There are entries on the medical record that a doctor is legally responsible for maintaining. Theyâ(TM)re now being forced to fulfil the legal obligations at the point where itâ(TM)s fresh in the mind (and at the point itâ(TM)s legally admissible as a statement of fact). Where they really understand the utility is when they have some lawsuit thrown at them, then the investigation goes back through the notes, sees what was entered, and more often than not shows that the doc was doing exactly what they should.. Medicine, like engineering is vastly complex, and reminders to enter something sometimes save the necessity of external intervention (or if external entity misses the intervention, you end up with a full blown incident). Nobody likes the paperwork. Welcome to the real world.
All that's happening is that an objective, legal standard is being observed for something to have meaning. There's absolutely nothing in there that says a company cannot do all it wants to be fully accepting of LGBT people (and I strongly suspect that this will happen anyway, due to legislation in other areas). It's not somehow saying "You're not allowed to be transgender". You're still perfectly within your rights to be one legal sex, and present an entirely separate gender to the world, and people are savvy enough these days (in the main) to treat that at face value, and get on with life, with a nod to their choice. This is not taking away any right. It's making a legal definition mean something again.
You'll find most of the comments, if a priest is convicted of something, they'll come out with the torches. If they're accused, you'll see a lot of "show us what you got". And to me the "Show us what evidence you have" is a good way to start anything. If you don't have evidence, you only have conjecture. Or an assertion or accusation. The reason we have courts of law are so that people who have really bad things happen have recourse, and people accused of something also have a chance of being cleared of the charge. However, mud sticks, as they say, and it's always been the case of once you're accused, you usually have to live in a shadow for an awful long time.
Sure, take an accuser seriously. I always take people seriously initially. If they have no more evidence that "I say this, therefore you have to believe me", then sure I'll provide support, but like hell I'm going to go after someone on a say so. Not without some very comprehensive evidence. This is something that seems to be lacking in this age of professional outraged virtue signaling. If I have a problem with senior management decisions, then I arrange a meeting with said senior managers, and give them a shot to explain (or if that's not on the cards, I just politely register my discontent at something and state plainly why). That actually does get listened to. Marching out and throwing your toys out of the pram, and signalling virtue for all to see does nothing apart from create chaos.
And definitely all for keeping names and details out of press until charges are proven. I'd also put in that if there's a case of malicious prosecution, the accuser should be named, and the accused kept anonymous.
After dealings with the news organisations, they honestly don't give a rat's ass if you want to be on their pages or not. If they can make a story out of you and twist it to be sensational and sell adverts, they'll do it. I've not found one I trust yet.
Then everyone dies and the cops get called for not protecting people. From the posts youâ(TM)ve made, my suspicion is that youâ(TM)ve not been prominent in roles with heavy risk evaluation, or the highly emotionally charged rescue/recovery situations. You show a deep lack of understanding of the complexities involved and have the habit of trying to reduce this to a univariate issue, which it most definitely isnâ(TM)t. There are plenty of checks and balances in play (your other assertions that there arenâ(TM)t are incorrect). Yes, there is more of a benefit of doubt applies to armed response teams. That is because the psychology and statistical likelihoods of events occurring are well understood. If a pattern emerges of wrong action, you bet someone will be pulled up and lose that benefit of doubt. Out of interest, what is your experience in the field of security/crisis operation?
Interesting. What statistical study are you basing this assertion on? I'll openly admit my experiences have been anecdotal (going through that exact path myself, and working in the field for over 30 years), but my sample has evidenced that your assertion seems to be a boundary case, rather than statistical body.
Things like CBT, you don't evaluate as a single sample. You look at statistical bodies and meta studies of those "hard science" studies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/). It's efficacy is shown to have significance. In other words, it's not a sure fire cure, or working in even a majority of cases, but has an effect well above a lack of intervention of simple conversation. So, it comes down to "It'll help some people in some circumstances". Which is fine. It's one tool in an arsenal of tools that should be tried, and discarded if it doesn't work in that case. Where did you get your concept of it not working by reproducing, and that it's not able to be examined or evaluated by "hard science"? Because whatever source you got it from is provably wrong.
Because when you bring gender into a debate, it becomes an asserted frame of reference. If it was important enough in the original assertion, it is therefore a valid frame of reference to bring up in a counterpoint.
