Did it ever occur to you that women simply didn't want to be around you (and people like you)? Or that, because everyone's gotta pay bills, the economics of the tech industry drive people to work with you (and people like you) despite the fact that they find you insufferable? Did it ever occur to you that your butthurt version of reality isn't the only one, or that you're not entitled to something just because you're "into it"? Have you ever wondered why you feel so defensive about a topic that you (and people like you) utterly dominate? Does it ever bother you that you're in an echo chamber of male anger and aggression?
Seriously, how do you teach someone something if you're always giving them what they want?
These don't have anything to do with each other. I don't learn more when things are taken away from me, do you? It certainly doesn't give me any guidance about how to have safe sex, or how to make smart decisions about drugs. Those are not things that deserve punishment, they deserve mature and useful education and emotional involvement.
Should students always be allowed to pick their GPA at the end of the semester? Should all the competitors at a wrestling meet get the same trophy?
In what world do you think "guidance and compassion" equals destroying the meaning of achievement?
Sure an iphone doesn't have much to do with "not getting knocked up", but material rewards are a pretty standard thing in today's world.
Seems to be working just fine. Right?
What's this scenario where you're giving "guidance and compassion" to the kid smoking dope at school
I would teach about the risks and rewards of different kinds of experimentation, the differences between law and morality, provide insights into where I've made mistakes and how I dealt with them, and set very clear expectations about when I will or will not consider usage a problem deserving intervention. That intervention would never result in unrelated punishment. This is all about direct involvement in real education about serious matters, rather than a convoluted risk-reward system that doesn't impart any wisdom or prepare the child for future decisions.
rather than simply depriving him of a reward (car family really couldn't afford) likely intended to specifically reward good behavior, rather than to simply help with getting to school and groceries (car family can afford).
I'm not sure I understand your meaning, but I would not buy my kid a car to reward behavior, and I would not give a child any kind of gift and then take it away as punishment.
Get a group together, light some incense, and encircle him for three straight hours, mumbling joo joo? Get him a nice long massage? Make sure he gets that happy ending he always wanted?
Not sure who or what you're attacking here, but I never suggested anything like this.
Seriously, how the bloody hell do you think you're going to get anywhere with that kid
By caring, encouraging mutual trust and respect, and responding to problems and risks with sane, relevant solutions that I can explain clearly. In the event that the problem is that the child has actually done harm, the solution may well be a form of punishment that's relevant and appropriate.
or are you just one of those that points and says "that's punishment, it must be wrong", with absolutely no practical solutions besides adding shit like Common Core to the curriculum and complaining about how someone failed them a long time ago?
More nonsense strawman attacks. Really not sure where this stuff is coming from.
Just like not everyone learns the same, not everyone responds to reward systems the same.
You're attacking me because I don't think taking away a cell phone has anything to do with educating a child about making safe and smart sex choices. What adult would think that makes sense? But you expect a teenager to handle it better?
quit blaming them for every damn thing little Timmy does that pisses you off
Still don't know what you're talking about. Did you mistake me for someone else?
My advice - take the reward away now, and give him this "guidance and compassion" later.
Well, that will have pretty predictable effects.
rewards get tied to behavior, and aren't just consistent things in his life no matter what
As far as I can tell, you've presented three scenarios of young adults who, at worst, need some form of help from the more mature people responsible for their care, but you've also portrayed them as somehow deserving of either irrelevant punishment or bribery. Should Billy be punished for poor performance in school, or helped to understand and appreciate his education? The worst case for Tammy's judgment is that she did not understand the consequences of actions she otherwise engaged consensually, should she be deprived of a phone that has literally nothing to do with that? Chris evidently was not driving while getting high, so I'm not even sure why you care unless you're jealous. Or should those privileges be dangled in front of them only if they behave in a way you approve?
