I think the Twin Towers stood in for that nuke, as those in power judged the nuke to do too much real damage. Not that I think explosives were involved or that 9/11 was masterminded by the US intelligence community. But I consider it highly likely they found out about it beforehand, analyzed the effects and liked them. And so they let the plot proceed.
Bah, that thing is old and outdated and nobody cares. Also, there is no punishment for ignoring it, at worst you get stopped sometime later. So you can try again.
Indeed. And that is why what is kept secret from the population must be kept to an absolute minimum. That is why there must never, ever be secret laws or courts. That is why people abusing the system, breaking laws and the constitution while in office, etc. must face severe personal consequences (up to and including life-imprisonment for treason) as soon as they are not in office anymore. Otherwise the state blows itself up, hides more and more nefarious and evil acts from the population, prepares to keep the population in check by as much violence as is needed, etc. This eventually leads to full fascism and to total collapse a while later.
All government officials (including members of congress, senators, judges, prosecutors, the police, etc.) must be kicked in the nuts from time to time to remind them that they are servants of the people, not the other way round.
You should read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. You level of actual understanding is so very low that you cannot see anymore how wrong you are. For example, there is indeed only the choice between backdoors that make everybody insecure or strong crypto that nobody can break into. Have a look at the last 20 years of crypto-research, much of which tried to tackle this problem...and failed. The consensus among experts (not wannabes like you) is that it cannot be done at this time and very likely cannot be done at all.
Indeed. And while the Nazis were the first to approach mass-manipulation scientifically (the texts by Goebbels are still relevant for modern marketing), the art has advanced a lot since then. Also, the preparations for a war against the population are well underway. Just look at all the military equipment in the hands of police-forces: That equipment shapes a mind-set. And of course, with all the data the NSA has on everybody, it will be easy to go for possible resisters first.
Nice one. I especially like the part about US citizens treating religion as a competitive team-sport, and not as a search for truth. I had not thought of it as that before, but it explains a lot.
And who judges the validity of that evidence? That is a major question. Evidence can be interpreted in numerous ways and can even look good while it is completely bogus. Also, how do you judge of how important some things are? Are shoddy commit messages a valid reason to reject? (IMO they are, but there are people that disagree.) Is inefficient code in places where it is not critical a valid reason to reject? Is code brittle with regards to security (but not insecure as it is) a valid reason to reject?
All these are judgment calls. They are done this way at the moment. All alternatives are known to be worse, alt least to those that have some real world experience and are conversant with the history of software engineering. Yet some people want things different.
In Enterprise IT, try "cannot be migrated away" as worst case frequently encountered in practice, as there is no spec or source, the people doing it have left and the system still is needed. As to FAI, I have used it and while it is very nice for HPC clusters with mostly or fully identical configuration, I do not think it is a good approach if each system is different. You problem with Ubuntu was not Ubuntu, but shoddy system administration and documentation practices. Technology cannot fix that.
I would also suggest that while your current approach works well now, unless you very carefully document what each application needs from its container and why, you are going to run into exactly the same problem as before in 5 years.
Well, you know, the problem may have been with the CEO hiring you, not with who you are. We made the experience (we work in about the same rate-bracket, a bit lower though) that people are generally unwilling to accept advice unless they asked for it themselves. And even then they have problems doing so. And they never respect you for your credentials. For example, at one time I had them rate contents from a student thesis over my direct advice (which was not so much different), until I gently suggested that they would find my name in the "thanks"-section of that thesis.
There are many blithering idiots in the industry that do not know their own limitation, try to play politics, and generally think they know it all when in fact they are often struggling with the basics. I do not think there is a connection to your anatomy here. That may only influence the way their stupidity presents itself, not that it is present in the first place. I must however point out that "suckering such blithering idiots into cul de sacs of their own ignorant reasoning" is highly unprofessional for a consultant, no matter how satisfying it may be.
I consider programming to be a brutal, soul crunching excursion to the outer depths of chaos itself. It is not a place for hand-holding and sympathy.
While I find programming interesting, creative and nice, I do agree that it is most decidedly not an activity where hand-holding has any place. It is difficult enough that you need to find your personal style or you will never be any good at it. That precludes hand-holding. It also means that only people that have reached a certain level of skill will be able to understand what experienced programmers are talking about. Because of this, it is very meritocratic. Unless you say something worthwhile (and doing that is hard) you will get ignored. If you insist, you may get shouted at. That is very much at odds with what some women expect. On the other hand, if you say something worthwhile, nobody even cares what you are, serious coders would welcome a talking teakettle if it was a good coder and had something to contribute.
Indeed, it is. What this requires is a decision by everybody involved in each single case and it needs to be about intention, not concrete words or actions. Fixed rules will only make it far, far worse.
