. The rest is all redirection of that hate towards her (when there are many many many politicians on both sides to dislike in Washington).
There are some alpha coders who are as productive as whole teams of average coders. But if their ego is so great that they can't work with other people without spewing toxic crap, then either that limits their effectiveness and growth away from the computer, or else sooner or later they trigger battles that are destructive to the organization.
Hey, a couple decades back, I've also been the young idiot who's made inconsiderate comments I wish I could now take back. So you shouldn't think of this Code of Conduct as "The Man" telling you what you can and cannot do. Think of this as a counsel from a mentor listing the cigarettes/cancer sticks that will kill or cripple your career in the long run.
Yes, because the software world has failed to work for a half century with this culture and we should immediately change to this new culture. BS, total BS...
Look, programming is frustrating and if you have a group that behaves according to this C&C either 1 of 2 things are true: you have a group of developers who truly don't care or you have a group of Buddhist monks who couldn't be stressed even during a ELE. Since there are very few monk developers, you need people who occasionally will vent.
Also, the lesser skilled programmers ego causes much more of a problem that they realize. When they are told their pet idea isn't good and won't be implemented (for good reason) they often pout and complaining about the more skilled dev(s). Its very classic human behavior but also a main reason that larger human organizations are so very dysfunctional.
As an instructive story, I've been fired 4 times in my life. Each time, I didn't do anything vindictive or destructive (or even communicate with anyone in the company) but each time I looked back 6 months later at the company and managers involved in my firing. Each time, the world saw fit to dump on them HARD. Usually in a way I wouldn't wish on them even at my most angry. Its because each time I was fired, they were getting rid of the most productive, and effective member of the team. The team saw that and reacted by stopping caring about what they were doing as they no longer though that being good at their job was a way to get ahead. Chaos ensues, either upper management or the customers notice and whoever decided to fire me is let go (at this point, its 2 VPs and 2 Directors), and usually they are never hired again in that capacity. I would bet that my experience isn't all that unusual or different from other skilled devs. And that's likely what will happen to FreeBSD...
The US Education system does not reward critical thinking skills, maybe it actually does a lot to discourage it. Here is an example. Until my 11th grade year, I was always taught history from a text book. My 11th grade history teacher actually said that he refuses to use history books because they water down and distill history to one point of view and that they discourage critical thinking.
Couldn't agree more. However you continue...
In fact, he opened our eyes to the fact that history is taught from a single perspective, the white, male one. This made me finally understand why sections on outright Native American abuse and ethnic genocide was relegated to small blurbs inside the book. The text books all taught American History from the manifest destiny, white male superiority perspective. History came alive for me that year because he really and truly taught it from as many different angles as possible. Instead of relegating the Cherokee Trail of Tears to a small blurb that we had to read, we dove into it head first. We were assigned readings by research historians on the topics instead of reading some distillation calculated to indoctrinate a the white male superiority particular way of thinking. In most classic textbooks, Andrew Jackson was a storied hero. More accurate accounts portray him as being quite a bit more human: i.e. theories he suffered from alcoholism and that he was a scoundrel being not of any great upstanding character. Furthermore, the readings he assigned did not paint the Cherokee as perfect and they have done some things that are abhorrent too. The best way to encourage learning is to foster critical thinking. Critical thinking makes learning exciting.
This really seems like you were taught history in this class from a very specify and disingenuous point of view. Just as problematic as the POV you rail against. Those events are extreme examples for sure, but the US is a big country and has been at various points the "good guys" and at various points the "bad guys". When you study history the way your teacher did, you forget that and even worse, project modern morals on historical figures. Likely without any perspective on the society and culture in which those people lived. Its a viewpoint that's attractive as it makes one feel morally superior but generally it has a very negative impact on the students as they fail to notice the historical similarities between the past and now as they see historical events in a simple, good vs evil way. For instance, Tammany Hall is much more interesting to study than anything you mentioned, far more representative of US history and probably a lot more useful to students in the age of Trump. But I'm glad you enjoyed your class.
Before you can program anything useful, you need to learn to program. The C64 still has the advantage.