If this is truly where you're at, do yourself a favor. Visualize Billy's, Tammy's and Chris's future debt and complete paralysis in the face of it. Don't worry, it doesn't make a difference what they do now or hot their parents raise them. They're fucked, and they didn't get a choice. It'll make your schadenfreude feel better.
Honest question, since there's a list of nazis up above: if an elderly Adolf Hitler were forced to live in prison for 50 years and released into modern life, what more harm could he do?
I dare say he could produce an astonishingly smelly old man diaper.
you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
That is categorically not what the "social contract" means. The "social contract" is an expression that one must suspend some "natural rights" (i.e. the freedom to "do whatever you want") in order to obtain the benefits of living in a society (i.e. to protect rights that need social defense). Like any contract, it's one that must be entered into consciously, not by birth or decree; the perversion of such a "contract" to mean one inherits it by birth is a road to domination and stagnation. Being born conveys only liberties, not responsibilities. Being a member of a community conveys both. It is up to a person to choose the latter, and it is up to a child's guardians to convey the benefits and consequences of such a contract. And it is up to every person to negotiate the social fluidity of all of these.
Society's rules are also not static, and they typically only change through rebellion. This process can be peaceful or bloody, just or unjust, depending on the rules and the rebellion. The most just and peaceful evolution comes from a confluence of evolving "social contract" that challenges outdated or unwarranted rules; the least comes from the collision of an unflinching status quo with an unflinching reality. Wars are often fought, in either case, and often the "social contract" is discarded wholly in the process.
The people you listed above, had they been freed, elderly and in a different world? They would have little purchase to do any further harm. That isn't to say there is no reason to guard against a resurgence of past monstrosity, and it isn't even to say that the world isn't better absent some of the worst monsters. But the world changes—nay, people change the world—and tossing monsters into a world that was once their own but isn't any longer... doesn't give them a lot of leeway.
Nobody deserves unnecessary suffering. People who recognize their mistakes will feel punished for that, and people who don't will feel vindicated.
America wants to execute people—more specifically, America wants to punish people—but few of us have the ability to distance ourselves from the process that you apparently do. America does not want to be present and aware of its brutality, it wants to be able to say justice is a balancing of scales and then to wash its hands of the whole affair. And nobody really believes you can balance the scales. Executing a monster doesn't undo their monstrous past.
Your position is grotesque, like the emotions in a lynch mob. It's a feeling that most people can't stomach, and that's why it's been mostly abandoned. Society can surely be manipulated to fervor, to become monstrous, but then the fervor dies down. People cannot be manipulated to face themselves as the monsters they want to destroy. They walk away from the whole thing with regret and trauma.
Restoring the worst forms of execution is the surest way to set execution up for abolition. Which would be commendable, except that the monstrous act still prevails.
This isn't really right. The concept of "white" we understand now wasn't what was understood then, and that wasn't what alarmed anyone who wasn't a victim at the time. What set the nazis apart (and may still do in times since) is the clean, industrial approach to destroying peoples and cultures that they employed. It terrified people not for the brutality, but for the complete divorce from human emotion.
Empires have grown and fallen by doing exactly, morally, what the nazis did. But never mechanically what they did. We've destroyed peoples, but not with the efficiency and clarity of the Holocaust. The uniqueness of nazism isn't morality, it's the emotional impact of encountering a distilled rendering of the faults of civilization.
The backwoods also-rans of America and Russia couldn't hope to rise to that level of clarity. Our inefficiencies and flaws are our cover. The same is true of all of the "great empires", which were basically just hicks with guns running the world. Yeah, mostly "white". But bear in mind they were at war with each other most of that time as well. And they employed the same sorts of tactics against each other as they did in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
If you want to be the face of evil, start an assembly line. Everything else is mere humanity.
Luddites weren't/aren't oriented around opposition to technology, but around a particular vision for the intersection between technology and people's lives.
As a pedestrian, if it is my turn, I can walk. They *will* yield.
