That mostly tells me that you see a few things, but you attempt to understand them even without searching for context.
Moderate regimes who have a revolution will tend to become extreme; a liberal revolution will typically be replaced within days by an extremist one, for obvious reasons about who is more willing to shoot each other. There are many other cultural and political factors necessary to switch from extreme or draconian government to liberal or moderate government, a revolution by itself does not move a culture towards values of freedom.
An extremist regime doesn't likely have numerous more-extreme parties waiting to fill a power vacuum; they have a collection of moderate and differently-extreme options. And in the case of Iran/Persia, all of the options with significant constituencies are less extreme.
Perhaps a moderate Persian regime would seem extreme in some ways compared to the Egyptian military, but it is hard to think of any area of governance where it would be more extreme than the current regime. Moderate to who? I think most people who are critical of the current Iranian government would consider freedom of association, dress, and religion to be significantly moderate, even if it was a dictatorship with an official government religion.
It may even be that during his Presidency he was exactly the same man, doing exactly the same things, but wasn't given credit by the media. As an ex-President, he has little power in the political system and is treated positively by the media.
This leads to people saying things like, "it was worth living through President Carter to have ex-President Carter;" something I've heard uttered at least 30 or 40 times. But instead of just, "yuk yuk"-ing, I ask them what President Carter actually did wrong and nobody has ever (ever!!!) listed even a single thing that is true. People like to mention Iran, but they say insane things that won't match the history if you look it up. There are also accusations that parts of the US Government were supporting conservatives in the elections, and actually interfered with Carter resolving the Iran crisis. That should be considered also when making accusations about that whole scenario. The anti-Carter people don't even have a clear accusation other than "didn't magically prevent using words."
I don't know that there is any other example of a US President being so vilified by the press for all of their career up to the end of their Presidency, and then lauded afterwards. There are certainly other examples of Presidents whose reputational legacy doesn't match the history of their career in any way, but perhaps none with such a mixed bag.
They don't have a significant number of "anti-Islamists." It is crazy silly stuff. It is almost exactly like the claim that saying "Happy Holidays" is an attack on Christians. Just as Americans are mostly not anti-Christian, Iranians are not anti-Islam. Tolerant governments of places in the region with relatively free cultures are still officially Islamic nations, including the dictatorships. Iraqi Kurdistan is the closest thing to an exception, and they're still mostly Muslims and have cordial relations with their Islamist neighbors.
The fantasy-land "awesome Persia after a regime change" would still be Islamist, but would be moderate with secular dominance of civil society.
Right, oh, 2011 isn't yesterday? What, were you born yesterday? No, you didn't have another account, if you did you would use it. If you had been here since the 90s, you would know that. Perhaps your reputation was so awful, you decided to pretend you were born yesterday? No, that isn't any improvement. Or even a believable story.
A post is only "worth by its content" in some language I don't speak. On slashdot, a comment has to make sense to have value, and if it doesn't have value and is written by somebody who just signed up (I can tell by your user id, you see) then it has negative value.
Look at the comment you wrote above. Re-read it. You wrote 17 words, with nothing other than a false claim to be an old-timer, judgment about what slashdot is or was or should be, and mod-whining. None of that has positive value here. The fact that you didn't even understand the obvious metaphorical content of the post you were mod-whining about is just topping. Ask again when you're older.
You won't learn what motivated them, you'll learn what they're motivated to have you believe about them or their effort. It isn't stuff related to the code, and attempting to have information about it when you don't just leaves you with faulty data that you're credulous of.
What matters is their use case, and knowing who they are or how they want you to view their efforts just pollutes your analysis of that use case. And if you ask just about the use case, you have a significant chance of receiving usable information from them.
Considering that they mean different things, perhaps just try to parse it using the word that was used?