Just stop. You can't be serious. In the era of the C64, you had to write your own memory allocators to do anything interesting. Writing something that did networking was borderline impossible. The languages were much harder to use and the code was better written in that day. I doubt 90% of the professional programmers today have the skill to program in the 80s when you had to handle your own memory interrupts if your allocated block of memory spanned two memory pages. When you just got a seg fault with no indication of where the problem occurred. When all memory management was manual. When programming was many times harder and more frustrating than what we do today.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the computers themselves. This is about trying to get people with no talent or interest in programming to be good at programming. Won't happen, not now, not ever. Centuries from now when we are living in Star Trek levels of technology, there will still be a smaller group of folks who program the software to make the technology go. Regular folks will not be able to pop over to their terminal window and write some quick code to solve their problems. They will still call in an engineer who will fix things for them.
When you realize that some of those uneducated have the power to put you in jail for pretty much your whole life, you will learn to do math another way.
The world has a funny way of dumping all over those that think that way. For instance, Indiana once declared PI to be 3. And in turn the world decided that technology and industry wouldn't exist in Indiana; fast forward 50 years and Indiana has the worst economy in the midwest.
Math (and Physics) just is, it doesn't care about you or what you want or think. Resisting those ideas is like not believing in gravity, gravity doesn't care, it will just slam you into that ground. Its like trying to argue with the wind and just as useful.
So this always happens to you, for no other reason than everyone else around you are slackers?
Nothing to do with you as a person at all, right..
People like you destroy teams. There's no teamwork with assholes like you.
Just as a counterpoint, on every successful product team I've ever seen, there was at least one person who carried the most weight and was the core of the team. Hell, Weblogic 6.0 was shit because ONE engineer quit after 5.0 was released and the team of 200 other engineers couldn't compensate (or more likely that one engineer kept the bad ideas at bay and without them they crept into the product). Apple fell to shit without Jobs. There are many other examples in software. So perhaps Linus's way is superior to your populist view of engineering. Just a thought....
You are aware that the term 'meritocracy' was invented as satire? You were never supposed to take it seriously.
While technically that's true, the concept goes back to ancient China and Greece so perhaps others took the core idea seriously and that book, not so much...
We're working on decentralizing the internet too. We're a startup that was founded in Norway who have gotten an international team of highly experienced Tech personalities who also agree that this is the future. This is also partly what's behind the Blockchain movement. We've made an open source operating system that we're inserting into the internet. Autonomous infrastructure that allows for building desktop and mobile apps on decentralized technology. Check out the Friend Unifying Platform. https://friendup.cloud/ [friendup.cloud] - https://github.com/FriendUPClo... [github.com]
Not to forget our highly nerdy team of programmers that will help give JavaScript an even bigger push by allowing JS deveopers to built whole apps within a desktop just using JavaScript, including file management, window management, user management.. all you need, open sourced, install on your own hardware or run somewhere else. Client side encryption and DOS drivers to allow integration of arbitrary datasources included. disclaimer: I am part of that team:)
what are you talking about? the ps/2 was software compatible, the only weird part was using the "microchannel architecture" for add-in boards. they were more expensive but MCA boards were definitely made. eventually they phased out.
IBM continued to set standards (e.g. for VGA and Super VGA) for several years while the PS/2 was being sold.
OS/2 was the IBM OS that lost to Windows, PS/2 is a mouse/keyboard plug type (the plug for keyboards and mice before USB existed).
Unless you're a stockholder. Alphabet is priced at about 3x what it should be for a company that's done innovating, and it doesn't even pay a dividend.
I'm not a shareholder but I think Alphabet is priced reasonably fairly for the amount of profits the company generates and seems likely to continue to generate. The company is something of a one trick pony (advertising) but it's a really good trick. Innovation doesn't drive stock prices except insofar as people believe it will result in future profits. (intentionally ignoring bubble cases like Tesla as they are temporary exceptions) Alphabet's profits are about as good as they get and their stock price reflects this fact.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about how companies are valued. A company with growing revenues and profits is worth 3x what one without growing revenues and profits is worth. Currently, Alphabet's revenues are still growing so they still get that 3x multiple. For how much longer will that growth continue is what we are debating. If they can't continue to innovate, their growth will likely stop at which point their value and share price will fall by a significant amount. And most people who follow GOOG closely think its going to be very overvalued in the near future as most people can read the writing on the wall about them.
Also, GOOG gets revenues from quite a few different sources and has done a good job of diversification, so I wouldn't call them a 1 trick pony either.
Did you just say Gavin Newsom is a right-winger? Or did I misread that?