In Seattle, especially in the downtown/Belltown area in my experience, this is becoming less of a safe assumption. When I worked in Belltown, it was a rare day that I wasn't nearly hit by an impatient driver; now, working closer into the downtown core, the near-collisions are somewhat less but still far too frequent for comfort.
I do tend to assert my right of way where the vehicle's speed is not likely to do serious harm, because I'm not ready to give up safe pedestrian right of way that I've become accustomed to. But there are also times I have to actively dodge an oncoming vehicle to ensure my safety.
Already, it seems like the difficult part is getting the managers to properly specify the desired functionality. It's not a huge leap to imagine that one might construct a formal language for program specification that would allow you to automate translation of the spec into a code skeleton.
This premise is what lead to the evolution of higher-level programming languages in the first place. It turns out that the intersection of specification and correctness is still programming, at least for every iteration so far.
React isn't a standard, it's a GUI framework. They're proposing compatibility layers for other GUI frameworks on other platforms, with no intention of replacing those other frameworks. Of course it's possible, because other such compatibility frameworks are available and quite successful. What React offers that the others do not is that the development environment is familiar to web developers.
If you use a strict subset with a defined API, it can be close to native performance. This has been seen with asm.js already. It may be that specific domain logic suffers, because that will likely break the boundaries of "strict subset" for a framework like React, but that is going to be a smell in GUI code no matter what your environment.
Yeah, insofar as interpreted code may present a way to escape sandboxing, which in turn could lead to security problems, which in turn could lead to plummeting profits.
Slashdot Mirror
Did it ever occur to you that women simply didn't want to be around you (and people like you)? Or that, because everyone's gotta pay bills, the economics of the tech industry drive people to work with you (and people like you) despite the fact that they find you insufferable? Did it ever occur to you that your butthurt version of reality isn't the only one, or that you're not entitled to something just because you're "into it"? Have you ever wondered why you feel so defensive about a topic that you (and people like you) utterly dominate? Does it ever bother you that you're in an echo chamber of male anger and aggression?
Seriously, how do you teach someone something if you're always giving them what they want?
These don't have anything to do with each other. I don't learn more when things are taken away from me, do you? It certainly doesn't give me any guidance about how to have safe sex, or how to make smart decisions about drugs. Those are not things that deserve punishment, they deserve mature and useful education and emotional involvement.
Should students always be allowed to pick their GPA at the end of the semester? Should all the competitors at a wrestling meet get the same trophy?
In what world do you think "guidance and compassion" equals destroying the meaning of achievement?
Sure an iphone doesn't have much to do with "not getting knocked up", but material rewards are a pretty standard thing in today's world.
Seems to be working just fine. Right?
What's this scenario where you're giving "guidance and compassion" to the kid smoking dope at school
I would teach about the risks and rewards of different kinds of experimentation, the differences between law and morality, provide insights into where I've made mistakes and how I dealt with them, and set very clear expectations about when I will or will not consider usage a problem deserving intervention. That intervention would never result in unrelated punishment. This is all about direct involvement in real education about serious matters, rather than a convoluted risk-reward system that doesn't impart any wisdom or prepare the child for future decisions.
rather than simply depriving him of a reward (car family really couldn't afford) likely intended to specifically reward good behavior, rather than to simply help with getting to school and groceries (car family can afford).
I'm not sure I understand your meaning, but I would not buy my kid a car to reward behavior, and I would not give a child any kind of gift and then take it away as punishment.
Get a group together, light some incense, and encircle him for three straight hours, mumbling joo joo? Get him a nice long massage? Make sure he gets that happy ending he always wanted?
Not sure who or what you're attacking here, but I never suggested anything like this.
Seriously, how the bloody hell do you think you're going to get anywhere with that kid
By caring, encouraging mutual trust and respect, and responding to problems and risks with sane, relevant solutions that I can explain clearly. In the event that the problem is that the child has actually done harm, the solution may well be a form of punishment that's relevant and appropriate.
or are you just one of those that points and says "that's punishment, it must be wrong", with absolutely no practical solutions besides adding shit like Common Core to the curriculum and complaining about how someone failed them a long time ago?