My guess would be that your only failing is that you are one of these pesky women with actual skills and a good appreciation of what you can do well and what you cannot. You know, like any good engineer or scientist. That does not fit those that want to be included just because they are female, but do not bring anything actually worthwhile to the table in the skills department.
I think that is bullshit. Maybe something of that is going on with boys that do not have sisters in all-boys schools, but the others have far more exposure to real-life girls than to any fictional ones.
A single case does not a pattern make. I do not know the specifics of what happened, but there is a rather large selection of possible non-gender issues that could have caused it and quite a few of them would make the people doing it bad people but not misogynists. (Yes, that even applies if they used language that indicated they were. Many people will use anything that singles out an opponent to fight them.)
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. And you are causing harm that way.
From my experience with competent female engineers and scientists, I have to say that many of them are almost as rabidly anti-female as you are. While men seem to work with a blacklist for anybody (assume competence until proven differently), many women seem to use a whitelist for other women (assume incompetent until proven otherwise), and they all say this comes from experience.
You have a decision problem here: Many statements require actual insight in the matter at hand to decide if it is "assholery", a valid opinion or an actual fact.
A prominent example is if you have to tell somebody they are incompetent with regards to something ("incompetence" is a neutral term, albeit many people have a too large ego to be able to take criticism of this kind) and that they need to learn some more specific things. This situation happens in practice. Whether such a comment is "assholery" or simple truth that need to be stated is entirely up to the situation and may require a log of background-knowledge to determine. Yet if you get it wrong, you may end up with a piece of technology that kills somebody because you silenced valid statements.
And second, any mechanism anybody ever has come up with to curb "assholery" is subject to abuse that is very hard to defend against. And it will be abused. What this does, in the end, is that is destroys the respective community or turns it into a sect-like static environment where nobody speaks any truth anymore. That makes it irrelevant as good engineering is utterly impossible without truth.
You wish. But classical pro-systemd propaganda: systemd knows best and all other have to justify themselves, even on the most obvious and trivial things.
There is a large body of knowledge out there how to do these things right. Those that insist that body be quoted whenever somebody criticizes systemd are ignorant fools. And by the time-honored principle "if it is not broken, do not fix it" it is always the new thing that has to justify itself, not the old one that has been working for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Twin Towers stood in for that nuke, as those in power judged the nuke to do too much real damage. Not that I think explosives were involved or that 9/11 was masterminded by the US intelligence community. But I consider it highly likely they found out about it beforehand, analyzed the effects and liked them. And so they let the plot proceed.
You may be on to something there....
A truly pathetic state these affairs have reached.
Bah, that thing is old and outdated and nobody cares. Also, there is no punishment for ignoring it, at worst you get stopped sometime later. So you can try again.
As her about placing a camera in her bathroom and her bedroom....
Indeed. And that is why what is kept secret from the population must be kept to an absolute minimum. That is why there must never, ever be secret laws or courts. That is why people abusing the system, breaking laws and the constitution while in office, etc. must face severe personal consequences (up to and including life-imprisonment for treason) as soon as they are not in office anymore. Otherwise the state blows itself up, hides more and more nefarious and evil acts from the population, prepares to keep the population in check by as much violence as is needed, etc. This eventually leads to full fascism and to total collapse a while later.
All government officials (including members of congress, senators, judges, prosecutors, the police, etc.) must be kicked in the nuts from time to time to remind them that they are servants of the people, not the other way round.
You should read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. You level of actual understanding is so very low that you cannot see anymore how wrong you are. For example, there is indeed only the choice between backdoors that make everybody insecure or strong crypto that nobody can break into. Have a look at the last 20 years of crypto-research, much of which tried to tackle this problem...and failed. The consensus among experts (not wannabes like you) is that it cannot be done at this time and very likely cannot be done at all.
Indeed. And while the Nazis were the first to approach mass-manipulation scientifically (the texts by Goebbels are still relevant for modern marketing), the art has advanced a lot since then. Also, the preparations for a war against the population are well underway. Just look at all the military equipment in the hands of police-forces: That equipment shapes a mind-set. And of course, with all the data the NSA has on everybody, it will be easy to go for possible resisters first.
Nice one. I especially like the part about US citizens treating religion as a competitive team-sport, and not as a search for truth. I had not thought of it as that before, but it explains a lot.
Indeed. The severe problem is the direction things are going here. You know, while head of a minority government, Hitler was _voted_ into office.
And to supplement: The worst enemy of freedom are happy (and dumb) slaves.
You are asking for maintainers to be saints. That will kill FOSS projects very, very fast.
And who judges the validity of that evidence? That is a major question. Evidence can be interpreted in numerous ways and can even look good while it is completely bogus. Also, how do you judge of how important some things are? Are shoddy commit messages a valid reason to reject? (IMO they are, but there are people that disagree.) Is inefficient code in places where it is not critical a valid reason to reject? Is code brittle with regards to security (but not insecure as it is) a valid reason to reject?