For example, another observation is that for any trait the average difference between individuals of the species is greater than the average difference between subgroups, even where there is a statistically significant difference between subgroups. When the difference between men and women on any trait (even breast size; slashdot knows what I'm talking about! roflcopter) is smaller than the difference just from being different instances of human, then that difference is negligible. Knowing an individual's gender does not give you the ability to predict trait values; not because of the statistical difference between the sexes, but because of the proportion of difference between being difference sexes and just being different humans.
Some things don't change. Women have to choose between being respected by internet jerks, which implies they hide their gender, or being able to "be themselves" and be "accepted" but treated like shit and their contributions ignored.
Maybe internet users should just be issued a number, and we can just rank each other by number.
That much stereotype in such a short post, I had to run to the bathroom to shave my neck just from reading it.
You seem to have missed that these larger, less immediate pull requests were accepted at a higher rate than the ones that were more immediate. As long as the gender is disguised. If others can see their gender, then their pulls are less likely to be accepted.
None of the weird stereotypes you spew even attempt to account for that difference. I'll give you a hint: it isn't a difference in the women that causes others to treat them differently based on if the said others know their gender.
Indeed, competition would have such a high burden... they might have to ssh into a server and enter some cryptic command like "dnf install ejabberd" and hire a sysadmin for at least 4 hours to set it up. They would also have to create a website.
A more pressing problem is that you might be targeting people unwilling to pay anything, and they might be willing to consume whatever level of services you are capable of providing.
And you kids should be advised of the existence of email, email lists, and online communities using HTTP-based services. It may be that there are a whole bunch of options in active use, some of which are transmitted entirely across open channels and that have no proprietary components.
It may be that the primary distinguishing characteristic of twitter and facebook, the reason they are so popular, is that they are proprietary and therefore somehow elite! Officialish-looking. Be less credulous.
I'm still using ICQ. Maybe there isn't actually a shortage of services? What then? What if XMPP services can be installed out of the box on any cheap VPS? What then?
There is no need to create fake freedoms, like the right to speak for twitter because you don't have your own platform to kick people out of.
Yeah, it seems pretty obvious to me as an American from a different State that this just means some judge doesn't like the telescope. Judges are not generally considered representative of the rest of government.;)
Actually that idea is what we call "batshit crazy."
No, more like: People with a religious objection to managing encounter problems that require managing. Some of them then resort to secular knowledge of management techniques, which causes a revolt by a faction insisting on faith-healing, which is not granted. Some of them then quit, while others lament that the pay is too good to quit. The quitting of some is seen as by external communities with a shared religion as proof that their concerns were well-founded. After all, if managing isn't evil, why are these people out of work?
Remember, the story is that github made these changes, and they're working out well. There are dissenters, but things have improved business-wise since they started making the changes.
Not the best selling point for at a company where THE MAIN FEATURE is remote distributed development.
No, the main feature is enterprise integration of git with a zillion other tools, and running git as a service with all the hooks and everything exposed.
Git's main feature is remote distributed development. That is not a value-add by github.
And companies buying the paid services don't usually have telecommuting executives, even if they have remote developers. This about getting the leaders into the office where people have access to them. That isn't guaranteed to be bad.
You're doing the exact things you're complaining about others doing. If it is so small... you won't mind the change. Oh, it isn't so small then? Well which is it? At least they're intellectually honest about the change they want. It is unlikely they'll get it, because digital slaves are just electronics, not people. They have very few supporters.;) But the idea that it is OK to complain about people complaining, but not OK to complain in the first place? That is just pathetic. If they don't like the word and prefer a different word, so what? Why is that bad? If you disagree about what word to use, disagree about what word to use. In the Ruby community we had a multi-year debate about if we should say "eigenclass" or "metaclass." Few ever proposed that it is wrong to decide what word we want to use, or wrong to question the old word. What kind of idiot claims to support freedom of speech by demanding that people not speak the wrong complaints?