More nonsense strawman attacks. Really not sure where this stuff is coming from.
Just like not everyone learns the same, not everyone responds to reward systems the same.
You're attacking me because I don't think taking away a cell phone has anything to do with educating a child about making safe and smart sex choices. What adult would think that makes sense? But you expect a teenager to handle it better?
quit blaming them for every damn thing little Timmy does that pisses you off
Still don't know what you're talking about. Did you mistake me for someone else?
My advice - take the reward away now, and give him this "guidance and compassion" later.
Well, that will have pretty predictable effects.
rewards get tied to behavior, and aren't just consistent things in his life no matter what
You're right. If I were a parent, I would know that it's important to punish people who need guidance and compassion.
Thanks, I'll pass.
Far as I can tell, everyone who bikes in Seattle is constantly having sex. Even while cycling.
45 seconds? But I want it now!
As far as I can tell, you've presented three scenarios of young adults who, at worst, need some form of help from the more mature people responsible for their care, but you've also portrayed them as somehow deserving of either irrelevant punishment or bribery. Should Billy be punished for poor performance in school, or helped to understand and appreciate his education? The worst case for Tammy's judgment is that she did not understand the consequences of actions she otherwise engaged consensually, should she be deprived of a phone that has literally nothing to do with that? Chris evidently was not driving while getting high, so I'm not even sure why you care unless you're jealous. Or should those privileges be dangled in front of them only if they behave in a way you approve?
If this is truly where you're at, do yourself a favor. Visualize Billy's, Tammy's and Chris's future debt and complete paralysis in the face of it. Don't worry, it doesn't make a difference what they do now or hot their parents raise them. They're fucked, and they didn't get a choice. It'll make your schadenfreude feel better.
In my day, we didn't have friends.
I'm not prepared for anything, that's why I'm asking an honest question. Thanks for answering in the form of hostility.
People like i_ate_god aren't the reason, but points for keeping the discussion honest anyway.
Honest question, since there's a list of nazis up above: if an elderly Adolf Hitler were forced to live in prison for 50 years and released into modern life, what more harm could he do?
I dare say he could produce an astonishingly smelly old man diaper.
Most courts accept it as a given, without blinking an eye. Inertia is the strongest force in systems of power.
you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
That is categorically not what the "social contract" means. The "social contract" is an expression that one must suspend some "natural rights" (i.e. the freedom to "do whatever you want") in order to obtain the benefits of living in a society (i.e. to protect rights that need social defense). Like any contract, it's one that must be entered into consciously, not by birth or decree; the perversion of such a "contract" to mean one inherits it by birth is a road to domination and stagnation. Being born conveys only liberties, not responsibilities. Being a member of a community conveys both. It is up to a person to choose the latter, and it is up to a child's guardians to convey the benefits and consequences of such a contract. And it is up to every person to negotiate the social fluidity of all of these.
Society's rules are also not static, and they typically only change through rebellion. This process can be peaceful or bloody, just or unjust, depending on the rules and the rebellion. The most just and peaceful evolution comes from a confluence of evolving "social contract" that challenges outdated or unwarranted rules; the least comes from the collision of an unflinching status quo with an unflinching reality. Wars are often fought, in either case, and often the "social contract" is discarded wholly in the process.
The people you listed above, had they been freed, elderly and in a different world? They would have little purchase to do any further harm. That isn't to say there is no reason to guard against a resurgence of past monstrosity, and it isn't even to say that the world isn't better absent some of the worst monsters. But the world changes—nay, people change the world—and tossing monsters into a world that was once their own but isn't any longer... doesn't give them a lot of leeway.
Deserve? Deserve what?
Justice is about making wrongs right. What does it mean to deserve? How does it square with justice?
