boona

Because cotton makes for a terrible tasting gin!

>What languages and tools does Oil aim to "replace"? >bash, awk, make, Python 2

What will in fact happen: It says here on your resume that you know bash, awk, make, and python 2, but do you know Oil as well?

I was hoping to buy the current Oculus, but I never got around to it since I for one need to plan out a bit more when it comes to that price. At a $200 price point though, I can pick one up without having to think about it twice. I'm getting one when it comes out.

> they should have a place where they can speak

I agree completely. The alternative is that the bad ideas get hidden away, and not seeing the light of day, they begin to fester sort of like social rot. Or worst, people turn to violence. Free speech is not only about being heard, but about weeding out bad ideas.

A great book on the subject is Kindly Inquisitors by Jonathan Rauch. He can explain the importance of free speech much gooderer than I ever could. :)

The more Google has been back pedaling on their unofficial motto "Don't Be Evil", the more wary I become when they start acquiring companies. I like HTC and I would like it to stay that way. I hope this merger doesn't happen.

> I'm all for everyone commenting so at least it's well known how far this FCC is going against public opinion

From where I'm standing, I don't see a huge opposition against this move apart from a vocal minority. I believe it's due to the fact that at this stage the arguments are academic, and as such highly debatable. If they kill net neutrality and people see substantive impacts on their wallets or service, that will be the time to take up arms. At this point in time, I don't see it happening.

The Google memo was actually a pretty good overview of the state of the medical literature on the subject.

I recognize they're biased, but they allow discussion about free speech. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

It seems that HN is flagging all articles that mention the Google Memo. Which speaks to the need to have this conversation even more.

For those who are interested, James has a new interview with psychology professor Jordan Peterson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Wow, according to this, HN is hard at work at suppressing the Google Memo news story.

Welcome to a liberal democracy, where we discuss ideas openly and allow them to flourish or die on the market place of ideas. Trying to shame people and trying to silence them eventually only makes the message stronger.

Let's be adults and have a conversation.

> he's started putting out much more alt-right content

Alt-right means white nationalist, and it shouldn't be confused with civic nationalism, which is something altogether different.

Tucker Carlson on Fox had him on. Fox is one of the only MSM sources where you can discuss free speech openly.

No one is claiming that Assange is an expert on the matter.

But all of them are qualified to comment on the differences between the two genders.

> it's just psuedo-scientific garble

As Julian Assange pointed out, it's been reviewed by a professor of social psychology, a PhD in personality psychology, a professor in evolutionary psychology, and a PhD in sexual neuroscience and in large part it checks out.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

> Why is the tech world turning itself upside down for a mediocre undergrad paper?

Precisely because it accurately reflects the world, but we're seeing a strong backlash to it from a certain segment of the population.

It's fascinating that management at google didn't speak to fact that the memo points to the very real issue in silicon valley that the culture there openly shames those who are right of center into silence. Discrimination is something both the left and the right can do, but in the current landscape, the left seems to get away with it, and are sometimes even praised for it (see virtue signaling).

This could be a wake up call, and I suspect that secretly it is for many people.

The memo was also widely praised, so at best you could say that it's controversial.

There are many points of view on any given topic from well educated people. If you choose to explore only a single point of view, that you're prerogative, but you are willfully choosing ignorance.

> The fresh hell I’d suddenly found myself in ... a graduate student going up against a tenured professor who had everything to lose should the allegations be proven true.

> I remembered that all of my friends had told me Dr. Mao took advantage of me, and their increasingly exasperated suggestions that I try to stand up for myself in some way.

>I had just been academically f*cked over. And there was nothing I could do about it.

>Her outrage only fueled my sense of injustice.

My impression after having read this article is that she seems have a strong victim hood mentality. I don't know if this says more about her, or academia. Humanities should help you discover yourself and build you into a strong individual, her experience seems to have done the opposite. I also believe she should leave academia, but she's going to be in for quite the shock when she faces the free market.

I would suggest that you're only getting the facts that align their chosen narrative, and the facts are being presented through a lens that limits your understanding of the world.

