MathCodeLove

Fair enough!

Can it not be both? Someone can want to learn for the sake of learning, and then filter further using practicalities. I'd love to learn every programming language out there, but it wouldn't be possible, we only have a limited amount of time in this life, so I'll instead learn the ones that are the most practical to learn. Java, however practical, may not be interesting to me so I may not learn it. Piet is super interesting, but not all that practical so I'll probably never learn it.

It doesn't have to be a single variable equation. I can learn something both to learn it and for practical reasons.

I question the bias of your sample. Almost every one I've known who possesses any self-taught coding knowledge has gotten there specifically because they don't buy the "wage slavery" narrative and wanted a valuable skill. I'm from a very low income community and family so I imagine that if the type of person you're claiming exists were so predominant I'd have run into at least a few of them.

Maybe go is faster than any other language they've used? I'm not contending the fact that they have a reason for wanting to learn go as that new language. Just that your claiming they clearly weren't interested in learning since they didn't choose some esoteric language is fallacious.

I think you may be misinterpreting what OP meant (or perhaps I am, that's a real possibility). I read that as "There are only 2-3 specific people whose skills and contributions were so essential to the orgs success that the org would have failed without them specifically." Where you might have a front end developer who is technically "responsible" for facilitating millions of online transaction, there are likely thousands of other devs who could have done the same work. Among the 2-3 OP was referencing, there are very few who could have done what they did.

They didn't say they wanted to learn new things, they wanted to learn a new language. I can want to learn how to drive a race car in addition to my Toyota Corrola without wanting to lear how to operate a crane (though that would be pretty interesting honestly).

Delivering major value !== Irreplaceable

The fact that the majority of Americans have voted time and time again to get our gun laws to where they are today is my source. It's not "extremism" if it wins by popular vote.

It's difficult to take that article with more than a grain of salt when there's clear political bias and a lack of proper sourcing from the start. Of course political bias is inevitable, but to claim that our gun laws are the result of a takeover by "a minority of radical extermists" is ridiculous.

Then when referencing hard numbers and talking about the influence the NRA may have had, she doesn't back that up with anything. Her "notes" are mostly other highly opinionated articles. Had she followed any form of standard or proper notation[1] it'd be easier to believe her. But usually when people fail to make their sources easily available it's because they don't have them/they are low quality.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources]

Edit:

Just to add another comment to this. Typically when someone claims that something which is supported by a large percentage or even the majority of a given population is the result of "extremism", they themselves are like the extremists, for better or for worse.

Anecdote of course but I'm in the states and I love grocery delivery. It's far better, imo, than food delivery ever was. I can order my groceries a few minutes before I get off work and by the time I get home I have everything I need to cook supper.

I'm generally not a huge fan of hyper-convience and often take the mentality of "I can just do it myself" but in this case I very much embrace the delivery of groceries.

I've seen boilerplate applications for <insert tech stack> but the open-source ones tend not to be great, and the closed source ones could be great - but I'm not willing to pay $XXX for code I haven't seen.

I work closely with a doctor who does indeed do a lot of homework.

I very rarely see a bad faith argument gain any traction and not get immediately shot down here. Not to say it doesn't happen, but IME it's more common that a bad faith argument gets called out and flagged than it is that the bad faith argument gets support and stands.

Not really comparable. In my current office I have my own desk, multiple monitors, comfortable chair, a fridge, microwave, coffee machine, bathrooms that are rarely occupied, I can step away from my computer without fearing it'll get stolen, etc. I enjoy working from libraries and cafes on occasion, but it's definitely a worse UX than working from an office.

Comments like your express an unfortunately common, yet incredibly reductive, sentiment. Execution of course matters. But the innate value of an idea is also extremely important. A poorly executed good idea can easily out perform a well executed bad idea.

> anybody who identifies as a woman

I appreciate your sentiment but this does nothing to define the word. Anybody who identifies as what? That's like saying "An apple is any fruit which looks like an apple." It does nothing to define "apple".

