Keep in mind that such a level of freedom to reject work is an advantage a large percentage of Americans do not have. The idea of market forces being the best or only solution is of great appeal to people who have significant power (and low vulnerability) in that domain, but it is less useful to those who do not.
It is not that dissimilar from people who say that the political process is fine and that if you do not feel represented you are free to engage in personal lobbying or running for office. Theoretically anyone has the ability to steer the government, but realistically the utility of it is pretty minimal to most people.
Beyond political and religious messages, I suspect it will be a useful tool in getting competing businesses's news buried. In the past all you could do was game things so your stuff got highlighted, but to be able to negatively impact someone else's stuff? Consulting and marketing 'services' will probalby be folding it into their toolbelt as soon as it goes live.
Ah, so the requirements of the course do not match the language. I guess that kinda makes sense, but reminds me of those ultra-specific job descriptions that are obviously written with a specific person in mind. For instance, if I wrote the curriculum to include monkey patching, I suspect Visual Basic would suddenly find itself inappropriate.
The C thing really seemed pretty out of place. Dropping down to C (which you can only really do in cPython) in Python is kinda like dropping down to assembly in C. Yeah, you can do it, but if you are at the point where you 'have' to in order to solve a problem, you are well beyond basic teaching and into something more advanced.
Maybe the person is thinking of the C style string formatting? The kind that Python has been trying to migrate people off of? I guess that could be considered 'complex constructs', but given that it is not even the preferred way of handling them I would not describe it as something they have to do.
While it might be true that neither of those people did their best work when dealing with scrum or conference calls, both thrived in collaborative environments where it took multiple great minds working together to solve complex problems.
Your rant does not communicate arrogance, it communicates insecurity and an inferiority complex. But it is ok, not everyone is cut out for teamwork, and there will always be small simple tasks open to people like you.
It is indeed a disadvantage of being an autistic person, but it also helps outline areas where one can do well or where one will struggle so one can find organizations where one's strengths are more of an asset.
That is a legitimate question and one I kinda wish our jury system would catch up to. There are all sorts of criminal trials where the verdict depends on the random shaft of how much some individuals know about a field. For instance, one's views on mental illness tend to be drastically different when, say, the only such people one knows are TV characters as opposed to friends and family.
Well, they only need to understand it to a certain degree. One can grasp the basic ideas without needing in depth technical understanding. There are probably half a dozen videos on youtube that explain it in lay terms well enough for trial purposes.
More importantly, isn:t capitalism great when you have non-monetary incentives to hold over people? The ability to deport workers works much better then benifits packages, and all those pesky US workers who can do things like change jobs and thus have competition are just too expensive.
As the saying goes, 'standard is better than the best solution'.
Tor is more well known, so it has more people and services on it, which makes it a better protocol to actually use if you want to connect to other people and services. i2p, no matter how much additional technical advantage it has, is useless unless there is a critical mass of users to make it worthwhile. It does not take shadowy state or media manipulation to keep it on top, just simple emergent behavior.
It is more likely to become quickly forgotten then infamous. The more technologically difficult you make it to access services, the fewer people will actually use them. Sure you will get technolibertarians and other people with both the skill, money, and incentive to use it, but given the extra hassle people are unlikely to bother unless they have some ideological or subculture reason to even consider it. Thus I2P will likely remain niche and probably quickly forgotten outside rather small circles.
One of the things that makes pointing this out difficult for some people though is that there are a non-trivial number of people who use it for ideological reasons, so they always have their own small community to point to as examples for legitimate use. But just like the other groups you point out, ideological usage is still not common usage since it provides an inferior network experience for mostly symbolic gains, which the average user has no use for.
Either that or someone relaxing on the green below with a beer, waiting for the quidditch players to have an accident. Smartphones and the cloud are kinda like the luddite's nascar, it can be really fun to watch the crashes even if you have no desire to participate.
On the other hand, if the tech becomes practical we might start seeing more of it in dedicated or multimedia camera. And with still photography, it is hard to go wrong with having more data to play with in post production.
Well, that was one of the key reasons the public view of homosexualty changed so radically over just a few short decades; more people out in the open made it more likely there was some personal connection or at least a personal face involved.
Though your 'Tt' point highlights possibly one of the worst but insidious issues involved, the internal fractures within the trans community regarding who is 'doing it wrong' and 'ruining our political chances'. It is almost like there is a contest to figure out who gets to be the trans community's NAMBLA to kick out.
I would say these are two ends of the same basic problem. I can comment, at least when I was in school, standing up for oneself did not do much good and often resulted in getting pushback from the 99% for being 'mean' to the bully.
That assumption is no more correct than it was for homosexuals or hetrosexuals. The vast majority of pedophiles, like any other sexual interest or orientation, are generally capable of distinguishing rape from consent. Few act out on it with an actual minor, but research and public perception tends to be pretty skewed since it only ever comes up with someone is raped. When you look at research that looks at the general population though, you do not really see any higher of a rate then any other group.
