Why React Native Is Different
jlongster.com
jlongster.com
Unfortunately, the page outsmarted me and as I zoomed out, it somehow figured out I was doing this and increased the font size so it's the same size it was at 72 points when I was at 100% zoom.
Well, all right web designer. You "win". The amount of effort you put into defeating my efforts to read your content is astounding.
h1 { font-size: 5vw; }
The `vw` units are relative to the page width.
You would rather have to press the right arrow key 50 times? I find it to be a whole lot faster to scroll quickly through content rather than forcing me to click through every single damn slide.
EDIT: It is interesting that the vw/vh units don't take zoom into effect, I hadn't thought of that. Interesting.
But it is useful to walk through each slide with a keypress, so I'll probably add that feature as well. I want both.
google cache, text only view
I'm normally not a UX pedant, either.
James, thanks for the informative talks - I hope we can continue to push the bounds of React Native and succeed in making it an obvious choice for developers in the future. For anyone who hasn't tried it, I highly recommend giving it a shot for any new app you work on. There's a lack of Android support at the moment (it is about 5 months from release I believe), but at the very least you'll speed up your iOS development significantly. It's hard to justify native development now (for me, as a non-iOS dev) when you can, for example, create a camera view in React Native with a single line of code.
Ah well, such is social media :)
You can interpret the name in any number of ways. UIs are all about "reacting" to user input and data changes, for example.
They also seem to support native libs.
As a non-native speaker, isn't "guys" a correct term regardless of the gender?
Knowing where to draw that line is not - nor has it ever been - universal.
Microaggressions are insidious precisely because they're so innocuous; they let well-intentioned people participate unwittingly in systemic oppression that they would never consciously support.
If you're noticing yourself get a bit defensive about this idea, forget the word itself and just frame it like this:
You're a well-meaning person, and you want to avoid causing unnecessary harm with your words. So when you're around people who have really different life experiences than you, how do you make sure you don't cause harm without meaning to?
I don't like the weaselly binary assumption here. You are implying "You are either a well-meaning person or you are not." That's an unbelievably narrow (and, honestly, childish) view of human interactivity. It also implies that you alone hold a monopoly on how "well-meaning" is defined and that it is your sacred duty to impose that doctrine on others.
You're basically attempting to confuse people into accepting your moral ethos as a candidate for common assumptions of what "well-meaning" should be.
This is underhanded and not well-meaning at all.
Perhaps you should try avoiding causing unnecessary harm with your words next time.
But that message didn't even get past the firewall. Instead you decided to elaborately deconstruct what is probably the least presumptuous part of what I wrote, as a way to impute some contrived ulterior motive to me, as a way to not engage with what I was saying, at length.
I guess I don't see what you're hoping to get out of this interaction at this point. Like, okay, you don't need to think about how your words affect other people... if you really don't want to?
I think that's appropriate, actually. That you've defined well-meaning to encapsulate more people than it does is probably the core of the disagreement, but I think it's fair to say that most people are well-meaning, but not all people are.
Comparing and contrasting "almost everybody" to "Ann Coulter", and I think it's easy to draw such a distinction. Most people are simply trying to communicate without deliberately pissing everybody off, while Ann Coulter gets pretty decent play out of pissing people off for the hell of it.
That said, your point on "well-meaning" being an arbitrary distinction holds, though I would assert that if more people assumed good faith until proven otherwise, we wouldn't find ourselves being offended by every little thing.
Which can actually be kinda confusing to folks not familiar with it, but this is true of many sets of jargon, not just Social Justice.
On the other hand, it's routinely frustrating when especially technical communities, full to bursting with misappropriations of common terms, seem especially unable to see past the letters in a word to its meaning in context. Maybe we just intrinsically don't believe that other areas of inquiry could be so complex as to need their own jargon...
I'd speculate that true appreciation for jargon comes more from multidisciplinary studies than anything else, so in any field the most passionate, least experienced members are likely to make a mess of things-- and if there's one thing the activist community has in surplus it's members with a high passion:experience ratio.
Having acknowledged that issue, I'm still reluctant to excuse anyone in this case, simply because we're talking about a term that doesn't have any other meaning. If you see a word you've never heard before, and think "I can probably figure out what this refers to based on its sounds" with Google sitting right there, naah, the problem isn't the jargon.
Edit: Like, seriously, would this happen if the word was "microclimate" or "microevolution"? Yeah, on the YouTube comments, but not usually on HN.
Also, I had completely forgotten that "function" also means, like, cocktail parties.
My issue is the idea that one person or group can universally dictate that "X is offensive to Y." That's an impossible thing to do, and it has a side effect of dictating what's offensive instead of responding to what's offensive.