Did you actually check the eggplant thread? You're claiming not to know penis jokes? OK, you didn't get the troll's joke, that doesn't mean that there is some right or good in making off topic comments in people's dev threads, or some problem in project managers managing that. You claim you can't tell the difference between a penis joke and a vegetable, even when there isn't any cooking or farming context, maybe you should just agree to leave it to the people who do know?
Except, if you read it it isn't a case of a user banned over using an eggplant emoji, it is a troll making no other contribution who was making a bunch of penis jokes.
Are you really claiming not to know what penis jokes are, or if they're OK in a professional discussion?
Also, it is their own project they are managing there. They have every right to ban penis jokes, or people telling them. What is weird about the people insisting that being an asshole should never be punished is that they don't seem to want to extend that right to anybody who looks different than them, is triggered by something other than "SJWs," or who doesn't have a penis.
Yeah, but in this story it is the managers that need to be in the office. Which is true. If you're a worker and you often work from home, but you need to see your manager, having that at an office makes them better able to support your activities.
They had executives who simply aren't doing their whole job unless they are in the office, because part of their job involves other employees having access to them.
According to pretty much everybody, they were responding to real problems. Most of the people leaving didn't want those problems to be solved, or wanted to wish them away.
Their management structure is still "flat," using business terms. Before it was "completely flat without supervisors," but companies don't grow and not add supervisors. I hate to say it, but employees just aren't that awesome, even at a hip startup.
If you limit "successful companies with a flat org chart" to ones without supervisors, there are no names on the list with even as many employees as github.
The story is that they can grow from 300 to 500, and aside from some whiners they're making a great success at it, have maintained positive cash flow the whole time, and are meeting the challenges.
You missed the whole story of this company. They had 0 supervisors. Now they have a few. They didn't have the management systems in place to continue growing, so they added them before anything bad happened, before they got to 800. They didn't need to do something that they didn't do, they did the thing. And they're not making excuses, they're celebrating their success.
As noted, they have 1 "complaint" on a popular job complaint site, and that complaint also claims that the pay is 95th percentile and the employees love their pay too much to leave. Doesn't mention that if they leave, the new job will also have a supervisor.;)
As a practical heuristic: when the ratio of managers to programmers starts increasing, the quality of the product starts decreasing.
It isn't practical or reasonable if you extend it all the way out to the extremes, such as here where there was no managers at all, and then they added some non-zero number.
The reason your heuristic is usually true is that there are usually already some number of managers chosen according to mainstream business practices. It is foolish to presume that whatever is true in the middle of the curve remains true even at the theoretical extreme value.
Right, instead of updating the OS packages when a major security 0-day arrives, you need to turn off all your app containers, forward to a parking page, and start recompiling images.
But, your dev teams don't have to agree on compatible sets of libraries to use on projects that will be deployed together on the same cloud instances.
This trades the ability to deal with those types of problems, for being able to do stuff you couldn't do because your company didn't have anybody that can do that stuff. So without this, their website would be slashdotted anyways, and with it, they can function until bad things happen, then they can scream and wave their hands in the air like everybody else. Does it matter? That is for each company to decide...;)
...that container will Just Work everywhere, and updating packages on the host won't break it.
I love this stuff... updating packages on the host won't break "it," even where "it" is some sort of malware bug.
It doesn't seem to so much solve a problem as offer a new way to create a compromise between security and convenience. Here, it mostly trades the convenience of security updates at the OS level away for convenience of deploying minimally-maintained packages.
If I wanted this, I would just switch to static linking. But I can see how, for development teams that don't have anybody on them that knows how to compile software, this would be a major time-saver.
Slashdot Mirror
That mostly tells me that you see a few things, but you attempt to understand them even without searching for context.
Moderate regimes who have a revolution will tend to become extreme; a liberal revolution will typically be replaced within days by an extremist one, for obvious reasons about who is more willing to shoot each other. There are many other cultural and political factors necessary to switch from extreme or draconian government to liberal or moderate government, a revolution by itself does not move a culture towards values of freedom.