Does race work the same as gender here? I get that it's often still very arbitrary, but it's certainly less fluid (or rather, fluidity in this area is less acceptable). I can't love Mexican food, learn Spanish, and then decide that I identify as Hispanic. Inversely, if I found that I enjoyed wearing women's clothing and partaking in feminine activities then I could identify as a woman if it suited me.

In this case though the "other sides" definition still is ephemeral. In the context of gender, what is a woman? It's easy to say "woman is a gender identity" but thats a categorization, not a definition. There's no official or formal definition (that I can find) which defines the "other sides" usage of woman.

Side note: I dislike using "other side" or making it too partisan an issue. I know 99% of people make it a political issue but I'm really hoping that here on hackernews we can discuss this civilly from a more neutral position.

I think assuming that eventually the culture will "settle" on a definition as if it will suddenly reach a point of maturity and stop evolving is an inaccurate assessment. This strikes me as a non-answer.

So, essentially, the word has become a homonym? Just like "left" has multiple meanings depending upon context, now so "woman"?

That makes sense to me, but then still the question is unanswered, what is the definition of "woman" in a social context? We have the biological definition, but the other definition is still seemingly ephemeral.

Edit:

Small spelling errors. Also, what makes this a loaded question? I agree it's difficult to answer, but on the surface at least asking for the definition of a word doesn't seem loaded to me.

Well Twitter is a company based in the USA so I don't see why the rest of the world's laws should be relevant here.

Did you click on the link? Because that's where it goes. You should probably read the article before commenting.

It's in an eve online subreddit. It's not hard to infer what they're talking about here.

> Because Germany doesn't treat non-college graduates working class people as "losers".

Neither does the United States? Not sure where you're getting this idea from. Most people I know revere trades as they're a known way to make great money without a degree. And, anecdotally speaking, I've managed to get great jobs as a software engineer without a degree. We treat non-college graduates who don't try to ascend above retail or fast-food as losers - and for good reason.

I think allowing both extremes makes it clearer where precisely the center is located. Look at it this way -

In a balanced system you can see how far each side stretches. You're better able to understand what truly is the "extreme" and what isn't:

LLLLLLLLLL <you> RRRRRRRRRR

In a system where one side is censored, what you see doesn't change, but your perception of what you see is warped. The extreme L may not seem so extreme given how much closer you are to it. And even the mild R can begin to look more extreme compared to everything else you see.

LLLLLLL <you> LLLRRRR

Allowing both sides to speak without censorship may not have any impact on the actual L and R extremist, but it will hopefully have an impact on "normal" people and stop warping their perceptions.

But Musk didn't sue them so that's irrelevant.

I had never used an Apple product before buying my mac mini but upon opening the box I had all needed software installed and was able to be productive in under an hour.

This is a fallacious comparison.

There are 3 distinct tiers of users:

1. The basic users which really only use the web browser and maybe occasionally need to edit a document.

2. The "normal" users who need to use the web, office tools, perhaps some random domain specific software or games.

3. The super users, such as yourself.

Linux works fine for users #1 and #3, it's user #2 that runs into major issues and they also happen to be the vast majority of users.

Thank you!! When I first set up Linux as my daily driver I questioned if perhaps I just chose a bad distro or got unlucky in my setup. After trying 2-3 distros I saw that even as a fledgling software engineer at the time I lacked the ability to set up Linux in accordance with my desires without hours of googling and frustration.

Considering some of the issues I help my friends and family with on their personal computers, I couldn't imagine any of them installing and configuring Linux on their own.

It frankly does more harm than good when people try to perpetuate the myth that a Linux installation is just as trivial as a modern Mac or Windows install as it causes people to approach Linux with unrealistic expectations.

Just an unaffiliated 3rd party observer here, but is it possible they meant revenue went down relative to corporate projections or didn't increase in line with other factors like inflation?

Just a thought.