Compared to Matt Gonzalez, he is. Gavin married into money and was a real estate developer who under his term allowed more huge buildings to be built than any other mayor before him. To the left in SF, that's right wing. Now, his rhetoric is more left but his actions were always in line with moneyed interested during his term as mayor. I'll let you decide what all of that means to you however...
Also, the exodus of most of the interesting folks who made SF unique happened during Newsom's and Lee's terms directly due to their money first policies. So to the folks who were impacted directly by them, they are big money politicians which to them means right wing.
By hunter gatherer you mean crime? You mean that some should be either be paid or be allowed to commit crime?
No the parent meant hunting game and gathering food from nature. Of course that's not practical with 7 billion humans but they were making a philosophical argument, not a practical policy suggestion. Don't be so dense.
Sigh. The point the article was making was that Damore is suing Google for being too pro-diversity and Altheid quit because Google was not pro-diversity enough. That's important because it undercuts the premise behind Damore's lawsuit that conservative opinions are silenced because they're conservative. It points to an alternate explanation, that diversity discussions were being shut down because they were controversial and not beneficial to the work environment. If Damore posted his memo after the diversity discussions had already been shut down, more than once, because of internal flame wars, he may have been fired not for his specific views but rather for disobeying the request to let the issue go, and deliberately stirring up trouble.
Actually, that's exactly wrong. Damore was fired for just writing one memo in an on-topic forum. This guy repeatedly distracted work groups with off-topic threads multiple times, even after he was asked to stop. Even then he wasn't fired, he quit because he was asked to stop by an executive (poorly). Damore's lawyers are asserting that Google is filled with people like Altheid and now we have an example of this and even after multiple disruptive incidents he wasn't fired and instead stormed off on his own. Clearly there was a different standard of treatment between these two employees with Damore being treated much worse, presumably due to the stance of his memo. So its basically a smoking gun for Damore being treated worse for his politics. Remember its Google's pattern of reaction/behavior that counts, not the opinion of one developer.
It's not the policies that are the problem, it's the process of implementing them.
The problem here is that Google opened up those policies for debate and thereby lifted the cover on a cesspit. Rather than realise they'd made a mistake and shut that debate down they let it run and left the impression that their diversity policies were open to influence by their employees, many of whom have underdeveloped social skills, an overdeveloped sense of their own worth and no clue of how a business is run. Cue ill-tempered name-calling.
If you believe you need a diversity policy, you devise it and impose it, you don't debate it with the people who will that assume they're the target of it (whether they are or not) because you want them to be clear they'll be fired if they don't comply.
Your company must have a great culture with many happy employees. Are you sure you know how human organizations run? Cause your plan is a great recipe for bitter, unmotivated workers.
Slashdot Mirror
I do sometimes muse about 10 "hour" days, which would make a work day 3 decimal-hours (d-hours, dours?), 'spare' time another 3, sleep 3, and 1 left over for some slop/leeway. You can bet employers would want 3.5 or even 4 dour work days though.
Its been done a few times already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hotels have regulations to follow which Airbnb washes it's hands. Airbnb doesn't care about negative reviews because you can't post them. When things go wrong Airbnb doesn't care, doesn't allow you to post about it on the site, and doesn't refund the payments. It has to hit the media in order for Airbnb to react. When it does hit the media the wash their hands of it by claiming to delist the owner only to find them back
That's BS. Clearly you never hosted with Airbnb. Hosts get severely punished for bad reviews over time and many hosts have to go overboard in order to avoid bad reviews. 95% of people are reasonable but that last 5% will bitch no matter what. They seem to expect a hotel room for half the cost of a hotel room and if its not up to high-end hotel standards, they bitch endlessly. To counteract those folks Airbnb weights many reviews before taking action and usually the hosts have to cut their rates after just one or two bad reviews. The effect of Airbnb on cities probably isn't good, but you don't need to go making up facts when the actual facts are already in your favor. Also, being a host can be a miserable experience and I expect the corporate hosts to be the bulk of Airbnb's stock in the future.
The people complaining about SV's "leftist echo chamber" are socially conservative...to put it lightly. Often they're techno-commercialist neoreactionaries who are into scientific bigotry like it's 1899 if they're locals (Hi Thiel and Damore!), or just angry frothing deplorables likely to goose-step with tiki torches on the weekend if they're not.