An extremist regime doesn't likely have numerous more-extreme parties waiting to fill a power vacuum; they have a collection of moderate and differently-extreme options. And in the case of Iran/Persia, all of the options with significant constituencies are less extreme.
Perhaps a moderate Persian regime would seem extreme in some ways compared to the Egyptian military, but it is hard to think of any area of governance where it would be more extreme than the current regime. Moderate to who? I think most people who are critical of the current Iranian government would consider freedom of association, dress, and religion to be significantly moderate, even if it was a dictatorship with an official government religion.
It may even be that during his Presidency he was exactly the same man, doing exactly the same things, but wasn't given credit by the media. As an ex-President, he has little power in the political system and is treated positively by the media.
This leads to people saying things like, "it was worth living through President Carter to have ex-President Carter;" something I've heard uttered at least 30 or 40 times. But instead of just, "yuk yuk"-ing, I ask them what President Carter actually did wrong and nobody has ever (ever!!!) listed even a single thing that is true. People like to mention Iran, but they say insane things that won't match the history if you look it up. There are also accusations that parts of the US Government were supporting conservatives in the elections, and actually interfered with Carter resolving the Iran crisis. That should be considered also when making accusations about that whole scenario. The anti-Carter people don't even have a clear accusation other than "didn't magically prevent using words."
I don't know that there is any other example of a US President being so vilified by the press for all of their career up to the end of their Presidency, and then lauded afterwards. There are certainly other examples of Presidents whose reputational legacy doesn't match the history of their career in any way, but perhaps none with such a mixed bag.
They don't have a significant number of "anti-Islamists." It is crazy silly stuff. It is almost exactly like the claim that saying "Happy Holidays" is an attack on Christians. Just as Americans are mostly not anti-Christian, Iranians are not anti-Islam. Tolerant governments of places in the region with relatively free cultures are still officially Islamic nations, including the dictatorships. Iraqi Kurdistan is the closest thing to an exception, and they're still mostly Muslims and have cordial relations with their Islamist neighbors.
The fantasy-land "awesome Persia after a regime change" would still be Islamist, but would be moderate with secular dominance of civil society.
Blaming President Carter is just a crazy right-wing fantasy, not "history."
Wildly crazy stuff, that seems to also require a belief in Jimmy Carter being a mutant Superhero who failed to fly over and stop it.
The whole embassy stuff just kinda-sorta blows a hole in your theory. Check some historical newsreels kiddo.
If I'm late, just start without me.
I found this new server ::1 and they have all my favorite files! But for some reason, I'm having some bugs with wall(1)
Right, oh, 2011 isn't yesterday? What, were you born yesterday? No, you didn't have another account, if you did you would use it. If you had been here since the 90s, you would know that. Perhaps your reputation was so awful, you decided to pretend you were born yesterday? No, that isn't any improvement. Or even a believable story.
A post is only "worth by its content" in some language I don't speak. On slashdot, a comment has to make sense to have value, and if it doesn't have value and is written by somebody who just signed up (I can tell by your user id, you see) then it has negative value.
Look at the comment you wrote above. Re-read it. You wrote 17 words, with nothing other than a false claim to be an old-timer, judgment about what slashdot is or was or should be, and mod-whining. None of that has positive value here. The fact that you didn't even understand the obvious metaphorical content of the post you were mod-whining about is just topping. Ask again when you're older.
You won't learn what motivated them, you'll learn what they're motivated to have you believe about them or their effort. It isn't stuff related to the code, and attempting to have information about it when you don't just leaves you with faulty data that you're credulous of.
What matters is their use case, and knowing who they are or how they want you to view their efforts just pollutes your analysis of that use case. And if you ask just about the use case, you have a significant chance of receiving usable information from them.
Considering that they mean different things, perhaps just try to parse it using the word that was used?