Burden of proof is the standard of ALL debates and rational decision making. If you start saying that "We're making a decision, but hey, we don't want to have to meet any burden of proof, apart from that which someone proposes as it's something they feel strongly about", then welcome to Creationism and Flat Earth in Science classes, Anti-Vax being instituted as medical policy and so forth.
Stating that "It's just a job interview, who needs legal standards" is disingenuous. What you're advocating seems to be abandonment of rational decisions, which is patently absurd.
Protected class is an arbitrary bounded set. You can't choose to be born male, straight or with any genetic predisposition towards identifying with a political grouping, and there do seem to be genetic components at play. To create "protected classes" is to draw arbitrary boundaries around what you're going to "protect" (i.e. you're actually saying "It's fine, even virtuous, to attack these groups which are the inverse set of this" based on an entirely political construct). Protected class should be "human" (until we discover higher forms of life, or just plain get more friendly with the rest of the animals around and extend more protections to them too).
Patriarchy is a social theory, not a scientific one (the two are extremely different). Some of them are more valid than others, and the analytical backing for "patriarchy" is extremely lacking, and predominant only in a very left ideology. Some social hypotheses have led to the deaths of millions. They're interesting as philosophical debating points, but the problem is that people are taking a largely philosophical exercise with very limited frames of reference and treating it as axiomatic across wider frames, and acting on that. Affirmative action actually detracts by taking away achievement from those capable (both in their eyes, and in the eyes of those around). A distortion of achievements by efforts in this way need to be done extremely carefully. These days, they're not, so much.
I'm pretty much a centrist. Both left and right have the better ideas from time to time, and when a good idea crops up, I applaud it on merit (as best I can determine from my viewpoint, and as many other competing ones as I'm able to jam into my grey matter). Also, both sides have extremely dangerous people.
There's loads of pretty left in Democrats. Identity politics is a very left wing ideology, and it's pretty much endemic in the Democrats. Actually, I consider it their albatross, without that around their necks, and actually having a good hard look at things outside of that lens, I'd be more in agreement with you.
You can fork it and add your code, sure. If your code is actually superior, it may catch on. The probability is that Linus was right in adopting a his stance, so you'll have not added anything beneficial (and perhaps something actively detrimental). Options are always there.
Interesting, and you're basing that on what interactions with him? I was in on that in the early days, when Linus first released Linux and asked if anyone was interested. I know a few that still contribute/follow the development at that level. Consensus seems to be that he's harsh but fair, and gives ample prior warning before delivering a verbal drubbing.
Definitely wrong. Kernel devs I know pretty much all say that the only time Linus gets shouty is after he's warned people several times in private, and people _still_ push it into the public arena.
Are:
"Carpet Diem" by Justin Lee Anderson
(The Chronicles of Breed) "Dangerous to Know", "Tooth and Claw" and "Something Wicked" by K.T. Davies.
I'd say Carpet Diem would appeal to fans of Douglas Adams for the humour, and perspective on life. The Chronicles of Breed books are the sort of humour that Deadpool brings to bear, though I'd say has a fair bit more insightfulness than Deadpool about life. All of those are well worth a look.
They could easily have had the conference without him. I think they just like the guy, wanted him included if possible, and really thought they may just enjoy a trip to Scotland to sample the local wares! Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I wholeheartedly approve of the cameradierie they're showing.
So, move a workshop that's invite only for 30 people, and not to do with the technical side. Linus says don't bother, you're fine without me. The rest basically vote "Nah, we'd like to come see you", and people complain? Sounds like great cameraderie on that committee, and I really hope they enjoy themselves. Edinburgh is a lovely city, and the Scots are great people.. They'll be shown a warm welcome, and have the chance to wander around the area if they choose to. Which is a great way to go sightseeing, and throw in a little business on the side.
Except it doesn't. Burden of proof lies with you. Please show your logical chain. It's just as easy to say "The Left Wing in America stands for exactly what Stalin stood for", which is just as bad an accusation. The truth is that there are extremes, and they need watching. Most are just people.
If you're working under the express license that you can't restrict how you want your work to be done, as part of a much larger project, then your choices are either do the work, knowing you'll benefit the groups that you want to help, with edge cases that ones will exist that you don't, or just leave the project. That simple. If the entire group feel that strongly, they can stop using the license, and build a new product that they can happily play politics with.