Wow, you complain about something in the first paragraph that you do in the second paragraph. The folks you call socially conservative are most likely just those that object to quota systems for hiring. You seem smart but completely lacking in self-awareness and are doing the exact behaviors that you complain about. The certainty of youth is certainly attractive but its old why older folks don't listen to the young as much as perhaps you wished...
Mitigating failure and taking fewer risks costs you time and opportunities. That's radioactive rat poison in the fast-paced tech company world. You get your lunch eaten moving slowly and deliberately as more agile and stupid companies innovate ahead of you. Fast paced innovating start-up companies aren't being run by conservatives and that's a basic statement of fact. I think you can ascribe risk taking to political bent though I would more classify it as philosophy than one's own politics. I do this simply because big C Conservatism as a political force has been deviating far from little c conservatism as a philosophy.
I've seen this attitude cripple and break more startups than I care to count. Its great to innovate, but first do the basics correctly and without those basics your innovation means shit. Example, spending all your time experimenting with Machine Learning while your site has > 4 sec latency costing the company over a billion dollars a year in revenue. And this isn't the unique weird case, this is the typical case. You are making the classic mistake of thinking you can learn from other's success. That's proof by induction (which isn't valid) and very prone to missing the reasons for success. Learning happens best after failure, not success and perhaps that's your real problem, you don't learn from your failures very well and repeat them often which is something SV has done quite a bit.
Java really needs a Unicode character type built into the language, and not that 16-bit mish-mash that they used. It was a reasonable choice when they made it, but it's really a drag on it's general utility. Last I checked the language didn't even have a usable "is punctuation" function. You had to write it yourself. Either standardize on utf-8 or utf-32 (I think they call that UCS4 or some such). Either is a reasonable choice, Utf-8 matches external media, and utf-32 is better for internal manipulation. Utf-16 is neither fish nor fowl, but only foul. You need to maintain it for backwards compatibility, but really it should be deprecated, and planned for elimination in a decade or so.
I would say that the Unicode character type is built into the language and that's part of the problem. A native UTF-8 char type string is what is really needed but that's really because of performance. The character abstractions built into Java are just fine and deal with anything you mentioned. is_punctuation is a weird concept that would have to be built into a locale somehow as punctuation isn't a universal concept. Also, it would be very difficult to implement correctly 100% of the time and is subject to frequent change and is locale specific. So its exclusion from the standard runtime is probably for the best. Java has issues with characters and strings but you didn't really state what's wrong with it and if you have to deal with i18n issues its the best of the languages for handling those issues that's I've seen.
Bad bosses only listen when you agree with them.
Collaboration and communication has to go both ways for it to actually work.
Mod parent up...
The Divas are not team players either and if they won't follow the direction SET by the manager, then they are definitely not worth the trouble that they create.
Its likely that you are the real problem. If the divas are the top devs (and likely they are, otherwise they wouldn't be divas) then they likely should be the ones setting the technical direction of the project and not you. You are likely setting a bad course and won't take a hint when they tell you so. So instead of saying, "maybe I'm in the wrong here", you label them "assholes". Perhaps you are the real problem and not the divas. Perhaps they are only divas when a manager without their technical skills tries to "set the direction" in the wrong way. Just a thought...
I've never seen ability to code as being what makes a good developer, at least among workers at least capable of writing a good program. In the environments I've worked in, the programs are all too large for one person to work on so the only way to progress the program is to work with the other people responsible for the rest of the program. Are employers just figuring this out?
For companies that sell software to other companies yes, this is true...for that what, 2% of the industry. For the rest, the modules are much smaller, often composed of smaller modules, each of which has its own team. For projects like that that I've been on, there hasn't been a single project that a single decent developer couldn't handle by themselves. Having an entire team handle that module of code rather than a single developer is about parallelism, not necessity. And the cost of that parallelism is usually office politics and that ruins most things. You sound like part of the problem, not part of the solution.
In general most developers don't really know any system. How do you think devops came to be.
Just shut up and run this bash script to start the system, you lowly op. And quit trying to show that you know nothing about software architecture...
Instead of posting something content free, except an appeal to your own authority, why don't you say something at least worth further conversation? What is it you think git has or is lacking that makes it not a blockchain implementation?
