Indeed. The systemd idiots are waging an emotional campaign on a technological issue. That is about the most stupid thing possible. And they continue to demonstrate their utter cluelessness at any possible opportunity. At this time, the systemd proponents resemble a fanatical sect more than anything else.
As Le Pen will not and cannot deliver on her promises (just look at what Trump does), she is the worst worst for the working poor as well, they just do not have what it takes to understand that. She is using that mental limitation on their part mercilessly because like all populists, she will tell any lie that she thinks will give her more votes.
I am not quick to point at voters at all and it is not only France were this happens. It also has been going on for a few years now.
Red Hat makes a lot of money from support. Having a permanent source of errors that is hard to get rid of and produces hard to diagnose errors (like systemd) is good for business form them, at least in the short run.
Well, that is no surprise at all to anybody competent. The tricky things about KISS is that hacking something complex together initially that sort-of works is a lot easier than coming up with a simple solution initially. Over time, the simple solution then becomes massively better in terms of overall cost, because it is only gets easier to maintain and it stability is massively better, while the complex solution slowly deteriorates into total trash.
Inexperienced developers (like the systemd team) have not experienced that effect themselves or did not understand it when it happened and stupid developers (like the systemd team) do not know that because they ignored everybody that warned of the effect and also failed to actually educated themselves from the literature. This is not the fist time this happens, after all, systemd is just an especially striking example of extreme developer incompetence.
Incidentally, the gross KISS violation of systemd is (besides the dishonorable and utterly despicable campaign for its adoption) the main criticism of systemd.
One of the best definitions of "evil" is to accept a large damage to somebody else for a relatively small personal gain. Why are we tolerating these people on this planet again?
Same here. Same as I do not need or want, say, a TV attached to my pencil, I do not want a complex replacement for the init-system that works well for me. In particular, if that complex replacement is made by a project by two bad developers with known bad personalities that push very hard to put it in everywhere and do not care in the least what they break.
One of the very core engineering wisdoms is "if it is not broken, do not fix it". Another one is KISS. I do not mind if people want to have bad engineering on their machines (and the Windows-crowd is proof enough that many do indeed want that), but I do mind if there is pressure on me to do so too. Of course, the systemd fanatics/liars will now claim there is no such pressure and similar nonsense.
Indeed. It is a choice between "bad" and "far, far worse". Democracy is f***** a the ones that essentially did it are the utterly demented voters that understand nothing. Same everywhere, to different degrees (for now).
I see they are at least bullshit-compatible. My advice to anybody even considering to take that offering is to think long and hard about why you hate Oracle and then the process of thinking about whether you want to buy anything from them ever again will be short indeed.
As on the Djikstra quote, if I find myself thinking for two days how to do something, it hardly matters whether I then implement for an hour or two. In addition, many of the trivial aspects have been automated badly in many languages and you actually then have more effort than in a language that does not stand in your way like C.
Indeed. As soon as you are faced with a decision that has ethics aspects, you are making a choice that involves ethics, even if you refuse to acknowledge that aspect. And as soon as you react to this decision in any way that has an impact on others, you have an ethical responsibility for the outcome.
And that is just the point. For the foreseeable future it will always be humans that make such decisions. And they can and must be held to moral standards.
And who is hugely immature? That would be you, obviously. Fascinating how some people can utterly disgrace themselves. It also makes it obvious why you post as AC.
It is fully applicable, as this is about a (intended to be scientific) study on coding quality and the assumption was that female coders at Facebook are of the same quality as male ones. It looks very much like they are not. Of course, this may well be due to a selection bias when hiring and not true for coders in general.
Discrimination in non-skill-oriented ways when hiring is always bad. In the worst case it will lead to the minorities that get preferred being even lower in competence, because they know early on that they do not need to work as hard. Hence this type of discrimination may well be counterproductive. A case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions (and lack of insight).
If Facebook applies lower standards when hiring female engineers in order to get more of them, then this would entirely explain things. It would simply mean that code by female engineers gets rejected more often on average, because at Facebook code from female engineers would on average be lower in quality. This would mean nothing for the quality of female engineers in general, only that they are rarer, which everybody already knew.
Note: Affirmative action of this type is not a good thing.
I completely agree on this one. Hacking somebody without permission is hugely unprofessional. I attribute it to a superiority complex on the side of the "security researcher". It has gotten to bad that actual IT security consultants have to assure their customers that they will of course stay strictly within their mandate and that they will of course not give any information about their findings to anybody besides the customer (much as a medical professional would and with much the same reasoning). It is quite ridiculous. In the end a security expert is somebody that helps customers with problems, it is not their task to save the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. The systemd idiots are waging an emotional campaign on a technological issue. That is about the most stupid thing possible. And they continue to demonstrate their utter cluelessness at any possible opportunity. At this time, the systemd proponents resemble a fanatical sect more than anything else.
As Le Pen will not and cannot deliver on her promises (just look at what Trump does), she is the worst worst for the working poor as well, they just do not have what it takes to understand that. She is using that mental limitation on their part mercilessly because like all populists, she will tell any lie that she thinks will give her more votes.
