The thing here is that the "Teutonic Marker" would have been "ÜberManufacturing" or "UeberManufacturing", which looks and sounds quite different to a German native speaker than "UberManufacturing". They would never have used the former.
The a statements about the validity of data is not an "opinion" when it is well-established data. It is a statement of fact and the expert making it stakes their reputation and their ability to continue publishing on it. It is a statement about what they are very sure their field regards as established ground truth at the time.
An "opinion", on the other hand, is when they talk about their own ideas, their own research results that are not well-established, and the like.
I did quote the article for the former, not the latter. As was quite clear from my wording.
Ah yes. That is certainly happening. Also, people read "neurotic" when what was actually there is "Neuroticism", something everybody has a score on. Also, these are all statistical scores, with large areas of overlap and that was stressed in the original text.
I do not think people that read a text like that can actually partake in this discussion in any meaningful way, as they are unable to see facts and degrees, to them everything is either black or white and often completely misunderstood as a consequence. As such, anything they contribute will make the situation worse. At Google, the situation seems to be pretty bad already, and apparently for this reason.
I am claiming they are active researchers in the field that get published, and they say that the facts are not in dispute, surprising, contested or invalid as stated. They say these are well-known, well-established facts. If they were wrong about this, they would damage their scientific reputation considerably.
This does not say anything about their opinions, but a statement by an active expert that something is well-known and established is not an opinion.
I did quote the experts for their statements that the facts are accurate. That is not a question of "view".
Incidentally, no, you cannot find climate experts that claim it is not happening. When you find some, you always find that they either have not contributed anything scientifically valid to the field for a long time, or that they never did.
They cannot even do what humans can do (this is weak AI, no actual intelligence present), how would they do things humans cannot do? However it seems the can do the very limited things possible now a lot cheaper. That is actually good news.
Basically nobody that criticizes him has actually read what he wrote.
Not true. I've read every sorry, whining word of it.
And at that point we know that you are lying through your teeth. Because there is no language that can reasonably be construed as "whining" in the whole text. You obviously where strongly fantasizing while trying to read it and consequentially failed to actually do so.
It looks like that admitting having an opinion not in line with the company propaganda is now a firing offense. This will do wonders for that culture of openness and tolerance they claim to have at Google.
That makes it rather hard to "rationally disagree". Nicely explains the anti-science, anti-rational and emotional reaction he got: People do not have any good arguments against what he said. (Also, he pretty much did not say most things he is accused of now. Seems almost nobody of his critics read what he wrote.)
Indeed. Which the author also nicely pointed out. Actual reality is typically somewhere in the middle. Which means that in a climate of two "truths" where _both_ are "alternate facts" (a.k.a. "lies"), far too many people have to realize they were wrong for a rational discussion to be possible. That is not a situation were problems can be solved. Also a distinct sign of a dying culture when this becomes the mainstream situation.
Making it something that need to be explicitly enabled is fine
To be clear you are advocating that someone needs to explicitly enable security?
Obviously not. Have you read what this is about? I am, rather obviously, saying that TLS 1.0/1.1 should be disabled by default and TLS 1.2 enabled, but it should be possible to enable TLS 1.0/1.1 as well if needed. There can (and should) be a large warning that this is potentially dangerous, of course.
But I can see from the rest of your posting that you are not interested in facts and probably too stupid to see them when they stare you in the face.
I agree. Incidentally, the author of the "manifesto" basically agrees as well. It is just the public witch-hunt that demonizes what he said, usually by blatantly misstating what he actually said and by ignoring the validity of the scientific references he provides.
As to free time, I prefer that. But I reached this state late in my forties, and for a women that want children of her own that is dangerously late (risk to children, risk of infertility). It does not even require mental differences for these decisions on average (!) being made somewhat different by women and men. (Even though the mental differences do exist and are hard scientific facts at this time.) Simple biology is already quite enough. On this level, gender is a hard, biological fact, not any mythical "social construct".
Why can't we just agree that any women that wants to go into the STEM field should just fact about the same hurdles as any man, not more but not less either. And then, if we have fewer women going though that, lets just accept their decisions as well.
And that is just it. As the haters (and those that damn him now match that description pretty well) have no actual factual arguments, they claim that their stance is "obviously right" and threaten anybody that disagrees with retaliation. Pretty much SOP for fanatical cults.
Basically nobody that criticizes him has actually read what he wrote. You can tell immediately by invalid the claims they are making. Some actual experts that did read his text come to the conclusion that he is pretty much accurately describing reality: https://web.archive.org/web/20...
You are completely wrong on this. As all his statements are fact-based, he cannot have done that. Or is pointing out facts now "hostile"? In actual reality, he was fired for questioning the truth of the cult's quasi-religious statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there are non-intelligent planning algorithms. Take away the BS reporting, and you see a pretty nice one of these at work here.
The thing here is that the "Teutonic Marker" would have been "ÜberManufacturing" or "UeberManufacturing", which looks and sounds quite different to a German native speaker than "UberManufacturing". They would never have used the former.
The a statements about the validity of data is not an "opinion" when it is well-established data. It is a statement of fact and the expert making it stakes their reputation and their ability to continue publishing on it. It is a statement about what they are very sure their field regards as established ground truth at the time.