I think you forgot the sarcasm tag there...if not, git is a scm, it works on diffs and merges diffs from different sources together. Git has nothing to do with a blockchain which is an entirely different thing.
why do you assume the repeated attacks are not also a reaction?
there's a reason people started berating straight white males. they've been the ones deciding things and benefiting for centuries already. now people aren't kissing white ass anymore and you're all butthurt. white people are not fucking victims because minorities finally decided to stand up for themselves. gay people got tired of having to hide their sexuality. black people got tired of being called n*ggers and treated as property. hispanic people got tired of being told that they're all fucking criminals. women got tired of men telling them what they cant do with their bodies. minorities are tired of white people's bullshit.
white people got tired of...? what, exactly? being told that they shouldn't be fucking assholes? for not even a decade? poor you.
That's the SJW version of the elders of Zion. Throughout recent history a few white men have had power. Yes many if not almost all the power people of western Europe and the US have been white men. Shocking considering that's where most of the white people in the world live. At the same time, there were 100000x more white men living in poverty and under the boot of others in those same places. And you are painting both groups (actually the descendants of both groups) with the same brush.
And specifically in this case, the white men you are targeting have very little power. You seem to have no sense of self-awareness as that rant is way too similar to the tactics of anti-Semites throughout history. Its actually quite terrifying that people like you don't seem to recognize the parallels.
How the two major parties of the most powerful nation on Earth selected an idiot slimeball and a scheming crook as their preferred candidates, I'll never understand. As a conservative-leaning libertarian I don't think I've been given an actual good candidate for president since, well, ever, but 2016 set some kind of record for shitty choices.
(And, no, I didn't vote for either of them.)
She's not a crook, by saying that you are buying into the propaganda. What she was was a Washington insider and that's where the hate comes from. The rest is all redirection of that hate towards her (when there are many many many politicians on both sides to dislike in Washington).
There are some alpha coders who are as productive as whole teams of average coders. But if their ego is so great that they can't work with other people without spewing toxic crap, then either that limits their effectiveness and growth away from the computer, or else sooner or later they trigger battles that are destructive to the organization.
Hey, a couple decades back, I've also been the young idiot who's made inconsiderate comments I wish I could now take back. So you shouldn't think of this Code of Conduct as "The Man" telling you what you can and cannot do. Think of this as a counsel from a mentor listing the cigarettes/cancer sticks that will kill or cripple your career in the long run.
Yes, because the software world has failed to work for a half century with this culture and we should immediately change to this new culture. BS, total BS... Look, programming is frustrating and if you have a group that behaves according to this C&C either 1 of 2 things are true: you have a group of developers who truly don't care or you have a group of Buddhist monks who couldn't be stressed even during a ELE. Since there are very few monk developers, you need people who occasionally will vent.
Also, the lesser skilled programmers ego causes much more of a problem that they realize. When they are told their pet idea isn't good and won't be implemented (for good reason) they often pout and complaining about the more skilled dev(s). Its very classic human behavior but also a main reason that larger human organizations are so very dysfunctional.
As an instructive story, I've been fired 4 times in my life. Each time, I didn't do anything vindictive or destructive (or even communicate with anyone in the company) but each time I looked back 6 months later at the company and managers involved in my firing. Each time, the world saw fit to dump on them HARD. Usually in a way I wouldn't wish on them even at my most angry. Its because each time I was fired, they were getting rid of the most productive, and effective member of the team. The team saw that and reacted by stopping caring about what they were doing as they no longer though that being good at their job was a way to get ahead. Chaos ensues, either upper management or the customers notice and whoever decided to fire me is let go (at this point, its 2 VPs and 2 Directors), and usually they are never hired again in that capacity. I would bet that my experience isn't all that unusual or different from other skilled devs. And that's likely what will happen to FreeBSD...
The US Education system does not reward critical thinking skills, maybe it actually does a lot to discourage it. Here is an example. Until my 11th grade year, I was always taught history from a text book. My 11th grade history teacher actually said that he refuses to use history books because they water down and distill history to one point of view and that they discourage critical thinking.
Couldn't agree more. However you continue...