Ahm, that sounds a lot like adjusting theories based off new evidence and research. Not too long ago physics and chemistry had some pretty whacky stuff in them, but things improved once better tools and frameworks were developed. Psychology is a really bloody difficult field with much cruder tools to work with, it is no wonder they are improving slower. Still, over the last few decades as brain scans and such have become more accessable to researchers and protocols have been refined to eliminate more and more contaminates, the theories have been getting better.
That is how science tends to work, you never start off with a nice clean absolute answer, you have guesses based in the best data you have available and then try to improve from there.
Well, here we have to separate psychology as a science from the political process of writing the DSM. Within psych I generally see agreement (when people are willing to speak on it) that pedophilia, like homosexualty, should not be on the list. Research on the subject is historically extremely corrupt, with the vast majority of 'it is an illness' papers exclusively using the prison population as the sole source of subjects, which is kinda like using only people convicted of sexual assault as examples of hetrosexuality, kinda a joke.
However, it is a deeply political issue, one that is not helped by LGBT (well, LG at least) activists and leaders have integrated that particular moral panic into their platform, so the political pressure to remove homosexualty came with the added baggage of ensuring pedophila stayed on the list.
This, however, is quite separate from the actual research or even treatment fields of psychology. It is kinda like comparing the congressional committee on science and technology to actual scientists. One is political, the other actually has work to do.
The problem there is that while it is only the 1% that is doing the beating, they have tacit social approval from the other 99%. Sadly most of the population is not really 'ok' with TG issues, they are just not actively nasty about it, but nor do they provide any social repercussion for those who are. Bullies bully the people they can get away with bullying, and what they can get away with is defined by the majority.
The problem is, well, it is a birth defect. LIke any birth defect, the best you can generally do is repair the damage sometime later in life. Fixing the physical errors will probably always be simpler than going in and changing neurology. The only 'best' long term solution would be some kind of retrovirus or other sci-fi tool that rebuilds the body correctly.
Which is the same reason we don't bother with prosthetic limbs, fix congenital heart defects, or develop software allowing paralyzed people to communicate, it would be coddling them!
Slashdot Mirror
That is what freedom looks like. Freedom unfortunately also includes the ability to use one's power to infringe the freedom of weaker people.
Keep in mind that such a level of freedom to reject work is an advantage a large percentage of Americans do not have. The idea of market forces being the best or only solution is of great appeal to people who have significant power (and low vulnerability) in that domain, but it is less useful to those who do not.
It is not that dissimilar from people who say that the political process is fine and that if you do not feel represented you are free to engage in personal lobbying or running for office. Theoretically anyone has the ability to steer the government, but realistically the utility of it is pretty minimal to most people.
Beyond political and religious messages, I suspect it will be a useful tool in getting competing businesses's news buried. In the past all you could do was game things so your stuff got highlighted, but to be able to negatively impact someone else's stuff? Consulting and marketing 'services' will probalby be folding it into their toolbelt as soon as it goes live.
Ah, so the requirements of the course do not match the language. I guess that kinda makes sense, but reminds me of those ultra-specific job descriptions that are obviously written with a specific person in mind. For instance, if I wrote the curriculum to include monkey patching, I suspect Visual Basic would suddenly find itself inappropriate.
Yeah, but also look at how many people started in Pascal, a language intended ONLY to teach, and then stayed there.
The C thing really seemed pretty out of place. Dropping down to C (which you can only really do in cPython) in Python is kinda like dropping down to assembly in C. Yeah, you can do it, but if you are at the point where you 'have' to in order to solve a problem, you are well beyond basic teaching and into something more advanced.
Maybe the person is thinking of the C style string formatting? The kind that Python has been trying to migrate people off of? I guess that could be considered 'complex constructs', but given that it is not even the preferred way of handling them I would not describe it as something they have to do.
While it might be true that neither of those people did their best work when dealing with scrum or conference calls, both thrived in collaborative environments where it took multiple great minds working together to solve complex problems.
Your rant does not communicate arrogance, it communicates insecurity and an inferiority complex. But it is ok, not everyone is cut out for teamwork, and there will always be small simple tasks open to people like you.
It is indeed a disadvantage of being an autistic person, but it also helps outline areas where one can do well or where one will struggle so one can find organizations where one's strengths are more of an asset.
That is a legitimate question and one I kinda wish our jury system would catch up to. There are all sorts of criminal trials where the verdict depends on the random shaft of how much some individuals know about a field. For instance, one's views on mental illness tend to be drastically different when, say, the only such people one knows are TV characters as opposed to friends and family.