Nobody deserves unnecessary suffering. People who recognize their mistakes will feel punished for that, and people who don't will feel vindicated.
America wants to execute people—more specifically, America wants to punish people—but few of us have the ability to distance ourselves from the process that you apparently do. America does not want to be present and aware of its brutality, it wants to be able to say justice is a balancing of scales and then to wash its hands of the whole affair. And nobody really believes you can balance the scales. Executing a monster doesn't undo their monstrous past.
Your position is grotesque, like the emotions in a lynch mob. It's a feeling that most people can't stomach, and that's why it's been mostly abandoned. Society can surely be manipulated to fervor, to become monstrous, but then the fervor dies down. People cannot be manipulated to face themselves as the monsters they want to destroy. They walk away from the whole thing with regret and trauma.
Restoring the worst forms of execution is the surest way to set execution up for abolition. Which would be commendable, except that the monstrous act still prevails.
They've industrialized the elimination of everyone they can find in a targeted people group?
This isn't really right. The concept of "white" we understand now wasn't what was understood then, and that wasn't what alarmed anyone who wasn't a victim at the time. What set the nazis apart (and may still do in times since) is the clean, industrial approach to destroying peoples and cultures that they employed. It terrified people not for the brutality, but for the complete divorce from human emotion.
Empires have grown and fallen by doing exactly, morally, what the nazis did. But never mechanically what they did. We've destroyed peoples, but not with the efficiency and clarity of the Holocaust. The uniqueness of nazism isn't morality, it's the emotional impact of encountering a distilled rendering of the faults of civilization.
The backwoods also-rans of America and Russia couldn't hope to rise to that level of clarity. Our inefficiencies and flaws are our cover. The same is true of all of the "great empires", which were basically just hicks with guns running the world. Yeah, mostly "white". But bear in mind they were at war with each other most of that time as well. And they employed the same sorts of tactics against each other as they did in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
If you want to be the face of evil, start an assembly line. Everything else is mere humanity.
stifle the discussion
Just like the nazis did!
Luddites weren't/aren't oriented around opposition to technology, but around a particular vision for the intersection between technology and people's lives.
If unions were just collective bargaining groups nobody would oppose them.
Wisconsin.
resort to violence to get their way.
Are you serious?
As a pedestrian, if it is my turn, I can walk. They *will* yield.
In Seattle, especially in the downtown/Belltown area in my experience, this is becoming less of a safe assumption. When I worked in Belltown, it was a rare day that I wasn't nearly hit by an impatient driver; now, working closer into the downtown core, the near-collisions are somewhat less but still far too frequent for comfort.
I do tend to assert my right of way where the vehicle's speed is not likely to do serious harm, because I'm not ready to give up safe pedestrian right of way that I've become accustomed to. But there are also times I have to actively dodge an oncoming vehicle to ensure my safety.
Already, it seems like the difficult part is getting the managers to properly specify the desired functionality. It's not a huge leap to imagine that one might construct a formal language for program specification that would allow you to automate translation of the spec into a code skeleton.
This premise is what lead to the evolution of higher-level programming languages in the first place. It turns out that the intersection of specification and correctness is still programming, at least for every iteration so far.
React isn't a standard, it's a GUI framework. They're proposing compatibility layers for other GUI frameworks on other platforms, with no intention of replacing those other frameworks. Of course it's possible, because other such compatibility frameworks are available and quite successful. What React offers that the others do not is that the development environment is familiar to web developers.
If you use a strict subset with a defined API, it can be close to native performance. This has been seen with asm.js already. It may be that specific domain logic suffers, because that will likely break the boundaries of "strict subset" for a framework like React, but that is going to be a smell in GUI code no matter what your environment.
Yeah, insofar as interpreted code may present a way to escape sandboxing, which in turn could lead to security problems, which in turn could lead to plummeting profits.
All code symbolizes the despair and longing of the programmer.