Yes, politics should be kept the hell away from work in an open group. In your example, a significant amount of developers would actually have been on the German side, so they'd be developing away like crazy on their fork (possibly as closed source extensions for their own personal use as a military in some cases), which is allowable anyway. When in peace time you have an "agenda", and you try and poison open solutions by disallowing groups based on political belief (which is often poorly informed), then you're often just enshrining ignorant bigotry.
Take the ICE case; this is a completely underfunded organisation, trying to do the best it can to juggle a lot of conflicting factors (people trying to game the system, people abusing the system, and genuine people that need to follow particular paths and have them filtered away from the ones trying to game the system), and look after the people as well as it can with the funds. Individuals in it may have unpleasant attributes, but what organisation doesn't? The majority are trying to do a job well. Denying them access because politics is only going to make matters worse for the end recipients, piss off people in the middle as it could muck about with them doing their job, and they'll see the reduction in care they're able to give, which sure as hell isn't going to endear the open source movement to them..
The options in a movement that explicitly states "this is open, available to everyone" are to either put the work in, knowing that you may disagree with some end uses, but the majority case is that you're benefitting people in general, or you can withhold your work, and not be part of that movement. Good on ESR; I count this as a sane move. It's a shame the guy was the one thrown under the bus for what seemed to be a general consensus; if they were good at what they did, then a good old rollicking, learn from being stupid (and against the license you were working under), and getting on with the work would have been my preference. And all the senior staff that agreed with it should have been rollicked.
That's something a politician would have you believe.. Politics is the glue that fits disparate pieces together, but it should stay the hell out of doing the actual work for those pieces. "Everything is actually science, just the politicians do it badly." -- Me.
After the sad demise of Cheeseplant's house, I went looking for a new home.. And came across Igormud.. It's still going (igormud.org 1701). I met a load of people on there that I became friendly with, and that got me to start travelling the world. Been round Europe and the States visiting people I'd met there. A good many of them have stayed friends with me, nigh on 30 years later!
Slashdot Mirror
There are entries on the medical record that a doctor is legally responsible for maintaining. Theyâ(TM)re now being forced to fulfil the legal obligations at the point where itâ(TM)s fresh in the mind (and at the point itâ(TM)s legally admissible as a statement of fact).
Where they really understand the utility is when they have some lawsuit thrown at them, then the investigation goes back through the notes, sees what was entered, and more often than not shows that the doc was doing exactly what they should..
Medicine, like engineering is vastly complex, and reminders to enter something sometimes save the necessity of external intervention (or if external entity misses the intervention, you end up with a full blown incident).
Nobody likes the paperwork. Welcome to the real world.
All that's happening is that an objective, legal standard is being observed for something to have meaning.
There's absolutely nothing in there that says a company cannot do all it wants to be fully accepting of LGBT people (and I strongly suspect that this will happen anyway, due to legislation in other areas).
It's not somehow saying "You're not allowed to be transgender". You're still perfectly within your rights to be one legal sex, and present an entirely separate gender to the world, and people are savvy enough these days (in the main) to treat that at face value, and get on with life, with a nod to their choice.
This is not taking away any right. It's making a legal definition mean something again.
You'll find most of the comments, if a priest is convicted of something, they'll come out with the torches. If they're accused, you'll see a lot of "show us what you got".
And to me the "Show us what evidence you have" is a good way to start anything. If you don't have evidence, you only have conjecture. Or an assertion or accusation.
The reason we have courts of law are so that people who have really bad things happen have recourse, and people accused of something also have a chance of being cleared of the charge.
However, mud sticks, as they say, and it's always been the case of once you're accused, you usually have to live in a shadow for an awful long time.
Sure, take an accuser seriously. I always take people seriously initially. If they have no more evidence that "I say this, therefore you have to believe me", then sure I'll provide support, but like hell I'm going to go after someone on a say so. Not without some very comprehensive evidence. This is something that seems to be lacking in this age of professional outraged virtue signaling.
If I have a problem with senior management decisions, then I arrange a meeting with said senior managers, and give them a shot to explain (or if that's not on the cards, I just politely register my discontent at something and state plainly why). That actually does get listened to. Marching out and throwing your toys out of the pram, and signalling virtue for all to see does nothing apart from create chaos.