For example, another observation is that for any trait the average difference between individuals of the species is greater than the average difference between subgroups, even where there is a statistically significant difference between subgroups. When the difference between men and women on any trait (even breast size; slashdot knows what I'm talking about! roflcopter) is smaller than the difference just from being different instances of human, then that difference is negligible. Knowing an individual's gender does not give you the ability to predict trait values; not because of the statistical difference between the sexes, but because of the proportion of difference between being difference sexes and just being different humans.
You sound exceptionally easy to socially engineer.
If you want to avoid polluting your own process, just read the code and evaluate if you want the change.
"There are no girls on the BBS"
"Yes there are."
"How do you know?"
"There's a meetup next week, you should go!"
Some things don't change. Women have to choose between being respected by internet jerks, which implies they hide their gender, or being able to "be themselves" and be "accepted" but treated like shit and their contributions ignored.
Maybe internet users should just be issued a number, and we can just rank each other by number.
That much stereotype in such a short post, I had to run to the bathroom to shave my neck just from reading it.
You seem to have missed that these larger, less immediate pull requests were accepted at a higher rate than the ones that were more immediate. As long as the gender is disguised. If others can see their gender, then their pulls are less likely to be accepted.
None of the weird stereotypes you spew even attempt to account for that difference. I'll give you a hint: it isn't a difference in the women that causes others to treat them differently based on if the said others know their gender.
Indeed, competition would have such a high burden... they might have to ssh into a server and enter some cryptic command like "dnf install ejabberd" and hire a sysadmin for at least 4 hours to set it up. They would also have to create a website.
A more pressing problem is that you might be targeting people unwilling to pay anything, and they might be willing to consume whatever level of services you are capable of providing.
And you kids should be advised of the existence of email, email lists, and online communities using HTTP-based services. It may be that there are a whole bunch of options in active use, some of which are transmitted entirely across open channels and that have no proprietary components.
It may be that the primary distinguishing characteristic of twitter and facebook, the reason they are so popular, is that they are proprietary and therefore somehow elite! Officialish-looking. Be less credulous.
I'm still using ICQ. Maybe there isn't actually a shortage of services? What then? What if XMPP services can be installed out of the box on any cheap VPS? What then?
There is no need to create fake freedoms, like the right to speak for twitter because you don't have your own platform to kick people out of.
Yeah, it seems pretty obvious to me as an American from a different State that this just means some judge doesn't like the telescope. Judges are not generally considered representative of the rest of government. ;)
Actually that idea is what we call "batshit crazy."
No, more like: People with a religious objection to managing encounter problems that require managing. Some of them then resort to secular knowledge of management techniques, which causes a revolt by a faction insisting on faith-healing, which is not granted. Some of them then quit, while others lament that the pay is too good to quit. The quitting of some is seen as by external communities with a shared religion as proof that their concerns were well-founded. After all, if managing isn't evil, why are these people out of work?
Remember, the story is that github made these changes, and they're working out well. There are dissenters, but things have improved business-wise since they started making the changes.
Not the best selling point for at a company where THE MAIN FEATURE is remote distributed development.
No, the main feature is enterprise integration of git with a zillion other tools, and running git as a service with all the hooks and everything exposed.
Git's main feature is remote distributed development. That is not a value-add by github.
And companies buying the paid services don't usually have telecommuting executives, even if they have remote developers. This about getting the leaders into the office where people have access to them. That isn't guaranteed to be bad.
What if it turns out that sourceforge has supervisors? What then?!??!
You're doing the exact things you're complaining about others doing. If it is so small... you won't mind the change. Oh, it isn't so small then? Well which is it? At least they're intellectually honest about the change they want. It is unlikely they'll get it, because digital slaves are just electronics, not people. They have very few supporters. ;) But the idea that it is OK to complain about people complaining, but not OK to complain in the first place? That is just pathetic. If they don't like the word and prefer a different word, so what? Why is that bad? If you disagree about what word to use, disagree about what word to use. In the Ruby community we had a multi-year debate about if we should say "eigenclass" or "metaclass." Few ever proposed that it is wrong to decide what word we want to use, or wrong to question the old word. What kind of idiot claims to support freedom of speech by demanding that people not speak the wrong complaints?