Well, they only need to understand it to a certain degree. One can grasp the basic ideas without needing in depth technical understanding. There are probably half a dozen videos on youtube that explain it in lay terms well enough for trial purposes.
More importantly, isn:t capitalism great when you have non-monetary incentives to hold over people? The ability to deport workers works much better then benifits packages, and all those pesky US workers who can do things like change jobs and thus have competition are just too expensive.
As the saying goes, 'standard is better than the best solution'.
Tor is more well known, so it has more people and services on it, which makes it a better protocol to actually use if you want to connect to other people and services. i2p, no matter how much additional technical advantage it has, is useless unless there is a critical mass of users to make it worthwhile. It does not take shadowy state or media manipulation to keep it on top, just simple emergent behavior.
It is more likely to become quickly forgotten then infamous. The more technologically difficult you make it to access services, the fewer people will actually use them. Sure you will get technolibertarians and other people with both the skill, money, and incentive to use it, but given the extra hassle people are unlikely to bother unless they have some ideological or subculture reason to even consider it. Thus I2P will likely remain niche and probably quickly forgotten outside rather small circles.
One of the things that makes pointing this out difficult for some people though is that there are a non-trivial number of people who use it for ideological reasons, so they always have their own small community to point to as examples for legitimate use. But just like the other groups you point out, ideological usage is still not common usage since it provides an inferior network experience for mostly symbolic gains, which the average user has no use for.
Either that or someone relaxing on the green below with a beer, waiting for the quidditch players to have an accident. Smartphones and the cloud are kinda like the luddite's nascar, it can be really fun to watch the crashes even if you have no desire to participate.
On the other hand, if the tech becomes practical we might start seeing more of it in dedicated or multimedia camera. And with still photography, it is hard to go wrong with having more data to play with in post production.
Well, that was one of the key reasons the public view of homosexualty changed so radically over just a few short decades; more people out in the open made it more likely there was some personal connection or at least a personal face involved.
Though your 'Tt' point highlights possibly one of the worst but insidious issues involved, the internal fractures within the trans community regarding who is 'doing it wrong' and 'ruining our political chances'. It is almost like there is a contest to figure out who gets to be the trans community's NAMBLA to kick out.
I would say these are two ends of the same basic problem. I can comment, at least when I was in school, standing up for oneself did not do much good and often resulted in getting pushback from the 99% for being 'mean' to the bully.
A more likely effect will be a higher profit margin on bribes for DMV officals.
That assumption is no more correct than it was for homosexuals or hetrosexuals. The vast majority of pedophiles, like any other sexual interest or orientation, are generally capable of distinguishing rape from consent. Few act out on it with an actual minor, but research and public perception tends to be pretty skewed since it only ever comes up with someone is raped. When you look at research that looks at the general population though, you do not really see any higher of a rate then any other group.
Ahm, that sounds a lot like adjusting theories based off new evidence and research. Not too long ago physics and chemistry had some pretty whacky stuff in them, but things improved once better tools and frameworks were developed. Psychology is a really bloody difficult field with much cruder tools to work with, it is no wonder they are improving slower. Still, over the last few decades as brain scans and such have become more accessable to researchers and protocols have been refined to eliminate more and more contaminates, the theories have been getting better.
That is how science tends to work, you never start off with a nice clean absolute answer, you have guesses based in the best data you have available and then try to improve from there.
Well, here we have to separate psychology as a science from the political process of writing the DSM. Within psych I generally see agreement (when people are willing to speak on it) that pedophilia, like homosexualty, should not be on the list. Research on the subject is historically extremely corrupt, with the vast majority of 'it is an illness' papers exclusively using the prison population as the sole source of subjects, which is kinda like using only people convicted of sexual assault as examples of hetrosexuality, kinda a joke.
However, it is a deeply political issue, one that is not helped by LGBT (well, LG at least) activists and leaders have integrated that particular moral panic into their platform, so the political pressure to remove homosexualty came with the added baggage of ensuring pedophila stayed on the list.
This, however, is quite separate from the actual research or even treatment fields of psychology. It is kinda like comparing the congressional committee on science and technology to actual scientists. One is political, the other actually has work to do.
The problem there is that while it is only the 1% that is doing the beating, they have tacit social approval from the other 99%. Sadly most of the population is not really 'ok' with TG issues, they are just not actively nasty about it, but nor do they provide any social repercussion for those who are. Bullies bully the people they can get away with bullying, and what they can get away with is defined by the majority.
The problem is, well, it is a birth defect. LIke any birth defect, the best you can generally do is repair the damage sometime later in life. Fixing the physical errors will probably always be simpler than going in and changing neurology. The only 'best' long term solution would be some kind of retrovirus or other sci-fi tool that rebuilds the body correctly.
Which is the same reason we don't bother with prosthetic limbs, fix congenital heart defects, or develop software allowing paralyzed people to communicate, it would be coddling them!