And definitely all for keeping names and details out of press until charges are proven. I'd also put in that if there's a case of malicious prosecution, the accuser should be named, and the accused kept anonymous.
After dealings with the news organisations, they honestly don't give a rat's ass if you want to be on their pages or not. If they can make a story out of you and twist it to be sensational and sell adverts, they'll do it.
I've not found one I trust yet.
That's both racist and sexist of you.
Then everyone dies and the cops get called for not protecting people. From the posts youâ(TM)ve made, my suspicion is that youâ(TM)ve not been prominent in roles with heavy risk evaluation, or the highly emotionally charged rescue/recovery situations. You show a deep lack of understanding of the complexities involved and have the habit of trying to reduce this to a univariate issue, which it most definitely isnâ(TM)t.
There are plenty of checks and balances in play (your other assertions that there arenâ(TM)t are incorrect). Yes, there is more of a benefit of doubt applies to armed response teams. That is because the psychology and statistical likelihoods of events occurring are well understood. If a pattern emerges of wrong action, you bet someone will be pulled up and lose that benefit of doubt.
Out of interest, what is your experience in the field of security/crisis operation?
Interesting. What statistical study are you basing this assertion on? I'll openly admit my experiences have been anecdotal (going through that exact path myself, and working in the field for over 30 years), but my sample has evidenced that your assertion seems to be a boundary case, rather than statistical body.
Things like CBT, you don't evaluate as a single sample. You look at statistical bodies and meta studies of those "hard science" studies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/).
It's efficacy is shown to have significance. In other words, it's not a sure fire cure, or working in even a majority of cases, but has an effect well above a lack of intervention of simple conversation.
So, it comes down to "It'll help some people in some circumstances". Which is fine. It's one tool in an arsenal of tools that should be tried, and discarded if it doesn't work in that case.
Where did you get your concept of it not working by reproducing, and that it's not able to be examined or evaluated by "hard science"? Because whatever source you got it from is provably wrong.
Because when you bring gender into a debate, it becomes an asserted frame of reference. If it was important enough in the original assertion, it is therefore a valid frame of reference to bring up in a counterpoint.
Burden of proof is the standard of ALL debates and rational decision making.
If you start saying that "We're making a decision, but hey, we don't want to have to meet any burden of proof, apart from that which someone proposes as it's something they feel strongly about", then welcome to Creationism and Flat Earth in Science classes, Anti-Vax being instituted as medical policy and so forth.
Stating that "It's just a job interview, who needs legal standards" is disingenuous. What you're advocating seems to be abandonment of rational decisions, which is patently absurd.
Protected class is an arbitrary bounded set. You can't choose to be born male, straight or with any genetic predisposition towards identifying with a political grouping, and there do seem to be genetic components at play.
To create "protected classes" is to draw arbitrary boundaries around what you're going to "protect" (i.e. you're actually saying "It's fine, even virtuous, to attack these groups which are the inverse set of this" based on an entirely political construct).
Protected class should be "human" (until we discover higher forms of life, or just plain get more friendly with the rest of the animals around and extend more protections to them too).
Patriarchy is a social theory, not a scientific one (the two are extremely different). Some of them are more valid than others, and the analytical backing for "patriarchy" is extremely lacking, and predominant only in a very left ideology. Some social hypotheses have led to the deaths of millions.
They're interesting as philosophical debating points, but the problem is that people are taking a largely philosophical exercise with very limited frames of reference and treating it as axiomatic across wider frames, and acting on that.
Affirmative action actually detracts by taking away achievement from those capable (both in their eyes, and in the eyes of those around). A distortion of achievements by efforts in this way need to be done extremely carefully. These days, they're not, so much.
I'm pretty much a centrist. Both left and right have the better ideas from time to time, and when a good idea crops up, I applaud it on merit (as best I can determine from my viewpoint, and as many other competing ones as I'm able to jam into my grey matter). Also, both sides have extremely dangerous people.
There's loads of pretty left in Democrats. Identity politics is a very left wing ideology, and it's pretty much endemic in the Democrats. Actually, I consider it their albatross, without that around their necks, and actually having a good hard look at things outside of that lens, I'd be more in agreement with you.
So that makes you complicit in most of the evils of the world that you don't know you're against. Bit of a silly argument; I call false dichotomy.