I am not quick to point at voters at all and it is not only France were this happens. It also has been going on for a few years now.
Red Hat makes a lot of money from support. Having a permanent source of errors that is hard to get rid of and produces hard to diagnose errors (like systemd) is good for business form them, at least in the short run.
Well, that is no surprise at all to anybody competent. The tricky things about KISS is that hacking something complex together initially that sort-of works is a lot easier than coming up with a simple solution initially. Over time, the simple solution then becomes massively better in terms of overall cost, because it is only gets easier to maintain and it stability is massively better, while the complex solution slowly deteriorates into total trash.
Inexperienced developers (like the systemd team) have not experienced that effect themselves or did not understand it when it happened and stupid developers (like the systemd team) do not know that because they ignored everybody that warned of the effect and also failed to actually educated themselves from the literature. This is not the fist time this happens, after all, systemd is just an especially striking example of extreme developer incompetence.
Incidentally, the gross KISS violation of systemd is (besides the dishonorable and utterly despicable campaign for its adoption) the main criticism of systemd.
One of the best definitions of "evil" is to accept a large damage to somebody else for a relatively small personal gain. Why are we tolerating these people on this planet again?
Most clueless statement so far. Presented as absolute truth in addition. Nice!
Same here. Same as I do not need or want, say, a TV attached to my pencil, I do not want a complex replacement for the init-system that works well for me. In particular, if that complex replacement is made by a project by two bad developers with known bad personalities that push very hard to put it in everywhere and do not care in the least what they break.
One of the very core engineering wisdoms is "if it is not broken, do not fix it". Another one is KISS. I do not mind if people want to have bad engineering on their machines (and the Windows-crowd is proof enough that many do indeed want that), but I do mind if there is pressure on me to do so too. Of course, the systemd fanatics/liars will now claim there is no such pressure and similar nonsense.
An all of what you just said is complete bullshit when looking at some actual facts. Pathetic.
Indeed. It is a choice between "bad" and "far, far worse". Democracy is f***** a the ones that essentially did it are the utterly demented voters that understand nothing. Same everywhere, to different degrees (for now).
"Legal" does not even come into the picture here. Anybody that is not total scum will immediately see how utterly immoral such an action is.
I see they are at least bullshit-compatible. My advice to anybody even considering to take that offering is to think long and hard about why you hate Oracle and then the process of thinking about whether you want to buy anything from them ever again will be short indeed.
Very much so.
As on the Djikstra quote, if I find myself thinking for two days how to do something, it hardly matters whether I then implement for an hour or two. In addition, many of the trivial aspects have been automated badly in many languages and you actually then have more effort than in a language that does not stand in your way like C.
Never by me. Unfortunately, there is a growing faction in the western world that beliefs thinking is optional or even undesirable.
Indeed. As soon as you are faced with a decision that has ethics aspects, you are making a choice that involves ethics, even if you refuse to acknowledge that aspect. And as soon as you react to this decision in any way that has an impact on others, you have an ethical responsibility for the outcome.
And that is just the point. For the foreseeable future it will always be humans that make such decisions. And they can and must be held to moral standards.
And who is hugely immature? That would be you, obviously. Fascinating how some people can utterly disgrace themselves. It also makes it obvious why you post as AC.
And your point is? Do you have a problem with anybody but you actually having skills and insights?
It is fully applicable, as this is about a (intended to be scientific) study on coding quality and the assumption was that female coders at Facebook are of the same quality as male ones. It looks very much like they are not. Of course, this may well be due to a selection bias when hiring and not true for coders in general.
Discrimination in non-skill-oriented ways when hiring is always bad. In the worst case it will lead to the minorities that get preferred being even lower in competence, because they know early on that they do not need to work as hard. Hence this type of discrimination may well be counterproductive. A case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions (and lack of insight).
If Facebook applies lower standards when hiring female engineers in order to get more of them, then this would entirely explain things. It would simply mean that code by female engineers gets rejected more often on average, because at Facebook code from female engineers would on average be lower in quality. This would mean nothing for the quality of female engineers in general, only that they are rarer, which everybody already knew.
Note: Affirmative action of this type is not a good thing.
Naaaa, in order to do this you just need to be big on the bullshit and small on the actual facts.
I completely agree on this one. Hacking somebody without permission is hugely unprofessional. I attribute it to a superiority complex on the side of the "security researcher". It has gotten to bad that actual IT security consultants have to assure their customers that they will of course stay strictly within their mandate and that they will of course not give any information about their findings to anybody besides the customer (much as a medical professional would and with much the same reasoning). It is quite ridiculous. In the end a security expert is somebody that helps customers with problems, it is not their task to save the world.
You wish. But I do not give out free security consulting when it is a) real work and b) the targets are not capable of understanding it anyways.
If that is what you read from my comment, then you are definitely not a smart person, because that is not what I said.
Fascinating. You should seek professional help, there is something seriously broken in your mind.