AlexB138

Because life isn't that simple. To one group "misgendering" people is harassment and therefore not nice. To another group being forced to speak as if someone is a gender you do not believe them to be is patronizing and not nice. No one is intentionally being unkind, other than the people who like to wade into the culture war

> surely you'd agree that someone trolling kids online ... should be ashamed of themselves and driven out of polite society, yes?

I think pretty much everyone involved here, aside from the children, ought to be ashamed of themselves. I don't buy into the idea that people ought to be driven out of society though.

Using children as political tools is disgusting. It's blatantly manipulative. Throwing them into the cess-pool of public politics and then acting as if you're shocked they're in a cess-pool, and using that shock to try to score political points, is one of the more reprehensible tactics in the modern play book.

> But if we look back at history, there's plenty of empirical evidence that aggressive activism does work to advance its goals. Many of the protests against the Vietnam War were far more disruptive than anything we've seen from climate activists, and engendered a far more serious backlash--the point of National Guard soldiers shooting at college student protesters. But ultimately public sentiment did turn against the war.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There's no evidence that the protests caused public sentiment to change, they simply coincide. It's equally (more?) likely that people's kids dying in droves changed their opinions, and many people credit the gruesome and explicit nightly news coverage of the war as turning public opinion.

I concur. We're heavily considering taking our children out of the school system and this is our primary blocker. We're doing research on it and it does seem like there are a number of social groups specifically geared toward solving this problem in our area. It seems like it is growing much more common, though a disproportionate number of the groups are still non-secular, which makes them a bad match for us.

Any recommendations on resources to better understand the build process for compiled languages in general, and Go in particular?

The best help young, inexperienced, energetic folks can be is to follow someone who is aged, experienced, and lacking bandwidth. Romantic notions aside, young people are not particularly equipped to lead, and would do better to watch a leader work for a while instead of trying to dive in themselves.

Go find a group that actually has a mission and help them, rather than searching for a problem to solve. Plenty of animal shelters, churches, and soup kitchens would love a group of hands to help.

If your program specifically requires you to lead something, create a program to coordinate causeless volunteers with organizations that need them.

> ... how things pan out regarding k8

I've been seeing this mistake a lot. Just to clear up confusion for people: K8s is not plural. It's a shortening convention (similar to i18n) where you trim the middle letters out of a long word and replace it with the number of characters you've trimmed. K(ubernete)s = K8s because "ubernete" is 8 characters. K8 is never the correct word to refer to it.

> When the outcome of a process results in a disparity (along racial, gender, etc. lines), people generally agree that the process is discriminatory, regardless of whether there was an intent to discriminate.

No, people do not generally agree that a process with a clear cause resulting in an explainable distribution that doesn't reflect society at large is discriminatory. A very specific political view suggests that.

You don't see a lot of female construction workers. Sometimes only a specific group is willing to do, or capable of doing, a job for a perfectly acceptable reason.

You're talking at cross purposes. You are talking about how you think the world ought to be, and the person you're responding to is talking about how the world is. They're fundamentally different conversations, and it's not particularly useful to mix them, especially in such a critical manner.

How is it bad for people to find dates in the office? Plenty of people meet their significant others at work. It's a bit bizarre to treat courtship as "bad".

>Are you attempting to bring attention to the fact that doxxing is rarely prosecuted, even though it's illegal and there's boatloads of evidence that it is in fact a form of violence?

We should really stop with the scope creep attempts around "violence".

I agree with most of your points, but:

> So your forefathers did something great so you're entitled to untold riches?

Yes, the poster is entitled to the benefits of living in the country they were born in. Infinitely more so than foreigners are entitled to access to his country. A country has an obligation to its citizens, arguably more so to those who have sacrificed to allow it to exist, and none to outsiders who wish to join. Those outsiders' desire to join should be considered only insofar as they benefits the citizens of the country, and I think you've fairly illustrated where that can be the case.

This is the problem I have with a lot of Netflix content. It plays as social commentary written by a college freshman. Painfully cliche and heavy handed.

Most of it is awful quality and would've died on the vine on a network channel, and their bar is pretty low. The rest of the library is getting pretty thin as well. I don't think Netflix has a very bright future and will probably be remembered like Myspace, one of the first big players in a space they will cease to be relevant in.