An example I like to use is minimum wage. The very term "minimum wage" on it's own pulls you towards a certain conclusions. Who the heck doesn't want minimum wage? But what if I asked you "Should it be against the law for low skilled workers to get jobs?" you would likely say something like "Hell no!", but they are both the same policy but presented through a different lens. If you're only getting your news from left wing sources, then you would almost have to conclude that conservatives are heartless. But if you read from both sides, you might conclude that maybe there should be a minimum wage, but we have to be careful not to exclude too many people at the margins, or find a way to help those at the margins.

> Every side of an argument has an element of truth.

Agreed. To have an honest discussion about minimum wage, it's important to recognize that it's two things at the same time. First, it's a minimum wage which most people are familiar with, but second it's also a law that makes it illegal for low skilled workers to get jobs. Yes, we're helping some people earn a better living, but we're also not allowing people to work if an employer or employee aren't creative enough to find a way to make them more productive. It's a trade off, and that's one reason why it's more complicated that most people realize and why a dialog needs to be created around the topic.

> This animation visualizes the increasing partisan nature of Congress over the last 60 years

I've worked in government, and when we were asked to generate reports, there was a conclusion that they wanted to draw and they were looking for data to back it. If you ever hear something like "during the Carter era" it's likely because that's the only time the data showed what we wanted to make a point.

In this case, I would need to see why they chose 60 years rather than say 100 years. 60 seems like an arbitrary number that needs to be investigated. They may be right, but having read their pitch, there are a bunch of red flags that scream that this is ideologically driven rather than actually being "fair".

I'd be interested if someone did a deeper analysis.

Considering how little impact they've had recently with a $19 billion dollar annual budget, maybe what we're seeing is an administrative or leadership problem. It would suck for those involved if NASA got severe cuts, but in the long run the geniuses there would find jobs in the private sector like SpaceX and they could make a real difference.

Don't you find it weird that businesses have to fake that it's an issue by adding gimmicks to their sites like the slow loading gif? Maybe if it become an actual instantiated issue in the future we could expect a real grassroots movement, but as is, the arguments are mostly academic and it's hard to rally people around that.

This. What's unfortunate is that depending on what narrative you subscribe to around minimum wage, it can sound like an obviously good thing, or an obviously bad thing. It sounds great that you want to increase the wages of workers by increasing the minimum wage. It sounds awful when you want to exclude certain individuals from the job market by increasing minimum wages and making it against the law for low skilled workers to get jobs. The cold hard fact is that is that no matter your intention, you can't get one without the unintended consequences of the other. So yes you'll get an increase in wage for certain individuals, but you'll also exclude out of the market those who cannot yet produce at that rate. It's sad but true.

I'm not sure if this answers your question since I'm not sure what the implications of your workflow are, but I got a huge jump in productivity with Oh My Zsh. It has a bunch of features like tab completing past commands, it includes various shortcuts, etc. It's also compatible with bash.

If you're interested in php and/or laravel I highly recommend laracast. He'll go through the exercise of creating a certain feature, and then refactoring that feature with an explanation as to why. And often, that refactor is the difference between entry level code that just works, to intermediate code that's scalable and easy to read. I highly recommend it.

> Guess what happens when supply increases?

So we should reduce the supply by forcing licensing?

That would lower employment in the field since it would require accreditation i.e we would get an increase in unemployment which is what reducing the supply means. And Canadian companies can't afford developers as is, and you suggest increasing the cost of said developers which would force Canadian companies to either change field or close their doors. How could this possibly help anyone but Americans and American companies?

Companies here just can't afford it. Canada's economy just isn't what the US economy is. Not only that, but income after the cost of living and taxes is just much lower. That was put on display recently when farming subsidies came to light, which essentially doubles the price of food for Canadians. (There are actually pizza restaurants smuggling US cheese into Canada.) So even if they could compete with salaries, it's not going to get you as far in Canada. As much as they try to patch things up with subsidies like IRAP, it's way too little to combat the drawbacks. Unless there's a drastic change in policies, Canada will never be able to keep talent in.