TerminalSystem3

Yeah, this reads like clickbait. The Verge has really gone down the tubes, I never go there anymore - too consumed with political causes. My guess is that some boss ordered the writer to make the review as negative as possible, probably because they have a bone to pick with Elon Musk.

Can someone ELI5 on what a NAS is and why someone would need a NAS?

I have worked at a big tech company like this and it was truly one of the most inclusive and welcoming environments I have ever been in. Of course, a lot comes down to your manager and work group. But I am inclined to give the company as a whole the benefit of the doubt here based on my own experiences.

We will see how this shakes out, but I hope it is not another unjustified pulling of the race card, as false racism accusations do seem to produce a significant "boy who cried wolf" effect.

I dunno, dude - I think to the rational folk on HN it does indeed seem hyperbolic, but there are a lot of really pissed off people who are a little beyond the point of rationality.

For instance, a recent survey showing 29% of respondents would support breaking up the US: http://brightlinewatch.org/american-democracy-at-the-start-o... The source is apparently legit and founded by Yale / Dartmouth professors.

Combine this with the increasing demands of the new ideology, the massive inequality of the modern age, the future automation job losses, and tons of pressure from foreign nations who would love to see a weaker US - I think in 10 years there could easily be some crisis.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I don't think this is constrained to the educational realm. I can certainly tell you that in Big Tech Company Inc, we get emails every day about ending white supremacy, anti racism, yada yada.

Yeah. The thing that makes me believe this most of all is the fact that I have had very similar experiences in my education, and I too would be terrified to attach my real name to some of the experiences I have had. Sad times - I thought Biden would calm some of these people down but it seems to have emboldened them.

I think in general China could easily play a winning hand here by refusing to give into this nonsense. Not just in education, but in a corporate setting, too.

Honestly, it probably won't be such a bad thing for the world to have SOME country moving the ball forward on science and technology. Seems like the US is being increasingly enveloped by the ideology - see the recent "math is racist" campaigns.

Side note - it is hilarious to me that Dr. Seuss is apparently too harmful to be read by kids now, but it's totally fine for them to be exposed to explicit rappers like Travis Scott and Lil Yachty in their McMeals and cereals. Because "green eggs and ham" is more dangerous than "poppin pills is all we know" apparently...

The reaction to this article kind of says it all for me. Right leaning readers seem to accept the claims, although anonymous, because they have experience on the ground that would make them believe such claims. Left leaning readers refuse to accept the claims because they are anonymous and could easily be made up.

It's confirmation bias all the way down. I personally tend to lean more on the right here because I went to an "elite" institution and saw firsthand, plenty of times, the same kind of totalitarian ideological bullying and groupthink that the article describes.

I do think that the reaction to this article, and the many other articles like it, are a harbinger of the near-future breakup of the United States. There is simply no possible way this country can survive when the value systems are so opposed to each other.

This is a really stupid article. It reads like some english essay written by a college student. The author basically just brings up a bunch of anecdotes where Google did some bad stuff. In my opinion, this reflects a rather naive worldview. All large organizations are comprised of people, and sometimes people make mistakes or make decisions that make other people mad.

It seeks to find some kind of metaphor from Google's removal of "don't be evil" but ends up as a whimsical, emotional rant, IMO. And ignores the fact that "Don't be evil" actually is still used by Google.

Also I'd recommend putting (2018) in the title.

This seems like some race bait to me. As you may have guessed, the article says that overconfidence leads managers to see leadership potential and allow reports to "fail up", and of course this is a problem primarily caused by evil white men. Because as we all know, every white man is overconfident, and nobody from any other race or sex is nearly as bad.

Would not recommend reading this.

What exactly makes you think that demand for SWE jobs will evaporate in the next decade? It looks to me like demand should be higher than ever with all the various car, IoT, security related tech news we've seen recently.

A lot of this seems to be pretty politically loaded and will probably outright turn away many readers. But if you can look past this, the article touches on a real issue that nobody really seems to be discussing - the enormous decline in rates of sex among young people.

For a long time, people have complained about the younger generations, and these complaints are often waved away with the assertion that every generation has said this about their successors for centuries. But this is a rather critical difference - we've never had the issue of a generation that didn't seem interested in reproducing.

The very nature of the problem means that it won't really affect us demographically for many years, which makes it hard to even grasp. But the problem does exist, and we'll have huge problems if it isn't solved. Maybe the government will give huge tax breaks for families with children, or maybe Elon Musk will start a clone growing company.

From what my coworkers tell me, it's certainly better than it used to be. My old coworker would often fondly describe how he had to take a packed and miserable bus for almost a full day to get to Beijing when he was a kid, while now he can take an air conditioned high speed train in a fraction of the time.

I'm definitely against any tweets calling for the murder of anybody, I'll say that. But the "anti-harm" movement is not as benign as you think. For instance, see the firing of David Shor, who merely tweeted a study comparing the effectiveness of violent and nonviolent protests. There's an instance of someone who tweeted AGAINST harm, in that he was advocating for nonviolence. Yet he was still censored.

This article does a good job outlining some of the craziness: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin...

I think your argument is legitimate, but I do think there's a distinction between naturally letting words fall out of favor and forcing it. Words naturally fall out of favor when people simply stop using them - this is a process as old as language itself. This is separate from a group of people unilaterally changing commonly accepted terminology and getting upset and censoring when people don't go along with it.

The former, nobody thinks about - see words like "tubular", "rad", "phat", etc. The latter is rather Orwellian, as it's about enforcing a behavioral change on people. People (at least the ones I know) generally hate this, especially in the West.

Well said, and I like the quote. I think it's telling that the top response to your comment completely dodges the substance of the comment and just attacks your "diction." It seems to me that these moral purists are basically in a state of war - any rational argument against their position is met with overreactions, emotional responses, and insults.

Sometimes I wonder whether some of this ridiculousness is put on by foreign influence operations. Because I could not imagine a more effective strategy to hand the election to Trump. Most people I know are rather appalled at the orwellian censorship of the current movement.

But here's the problematic part of your statement:

"Politically correct mobs are a form of this - they are ugly and indiscriminate, but effective at shaping culture by stigmatizing ideas that have been used to justify harm".

How do you define "harm"? It seems that the modern edition of "progress" is trying to eliminate psychological harm by controlling people's speech. Is psychological harm really something worth trying to eliminate in our society?

I'd argue no. Our society thrives on free speech and truth, and attempting to silence people for the sake of keeping the feelings of others intact is not a trade off that's worth making. A book I read that was very informative on the topic was "The Coddling of the American Mind" by Jonathan Haidt - I'd highly recommend looking into it.

The problem is that these rules worked in prior times, but social media has given the offended the power to group up with 10000 other people who would be similarly offended. And once they are all offended, they adopt a mob mentality and ruin the lives of people. There's no examination of evidence, no due process, and no deviation from the mob's mentality.

It's the exact opposite of the norms that the United States had been built on for it's history. And there's little to no legal recourse for victims of the mob who have been fired from their jobs and labeled as a racist online.