All these are judgment calls. They are done this way at the moment. All alternatives are known to be worse, alt least to those that have some real world experience and are conversant with the history of software engineering. Yet some people want things different.
In Enterprise IT, try "cannot be migrated away" as worst case frequently encountered in practice, as there is no spec or source, the people doing it have left and the system still is needed. As to FAI, I have used it and while it is very nice for HPC clusters with mostly or fully identical configuration, I do not think it is a good approach if each system is different. You problem with Ubuntu was not Ubuntu, but shoddy system administration and documentation practices. Technology cannot fix that.
I would also suggest that while your current approach works well now, unless you very carefully document what each application needs from its container and why, you are going to run into exactly the same problem as before in 5 years.
Well, you know, the problem may have been with the CEO hiring you, not with who you are. We made the experience (we work in about the same rate-bracket, a bit lower though) that people are generally unwilling to accept advice unless they asked for it themselves. And even then they have problems doing so. And they never respect you for your credentials. For example, at one time I had them rate contents from a student thesis over my direct advice (which was not so much different), until I gently suggested that they would find my name in the "thanks"-section of that thesis.
There are many blithering idiots in the industry that do not know their own limitation, try to play politics, and generally think they know it all when in fact they are often struggling with the basics. I do not think there is a connection to your anatomy here. That may only influence the way their stupidity presents itself, not that it is present in the first place. I must however point out that "suckering such blithering idiots into cul de sacs of their own ignorant reasoning" is highly unprofessional for a consultant, no matter how satisfying it may be.
Obvious troll is obvious.
I consider programming to be a brutal, soul crunching excursion to the outer depths of chaos itself. It is not a place for hand-holding and sympathy.
While I find programming interesting, creative and nice, I do agree that it is most decidedly not an activity where hand-holding has any place. It is difficult enough that you need to find your personal style or you will never be any good at it. That precludes hand-holding. It also means that only people that have reached a certain level of skill will be able to understand what experienced programmers are talking about. Because of this, it is very meritocratic. Unless you say something worthwhile (and doing that is hard) you will get ignored. If you insist, you may get shouted at. That is very much at odds with what some women expect. On the other hand, if you say something worthwhile, nobody even cares what you are, serious coders would welcome a talking teakettle if it was a good coder and had something to contribute.
Indeed, it is. What this requires is a decision by everybody involved in each single case and it needs to be about intention, not concrete words or actions. Fixed rules will only make it far, far worse.
Truly bad ideas never die...
My guess would be that your only failing is that you are one of these pesky women with actual skills and a good appreciation of what you can do well and what you cannot. You know, like any good engineer or scientist. That does not fit those that want to be included just because they are female, but do not bring anything actually worthwhile to the table in the skills department.
I think that is bullshit. Maybe something of that is going on with boys that do not have sisters in all-boys schools, but the others have far more exposure to real-life girls than to any fictional ones.
A single case does not a pattern make. I do not know the specifics of what happened, but there is a rather large selection of possible non-gender issues that could have caused it and quite a few of them would make the people doing it bad people but not misogynists. (Yes, that even applies if they used language that indicated they were. Many people will use anything that singles out an opponent to fight them.)
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. And you are causing harm that way.
From my experience with competent female engineers and scientists, I have to say that many of them are almost as rabidly anti-female as you are. While men seem to work with a blacklist for anybody (assume competence until proven differently), many women seem to use a whitelist for other women (assume incompetent until proven otherwise), and they all say this comes from experience.
You have a decision problem here: Many statements require actual insight in the matter at hand to decide if it is "assholery", a valid opinion or an actual fact.
A prominent example is if you have to tell somebody they are incompetent with regards to something ("incompetence" is a neutral term, albeit many people have a too large ego to be able to take criticism of this kind) and that they need to learn some more specific things. This situation happens in practice. Whether such a comment is "assholery" or simple truth that need to be stated is entirely up to the situation and may require a log of background-knowledge to determine. Yet if you get it wrong, you may end up with a piece of technology that kills somebody because you silenced valid statements.
And second, any mechanism anybody ever has come up with to curb "assholery" is subject to abuse that is very hard to defend against. And it will be abused. What this does, in the end, is that is destroys the respective community or turns it into a sect-like static environment where nobody speaks any truth anymore. That makes it irrelevant as good engineering is utterly impossible without truth.
You wish. But classical pro-systemd propaganda: systemd knows best and all other have to justify themselves, even on the most obvious and trivial things.
There is a large body of knowledge out there how to do these things right. Those that insist that body be quoted whenever somebody criticizes systemd are ignorant fools. And by the time-honored principle "if it is not broken, do not fix it" it is always the new thing that has to justify itself, not the old one that has been working for decades.
HPC is easy: If a job is lost, you just re-schedule it. HPC is also not what most enterprise software does.