I have no horse in the SJW goings on, but my casual observation has been that there's as much creation of social taboos as there is attempts to raise awareness of existing ones. In either event, a one-size-fits-all approach is misguided.
> harmless and without ill intent
ag·gres·sion əˈɡreSHən/ noun hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
Aggression is, by default, defined by intent, not perception.
> You're a well-meaning person, and you want to avoid causing unnecessary harm with your words. So when you're around people who have really different life experiences than you, how do you make sure you don't cause harm without meaning to?
This was my point about there existing no universal set of social rules. So when someone says "don't say X, it's offensive," I have a tendency to look at that as more a matter of latter-day Tumblr cause celebre than anything real.
As a matter of brutal honesty, when someone tells me that X is offensive to them, I respond by not doing X anymore. I don't accept wide swath rules about such things and apply them universally, unless I observe them with any frequency in the wild. If we all cast that net, communication would be extraordinarily difficult and language impossibly rigid and uninteresting.
I'll repay the same courtesy: Your argument is predicted and refuted by your sibling thread of twenty minutes ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501084
Microaggression is a term of jargon, as Google would have happily informed you. Its root word, not its synonym, is "aggression". Microaggressions are by definition not intended to hurt, or they would be, you know, aggressions.
That's an important concept, because it augments your theory of mind with this fact: There are things that you do, from time to time, that hurt other people in ways too small for them to complain about. For the most part, these things are random and not worth the effort to try to predict and avoid. And no one would ever call out one of these things as offensive, because taken individually, they aren't.
But certain individuals, and certain groups of people, are "randomly" subject to that sort of thing far more often than others. Your barely-hurtful word is a barely-wet raindrop in the ocean of hurt that defines their world. And certainly you can't do anything about their ocean, but maybe, sometimes, it could be worth your effort to not participate.
Basically, I'm not trying to give you rules to follow. I'm trying to suggest that the world does have patterns, and the way to relate to patterns is with rules. So please, make your own rules, but don't reject the whole idea-- or else live in a world you understand and fit in to a little bit less.
I will reiterate, though, that it's impossible to capture or represent the feelings of a large group with a one-sized-fits-all rule. Whether I accept them or reject them depends exclusively on the reality of the situation and audience.
Great, and now you've edited so that I look like the crazy one...
No, that's simply false. Sure, lots of people do it. Everyone does not.
HN this is disappointing.
Singularly, "guy" is a colloquialism for "male". Plurally, "guy" is a gender-neutral colloquialism for "everybody", or "people".
"Guys" can be used in both a male-gender-specific sense (for which the female-gender-specific rough equivalent is "gals"), or in a gender-neutral sense; there is no structural way to distinguish the uses. Like most places in English where a word has both a male-gender-specific use and a gender-neutral use, the latter is somewhat controversial with certain groups, who prefer unambiguously gender-neutral terms rather than dual-use terms that can either be male-gender-specific and gender-neutral.
To roughly paraphrase: If "guy" means "man or woman", and "gal"[] means "woman", the two words we actually have are "person" and "woman". The implication of that should be unsettling to anyone who doesn't truly believe that women are a distinct group from the general, male, population.
[] Or whatever.
Man - gender neutral or gender unknown Woman - gender specific - of the female gender Werman - gender specific - of the male gender
It is just that, other than in werwolf, we forgot wer as a prefix.
There's no need to create an implicit bias when saying something like, "We'll need to recruit some Python guys to deal with this." Just use "people" instead. (Unless you're referring to the guys in the men's room.)
I might question whether the speaker or the listener would be the one creating the supposed bias in that case.
Stayed to laugh the pedantic fixation upon gender pronouns.
Stay Hilary, HN.
(Edit: here's a link to the Harvard Dialect Survey that shows regional variations in addressing groups of two or more people: http://www4.uwm.edu/FLL/linguistics/dialect/staticmaps/q_50....)
There's been some linguistic research that shows that men are more likely to interpret "guys" as neutral than women, although unfortunately I don't have a link.
Some people prefer not to use the "guys"-as-gender-neutral slang even on the coasts both because it sets male as default and because it can be misinterpreted by people from other parts of the U.S. and the world. Personally I've stopped using it unless I'm actually addressing a group of dudes.
If you want to play it safe, use "folks."
Note, that was slightly tongue in cheek, but this is apparently what we do with words today... find some way in which they could be considered offensive, and then immediately begin to take offense at them.
While I understand that there are indeed legitimate reasons to encourage people to choose their words thoughtfully, I can't help but wonder how terrible life will be when choosing to take offense at the innocuous becomes more prevalent than simply choosing not to take offense. The latter is, I believe, the more enlightened path.
If I address a mixed gender group, and I ask that "all the guys" raise their hand, everybody will know that I mean men only.