I've never read a single post in The_Donald, and only rarely read reddit as a whole. I couldn't claim any idea of the group's views (though the habit of claiming the other team's ideas are things like "violent, separatist rhetoric" is pretty common, so pardon me if I don't take your word for it). I'm simply talking about the trend with conservatives, and those right of center, in general.

I don't have any particular love for the modern Republican party. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is for them to setup shop on platforms owned by their political rivals and then be surprised when excuses are found to shut them down.

That river rock mosaic is gorgeous. Interesting juxtaposition. Such a beautiful medium portraying two men responsible for such a staggering amount of suffering.

Really fantastic photos.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I'm all for rooting out Chinese IP thieves and generally think the "trade war" is deserved, but it's absolutely unacceptable to target an American citizen due to their ethnicity. We can't sacrifice our ideals out of fear, and especially not for convenience.

Public to whom? The citizens of the country funding the research, or to those of a country that steals the result?

People spilled gallons of ink about the Nationalist Socialist party. Something gets written about because it is relevant, not because it is good.

> we need to re-evaluate our current system of corporate ownership and ask if it is really what's best for society

You phrase this as if it's an either/or. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you, or any other owner, are currently perfectly free to experiment with other ownership models in your own company.

It's not something to have a crisis about. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. There's too much out there to understand every facet yourself (for a fun example of this, go read I, Pencil) and have any time left over to actually make anything. Like most things in engineering, and life, it's a trade-off. The only problem here is the smirking know-it-all nature of comics like that.

This post is a fantastic example of what the actual problem is. Neither of the points made are factually accurate, but boy is the poster angry about it. "Let's talk about how is social media's fault", indeed. Moral outrage, mostly fabricated, pedaled by every media outlet, spreading like wildfire. It's everywhere, and it seems like almost everyone, myself included, falls for it to some degree.

> It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society.

I'm assuming you're talking about the US.

We are not subjects of our government, or of some other sovereign, whether that be society or anything else. Our society is founded on individual pursuit of happiness, not collectivism.

Put another way, corporations exist for whatever reason their creators decide. So long as they operate within the law and are able to sustain themselves, societal good is a side effect and a concern of the State, not the corporation itself.

How so? As a consumer, I personally have a lot less trust in Amazon. At least with Walmart I know I'll get what I ordered instead of some cheap Chinese knockoff.

It's good to see some viable competition to Amazon, but it's regretful that it comes from, and probably can only come from, another mega-corporation with an extremely poor track record around worker treatment.

I wonder how viable some sort of supply-chain co-op would be. Basically, get all of the medium players together to share resources to try to match these gargantuan companies on the delivery and returns front. It just doesn't seem possible for them to match these companies on their own, and a third-party would basically just be UPS.

Paraphrasing, because I can't find the original quote: You can start a movement without a god, but not without a devil.

It's mostly a boogeyman used to galvanize and justify another extremist group.

> As I heard from one candidate in an interview, “software development is one of very few career paths left to have a middle class lifestyle without a degree.“

That's very true, and it's because technology is more of a meritocracy than most other professions. Your compiler doesn't care about your credentials, or who your family is, emotional pleas, or any of the other myriad factors that get people into jobs they're not capable of. The culture of meritocracy is pretty heavily under assault, but I'm confident it will survive for a while yet.

That seems like a non sequitur. If each country were left to decide on its own, it seems that many, in fact historically nearly all, would not have open boarders. It seems like you're assuming the freedom of a group to govern themselves would result in them choosing what you personally find ideal. The world as it is now is the null hypothesis. People choose to form countries, and countries choose to have boarders.

Or, perhaps more viscerally, in this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago

> I think that it's fair to not try to add anything beyond what's demonstrably there.

Why? If peoples' experiences and psychology (in my layman's understanding of agreeableness) show that women tend to be more empathetic than men, it seems perfectly reasonable for them to suggest that that may have benefited an inventor in a fantastic discovery they made. People have no obligation to buy into others' narratives. Groups can claim whatever they want is fictional, it doesn't mean everyone else has to censor their speech accordingly.

I thought the person you were responding to was making a very thoughtful point, and one that was very respectful of women and the valuable insight some of them have that is often overlooked.