fmdud

i can think of no current leader who has judicious foresight about anything other than their own election prospects

Am I missing something?

What strikes me is how comforting the idea is for us as the wealthy; if the companies have an agenda to have us believe this (which they do) and the idea is very comforting (which it is), it only really matters whether we can be convinced that it's true.

Being "apolitical" actually turns out to be a pretty naïve stance on politics. There's a great David Foster Wallace quote about "protest by non-participation" like this:

“If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote.”

DFW wrote that 15 years ago at this point. Non-voting isn't some radical new way of showing your disapproval in politics. The fact that you're not voting means they don't have to give a shit about what you think.

EDIT: OK, it shows up now. I am still just as unclear on what the product is.

It's in the industry, too. It's not just a vocal minority.

Deis is the best thing I've seen come out of Docker's DevOps gold rush.

Brush up on conversational English. Don't sweat the fact you don't have a car. If people don't want to hang out with you because you don't have a nice car, find different people.

The advice here is good - learn to be happy and comfortable on your own. That doesn't mean wallow in your loneliness, but don't think that someone will come along and magically make you happy. It doesn't work that way. If you are comfortable on your own, you'll be the kind of person that other people are interested in. It's only difficult to meet people/women if your life isn't worth being a part of. Make your life interesting enough for yourself that other people will want to take part.

Good luck. If you want to talk more, I'm at fareeddudhia at gmail.com

I'll show you what I mean:

>If you are an attractive woman and want to do business under such potential circumstance, then your best bet is to try to make yourself look unattractive.

This is the exact same kind of victim blaming as in "She was asking for it". He's telling women to make themselves look unattractive, implying that they are partially to blame for their own harassment because of what they were wearing, or how they looked. Saying "well, it's bound to happen" isn't good enough.

>You can't have it both ways.

>And if instead, you just want to pin all the blame on men for being pigs and expect them to change, well good luck with that.

These two quotes both show that he really is talking about harassment and assault. The OP article wasn't talking about relatively harmless (if inappropriate) workplace flirting; some couples meet at work. That happens. The difference is that those kind of things generally begin with very subtle signals over an extended period of time. The context of this article, this thread, and implicitly this comment (by explicitly agreeing that women are asking for this harassment to stop) is one of harassment and assault.

>You can't lure a client with your looks and then always expect totally platonic behavior from them.

>Mother Nature quite clearly has other designs.

I don't need to break this down. It's so shitty.

>You can't lure a client with your looks >And if instead, you just want to pin all the blame on men for being pigs and expect them to change, well good luck with that.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect men to not commit sexual assault in the workplace. What world are you living in where anything like this is remotely acceptable?

Why would you use Numpy for arrays that small? Oh, looks like someone actually just wrote it in CPython, no Numpy, and it clocked in at 0.283s. Which is fine. It's Python.

This thread reminds me of the scene in RoboCop where Peter Weller gets shot to pieces. Peter Weller is Python and the criminals are the other languages.