An "opinion", on the other hand, is when they talk about their own ideas, their own research results that are not well-established, and the like.
I did quote the article for the former, not the latter. As was quite clear from my wording.
Tells you something about the quality of the comments, doesn't it?
Ah yes. That is certainly happening. Also, people read "neurotic" when what was actually there is "Neuroticism", something everybody has a score on. Also, these are all statistical scores, with large areas of overlap and that was stressed in the original text.
I do not think people that read a text like that can actually partake in this discussion in any meaningful way, as they are unable to see facts and degrees, to them everything is either black or white and often completely misunderstood as a consequence. As such, anything they contribute will make the situation worse. At Google, the situation seems to be pretty bad already, and apparently for this reason.
I am claiming they are active researchers in the field that get published, and they say that the facts are not in dispute, surprising, contested or invalid as stated. They say these are well-known, well-established facts. If they were wrong about this, they would damage their scientific reputation considerably.
This does not say anything about their opinions, but a statement by an active expert that something is well-known and established is not an opinion.
I did quote the experts for their statements that the facts are accurate. That is not a question of "view".
Incidentally, no, you cannot find climate experts that claim it is not happening. When you find some, you always find that they either have not contributed anything scientifically valid to the field for a long time, or that they never did.
You seem to be unaware how computers work...
With enough time, pencils and paper, a human can do what a computer can do.
Ah, yes. Only there is not actual "virtue" involved, just conformity.
"we" as in "we, the collected AC fuckups"?
They cannot even do what humans can do (this is weak AI, no actual intelligence present), how would they do things humans cannot do? However it seems the can do the very limited things possible now a lot cheaper. That is actually good news.
Yes. Except that he is an adult speaking truth to power and that usually does not go so well...
A tried and true tactic. Unfortunately it still works on many people.
Basically nobody that criticizes him has actually read what he wrote.
Not true. I've read every sorry, whining word of it.
And at that point we know that you are lying through your teeth. Because there is no language that can reasonably be construed as "whining" in the whole text. You obviously where strongly fantasizing while trying to read it and consequentially failed to actually do so.
1. Not a trick (unless you are unable to read)
2. quilette.com is currently down, and that is the only reason why I posted that link
Also, are you claiming the scientific credentials of those people are invalid? Unless you do, you have no leg to stand on.
Indeed.
It looks like that admitting having an opinion not in line with the company propaganda is now a firing offense. This will do wonders for that culture of openness and tolerance they claim to have at Google.
Actually, for most of his statements, he has Science on his side:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
That makes it rather hard to "rationally disagree". Nicely explains the anti-science, anti-rational and emotional reaction he got: People do not have any good arguments against what he said. (Also, he pretty much did not say most things he is accused of now. Seems almost nobody of his critics read what he wrote.)
Tolerance must be enforced with the most rigid and repressive measures!
Yes, does not get much more hypocritical than this.
Indeed. Which the author also nicely pointed out. Actual reality is typically somewhere in the middle. Which means that in a climate of two "truths" where _both_ are "alternate facts" (a.k.a. "lies"), far too many people have to realize they were wrong for a rational discussion to be possible. That is not a situation were problems can be solved. Also a distinct sign of a dying culture when this becomes the mainstream situation.
Making it something that need to be explicitly enabled is fine
To be clear you are advocating that someone needs to explicitly enable security?
Obviously not. Have you read what this is about? I am, rather obviously, saying that TLS 1.0/1.1 should be disabled by default and TLS 1.2 enabled, but it should be possible to enable TLS 1.0/1.1 as well if needed. There can (and should) be a large warning that this is potentially dangerous, of course.
But I can see from the rest of your posting that you are not interested in facts and probably too stupid to see them when they stare you in the face.
I agree. Incidentally, the author of the "manifesto" basically agrees as well. It is just the public witch-hunt that demonizes what he said, usually by blatantly misstating what he actually said and by ignoring the validity of the scientific references he provides.
As to free time, I prefer that. But I reached this state late in my forties, and for a women that want children of her own that is dangerously late (risk to children, risk of infertility). It does not even require mental differences for these decisions on average (!) being made somewhat different by women and men. (Even though the mental differences do exist and are hard scientific facts at this time.) Simple biology is already quite enough. On this level, gender is a hard, biological fact, not any mythical "social construct".
Why can't we just agree that any women that wants to go into the STEM field should just fact about the same hurdles as any man, not more but not less either. And then, if we have fewer women going though that, lets just accept their decisions as well.
And that is just it. As the haters (and those that damn him now match that description pretty well) have no actual factual arguments, they claim that their stance is "obviously right" and threaten anybody that disagrees with retaliation. Pretty much SOP for fanatical cults.
Basically nobody that criticizes him has actually read what he wrote. You can tell immediately by invalid the claims they are making.
Some actual experts that did read his text come to the conclusion that he is pretty much accurately describing reality:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
You are completely wrong on this. As all his statements are fact-based, he cannot have done that. Or is pointing out facts now "hostile"?
In actual reality, he was fired for questioning the truth of the cult's quasi-religious statements.
For some actual experts chiming in: https://web.archive.org/web/20...