Did you actually check the eggplant thread? You're claiming not to know penis jokes? OK, you didn't get the troll's joke, that doesn't mean that there is some right or good in making off topic comments in people's dev threads, or some problem in project managers managing that. You claim you can't tell the difference between a penis joke and a vegetable, even when there isn't any cooking or farming context, maybe you should just agree to leave it to the people who do know?
Except, if you read it it isn't a case of a user banned over using an eggplant emoji, it is a troll making no other contribution who was making a bunch of penis jokes.
Are you really claiming not to know what penis jokes are, or if they're OK in a professional discussion?
Also, it is their own project they are managing there. They have every right to ban penis jokes, or people telling them. What is weird about the people insisting that being an asshole should never be punished is that they don't seem to want to extend that right to anybody who looks different than them, is triggered by something other than "SJWs," or who doesn't have a penis.
Yeah, but in this story it is the managers that need to be in the office. Which is true. If you're a worker and you often work from home, but you need to see your manager, having that at an office makes them better able to support your activities.
They had executives who simply aren't doing their whole job unless they are in the office, because part of their job involves other employees having access to them.
According to pretty much everybody, they were responding to real problems. Most of the people leaving didn't want those problems to be solved, or wanted to wish them away.
Their management structure is still "flat," using business terms. Before it was "completely flat without supervisors," but companies don't grow and not add supervisors. I hate to say it, but employees just aren't that awesome, even at a hip startup.
If you limit "successful companies with a flat org chart" to ones without supervisors, there are no names on the list with even as many employees as github.
The story is that they can grow from 300 to 500, and aside from some whiners they're making a great success at it, have maintained positive cash flow the whole time, and are meeting the challenges.
You missed the whole story of this company. They had 0 supervisors. Now they have a few. They didn't have the management systems in place to continue growing, so they added them before anything bad happened, before they got to 800. They didn't need to do something that they didn't do, they did the thing. And they're not making excuses, they're celebrating their success.
As noted, they have 1 "complaint" on a popular job complaint site, and that complaint also claims that the pay is 95th percentile and the employees love their pay too much to leave. Doesn't mention that if they leave, the new job will also have a supervisor. ;)
As a practical heuristic: when the ratio of managers to programmers starts increasing, the quality of the product starts decreasing.
It isn't practical or reasonable if you extend it all the way out to the extremes, such as here where there was no managers at all, and then they added some non-zero number.
The reason your heuristic is usually true is that there are usually already some number of managers chosen according to mainstream business practices. It is foolish to presume that whatever is true in the middle of the curve remains true even at the theoretical extreme value.
Right, instead of updating the OS packages when a major security 0-day arrives, you need to turn off all your app containers, forward to a parking page, and start recompiling images.
But, your dev teams don't have to agree on compatible sets of libraries to use on projects that will be deployed together on the same cloud instances.
This trades the ability to deal with those types of problems, for being able to do stuff you couldn't do because your company didn't have anybody that can do that stuff. So without this, their website would be slashdotted anyways, and with it, they can function until bad things happen, then they can scream and wave their hands in the air like everybody else. Does it matter? That is for each company to decide... ;)
...that container will Just Work everywhere, and updating packages on the host won't break it.
I love this stuff... updating packages on the host won't break "it," even where "it" is some sort of malware bug.
It doesn't seem to so much solve a problem as offer a new way to create a compromise between security and convenience. Here, it mostly trades the convenience of security updates at the OS level away for convenience of deploying minimally-maintained packages.
If I wanted this, I would just switch to static linking. But I can see how, for development teams that don't have anybody on them that knows how to compile software, this would be a major time-saver.