In fact, he opened our eyes to the fact that history is taught from a single perspective, the white, male one. This made me finally understand why sections on outright Native American abuse and ethnic genocide was relegated to small blurbs inside the book. The text books all taught American History from the manifest destiny, white male superiority perspective. History came alive for me that year because he really and truly taught it from as many different angles as possible. Instead of relegating the Cherokee Trail of Tears to a small blurb that we had to read, we dove into it head first. We were assigned readings by research historians on the topics instead of reading some distillation calculated to indoctrinate a the white male superiority particular way of thinking. In most classic textbooks, Andrew Jackson was a storied hero. More accurate accounts portray him as being quite a bit more human: i.e. theories he suffered from alcoholism and that he was a scoundrel being not of any great upstanding character. Furthermore, the readings he assigned did not paint the Cherokee as perfect and they have done some things that are abhorrent too. The best way to encourage learning is to foster critical thinking. Critical thinking makes learning exciting.
This really seems like you were taught history in this class from a very specify and disingenuous point of view. Just as problematic as the POV you rail against. Those events are extreme examples for sure, but the US is a big country and has been at various points the "good guys" and at various points the "bad guys". When you study history the way your teacher did, you forget that and even worse, project modern morals on historical figures. Likely without any perspective on the society and culture in which those people lived. Its a viewpoint that's attractive as it makes one feel morally superior but generally it has a very negative impact on the students as they fail to notice the historical similarities between the past and now as they see historical events in a simple, good vs evil way. For instance, Tammany Hall is much more interesting to study than anything you mentioned, far more representative of US history and probably a lot more useful to students in the age of Trump. But I'm glad you enjoyed your class.
Before you can program anything useful, you need to learn to program. The C64 still has the advantage.
Just stop. You can't be serious. In the era of the C64, you had to write your own memory allocators to do anything interesting. Writing something that did networking was borderline impossible. The languages were much harder to use and the code was better written in that day. I doubt 90% of the professional programmers today have the skill to program in the 80s when you had to handle your own memory interrupts if your allocated block of memory spanned two memory pages. When you just got a seg fault with no indication of where the problem occurred. When all memory management was manual. When programming was many times harder and more frustrating than what we do today.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the computers themselves. This is about trying to get people with no talent or interest in programming to be good at programming. Won't happen, not now, not ever. Centuries from now when we are living in Star Trek levels of technology, there will still be a smaller group of folks who program the software to make the technology go. Regular folks will not be able to pop over to their terminal window and write some quick code to solve their problems. They will still call in an engineer who will fix things for them.
When you realize that some of those uneducated have the power to put you in jail for pretty much your whole life, you will learn to do math another way.
The world has a funny way of dumping all over those that think that way. For instance, Indiana once declared PI to be 3. And in turn the world decided that technology and industry wouldn't exist in Indiana; fast forward 50 years and Indiana has the worst economy in the midwest.
Math (and Physics) just is, it doesn't care about you or what you want or think. Resisting those ideas is like not believing in gravity, gravity doesn't care, it will just slam you into that ground. Its like trying to argue with the wind and just as useful.
So this always happens to you, for no other reason than everyone else around you are slackers?
Nothing to do with you as a person at all, right..
People like you destroy teams. There's no teamwork with assholes like you.
Just as a counterpoint, on every successful product team I've ever seen, there was at least one person who carried the most weight and was the core of the team. Hell, Weblogic 6.0 was shit because ONE engineer quit after 5.0 was released and the team of 200 other engineers couldn't compensate (or more likely that one engineer kept the bad ideas at bay and without them they crept into the product). Apple fell to shit without Jobs. There are many other examples in software. So perhaps Linus's way is superior to your populist view of engineering. Just a thought....
You are aware that the term 'meritocracy' was invented as satire? You were never supposed to take it seriously.
While technically that's true, the concept goes back to ancient China and Greece so perhaps others took the core idea seriously and that book, not so much...
We're working on decentralizing the internet too. We're a startup that was founded in Norway who have gotten an international team of highly experienced Tech personalities who also agree that this is the future. This is also partly what's behind the Blockchain movement. We've made an open source operating system that we're inserting into the internet. Autonomous infrastructure that allows for building desktop and mobile apps on decentralized technology. Check out the Friend Unifying Platform. https://friendup.cloud/ [friendup.cloud] - https://github.com/FriendUPClo... [github.com]
Not to forget our highly nerdy team of programmers that will help give JavaScript an even bigger push by allowing JS deveopers to built whole apps within a desktop just using JavaScript, including file management, window management, user management.. all you need, open sourced, install on your own hardware or run somewhere else. Client side encryption and DOS drivers to allow integration of arbitrary datasources included. disclaimer: I am part of that team :)
I think you just defeated your own argument.
what are you talking about? the ps/2 was software compatible, the only weird part was using the "microchannel architecture" for add-in boards. they were more expensive but MCA boards were definitely made. eventually they phased out.
