asdkfjasl

You are clearly right that responding to you was unproductive. I had hoped that you would simply see that what you had written was unhelpful, and acknowledge the same. I didn't intend a long discussion. But I can see that my hopes were in vain. I will not make this particular mistake again. :-/

> Sadly, your admission that you didn't intend to address the lede of the story indicates that this might be exactly what's happened.

Here, and throughout, I think you're confusing two different things. One is choosing a specific, objectionable point to discuss. The other is being unable to engage with the story as a whole. You are assuming, as far as I can understand what you've written, that because I disagreed and focused on a specific thing you said, I was unable to engage with, understand, or appreciate the story as a whole. I don't think that assumption is well-founded.

Dystopian fiction often serves as a critique of the real world. In this case, it's pretty obvious what's being critiqued, and there is certainly some merit to questioning aspects of cancel culture, furious debates over ever more marginal aspects of identity politics, etc. On the other hand, critique invites response. It's totally in bounds to respond negatively to aspects of a given critique. That's part of what comment sections are for. As far as I can tell, you accused someone of incuriousity essentially for responding to a critique with further critique.

As for how you meant that first sentence, I can only tell you how it came across to me. (As an unnecessary, insulting interjection.) That's all I have to say about it.

I meant it in this sense:

> Capitulate v. to surrender often after negotiation of terms

It is possible to surrender without a fight. In so doing, one avoids a power struggle, by yielding the ground the other side was demanding.

> neither you nor GP directly address the lede of the story

I didn't intend to address the lede of the story. I intended to address what I viewed as an important, common, and contextually incorrect viewpoint in your comment. :) If I wanted to address the story as a whole, I would have engaged in the form of a top-level comment.

> your comment is more about a "rude" tone than substance

This characterization of what I wrote is factually inaccurate. I addressed the rude tone in a single sentence, and the substance of (a specific part of) your comment in multiple paragraphs.

Also, from newsguidelines.html:

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

The specific applicability of this to your comment is to delete the first, rude sentence. Your whole message is conveyed much better without it!

Via capitulation, it's always possible to avoid a power struggle. Game theoretically, this has some pretty obvious suboptimal outcomes for the capitulating player. I think it's an interesting question to figure out when the power struggle is worth it, and when it isn't. But I think necessarily this is going to be a question that boils down to values that every person is going to have to evaluate for themselves.

> What a strange lack of curiosity.

That's kind of a rude thing to say, and not really necessary to the rest of your comment.

> Framing the conversation of controversy around an anecdotal one involving someone arguing against someone else's right to exist seems like missing the forest for a very specific tree

Depending on where you stand in the forest, some trees are larger than others. For example, if you are LGBTQ, the LGBTQ tree is going to tend to be more important to you. It is also sadly a continuing source of national controversy in the United States. Because that group is still fighting for equal treatment in many respects.

I think the GP's point is that the question of whether something is a "scissor statement" is secondary, for certain important issues. Coding style is probably not one of those issues, and it's probably better to avoid being too caught up on one answer versus another. Fundamental rights are a different category.

I mean, you're right, it is a fascinating piece of fiction! Indeed, if controversial statements are indeed generable as suggested, that would be a fascinating observation on the human condition. The comment you're responding to even acknowledged that, but with reservation. I don't think it's right for you to make rude accusations because someone stated their reservations.

OK, but in that case is there a distinction between index funds and actively managed funds? Is this a risk that index funds are uniquely exposed to?

Also, another thing to keep in mind is that this only affects people who are trying to sell at the bottom. Buy and hold investors care little for liquidity issues during a crash.

I mostly agree, although it's worth noting that there are probably some fixed overheads of being employed that eat up some of the otherwise expected benefits. Let's consider a scenario where there are 4h average fixed overhead for working at a company. Now let's run the 0.6 time vs. 1.0 time scenarios.

1.0 time. 40h - 4h overhead = 36h. Pay = 1. Work-to-pay ratio is 36h:1p.

0.6 time. 24h - 4h overhead = 20h. Pay = 0.6. Work to pay ratio is 33h:1p. You'd have to suppose that the 0.6 time worker is at least 1.1x as productive per hour just to break even. If you provide benefits that don't scale with fractional work you need even more of a productivity edge to justify it.

The corollary of this is that you'd really better make sure you have little fixed overhead time for your workers if they are working fractional time.

Eh, we live in the center of NYC, and we have gotten like three or four in the last year. A well-sealed apartment (copper wool + silicone caulk in all gaps) will keep out cockroaches and rats pretty well.

Interesting. So if you buy such a device for a gift, not knowing that it has a secret camera, and then decide you don't want it and resell it on Ebay, you'd agree that now it is you who are liable?

> the person who sold it to you (the provider) is liable

I don't think that's true unless they knew it had this behavior or were negligent in some way.

I think it's a not uncommon view particularly about fine art as bought and sold in the galleries and auction houses of New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo.

Open sourcing is usually pushed from the bottom. People decide they care about open sourcing their project at they push for it.

Some people are robots and never write errors. I and most C++ programmers are not in that category.

unique_ptr is super useful for documenting the point in the code that owns a given object, and for providing some compile time protection against multiple deletions. (If you never write delete and only use unique_ptr, you have to do a relatively foolish thing to get double deletions.)

The article is about workers, not applicants. Nobody is disputing that a lot of people have been bamboozled into going to these code bootcamps.