You can fork it and add your code, sure.
If your code is actually superior, it may catch on. The probability is that Linus was right in adopting a his stance, so you'll have not added anything beneficial (and perhaps something actively detrimental).
Options are always there.
Interesting, and you're basing that on what interactions with him?
I was in on that in the early days, when Linus first released Linux and asked if anyone was interested. I know a few that still contribute/follow the development at that level. Consensus seems to be that he's harsh but fair, and gives ample prior warning before delivering a verbal drubbing.
Definitely wrong. Kernel devs I know pretty much all say that the only time Linus gets shouty is after he's warned people several times in private, and people _still_ push it into the public arena.
Are:
"Carpet Diem" by Justin Lee Anderson
(The Chronicles of Breed) "Dangerous to Know", "Tooth and Claw" and "Something Wicked" by K.T. Davies.
I'd say Carpet Diem would appeal to fans of Douglas Adams for the humour, and perspective on life.
The Chronicles of Breed books are the sort of humour that Deadpool brings to bear, though I'd say has a fair bit more insightfulness than Deadpool about life.
All of those are well worth a look.
They could easily have had the conference without him. I think they just like the guy, wanted him included if possible, and really thought they may just enjoy a trip to Scotland to sample the local wares!
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I wholeheartedly approve of the cameradierie they're showing.
So, move a workshop that's invite only for 30 people, and not to do with the technical side. Linus says don't bother, you're fine without me. The rest basically vote "Nah, we'd like to come see you", and people complain?
Sounds like great cameraderie on that committee, and I really hope they enjoy themselves. Edinburgh is a lovely city, and the Scots are great people.. They'll be shown a warm welcome, and have the chance to wander around the area if they choose to. Which is a great way to go sightseeing, and throw in a little business on the side.
Except it doesn't. Burden of proof lies with you. Please show your logical chain.
It's just as easy to say "The Left Wing in America stands for exactly what Stalin stood for", which is just as bad an accusation.
The truth is that there are extremes, and they need watching. Most are just people.
If you're working under the express license that you can't restrict how you want your work to be done, as part of a much larger project, then your choices are either do the work, knowing you'll benefit the groups that you want to help, with edge cases that ones will exist that you don't, or just leave the project. That simple.
If the entire group feel that strongly, they can stop using the license, and build a new product that they can happily play politics with.
Yes, politics should be kept the hell away from work in an open group.
In your example, a significant amount of developers would actually have been on the German side, so they'd be developing away like crazy on their fork (possibly as closed source extensions for their own personal use as a military in some cases), which is allowable anyway.
When in peace time you have an "agenda", and you try and poison open solutions by disallowing groups based on political belief (which is often poorly informed), then you're often just enshrining ignorant bigotry.
Take the ICE case; this is a completely underfunded organisation, trying to do the best it can to juggle a lot of conflicting factors (people trying to game the system, people abusing the system, and genuine people that need to follow particular paths and have them filtered away from the ones trying to game the system), and look after the people as well as it can with the funds. Individuals in it may have unpleasant attributes, but what organisation doesn't? The majority are trying to do a job well.
Denying them access because politics is only going to make matters worse for the end recipients, piss off people in the middle as it could muck about with them doing their job, and they'll see the reduction in care they're able to give, which sure as hell isn't going to endear the open source movement to them..
The options in a movement that explicitly states "this is open, available to everyone" are to either put the work in, knowing that you may disagree with some end uses, but the majority case is that you're benefitting people in general, or you can withhold your work, and not be part of that movement.
Good on ESR; I count this as a sane move. It's a shame the guy was the one thrown under the bus for what seemed to be a general consensus; if they were good at what they did, then a good old rollicking, learn from being stupid (and against the license you were working under), and getting on with the work would have been my preference. And all the senior staff that agreed with it should have been rollicked.
That's something a politician would have you believe.. Politics is the glue that fits disparate pieces together, but it should stay the hell out of doing the actual work for those pieces.
"Everything is actually science, just the politicians do it badly." -- Me.
After the sad demise of Cheeseplant's house, I went looking for a new home.. And came across Igormud.. It's still going (igormud.org 1701).
I met a load of people on there that I became friendly with, and that got me to start travelling the world. Been round Europe and the States visiting people I'd met there. A good many of them have stayed friends with me, nigh on 30 years later!