IBM continued to set standards (e.g. for VGA and Super VGA) for several years while the PS/2 was being sold.
OS/2 was the IBM OS that lost to Windows, PS/2 is a mouse/keyboard plug type (the plug for keyboards and mice before USB existed).
Now get off my lawn....
Unless you're a stockholder. Alphabet is priced at about 3x what it should be for a company that's done innovating, and it doesn't even pay a dividend.
I'm not a shareholder but I think Alphabet is priced reasonably fairly for the amount of profits the company generates and seems likely to continue to generate. The company is something of a one trick pony (advertising) but it's a really good trick. Innovation doesn't drive stock prices except insofar as people believe it will result in future profits. (intentionally ignoring bubble cases like Tesla as they are temporary exceptions) Alphabet's profits are about as good as they get and their stock price reflects this fact.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about how companies are valued. A company with growing revenues and profits is worth 3x what one without growing revenues and profits is worth. Currently, Alphabet's revenues are still growing so they still get that 3x multiple. For how much longer will that growth continue is what we are debating. If they can't continue to innovate, their growth will likely stop at which point their value and share price will fall by a significant amount. And most people who follow GOOG closely think its going to be very overvalued in the near future as most people can read the writing on the wall about them.
Also, GOOG gets revenues from quite a few different sources and has done a good job of diversification, so I wouldn't call them a 1 trick pony either.
Did you just say Gavin Newsom is a right-winger? Or did I misread that?
Compared to Matt Gonzalez, he is. Gavin married into money and was a real estate developer who under his term allowed more huge buildings to be built than any other mayor before him. To the left in SF, that's right wing. Now, his rhetoric is more left but his actions were always in line with moneyed interested during his term as mayor. I'll let you decide what all of that means to you however...
Also, the exodus of most of the interesting folks who made SF unique happened during Newsom's and Lee's terms directly due to their money first policies. So to the folks who were impacted directly by them, they are big money politicians which to them means right wing.
By hunter gatherer you mean crime? You mean that some should be either be paid or be allowed to commit crime?
No the parent meant hunting game and gathering food from nature. Of course that's not practical with 7 billion humans but they were making a philosophical argument, not a practical policy suggestion. Don't be so dense.
Sigh. The point the article was making was that Damore is suing Google for being too pro-diversity and Altheid quit because Google was not pro-diversity enough. That's important because it undercuts the premise behind Damore's lawsuit that conservative opinions are silenced because they're conservative. It points to an alternate explanation, that diversity discussions were being shut down because they were controversial and not beneficial to the work environment. If Damore posted his memo after the diversity discussions had already been shut down, more than once, because of internal flame wars, he may have been fired not for his specific views but rather for disobeying the request to let the issue go, and deliberately stirring up trouble.
Actually, that's exactly wrong. Damore was fired for just writing one memo in an on-topic forum. This guy repeatedly distracted work groups with off-topic threads multiple times, even after he was asked to stop. Even then he wasn't fired, he quit because he was asked to stop by an executive (poorly). Damore's lawyers are asserting that Google is filled with people like Altheid and now we have an example of this and even after multiple disruptive incidents he wasn't fired and instead stormed off on his own. Clearly there was a different standard of treatment between these two employees with Damore being treated much worse, presumably due to the stance of his memo. So its basically a smoking gun for Damore being treated worse for his politics. Remember its Google's pattern of reaction/behavior that counts, not the opinion of one developer.
It's not the policies that are the problem, it's the process of implementing them. The problem here is that Google opened up those policies for debate and thereby lifted the cover on a cesspit. Rather than realise they'd made a mistake and shut that debate down they let it run and left the impression that their diversity policies were open to influence by their employees, many of whom have underdeveloped social skills, an overdeveloped sense of their own worth and no clue of how a business is run. Cue ill-tempered name-calling.
If you believe you need a diversity policy, you devise it and impose it, you don't debate it with the people who will that assume they're the target of it (whether they are or not) because you want them to be clear they'll be fired if they don't comply.
Your company must have a great culture with many happy employees. Are you sure you know how human organizations run? Cause your plan is a great recipe for bitter, unmotivated workers.