>To be clear, if you dispute and counternotice everything
This isn't happening under the DMCA, it's Google's own brand of copyright process more tailored to appeasing the giant media companies.
6,258 karma · joined June 3, 2013
--
Favorited things are just bookmarks, not endorsements.
This isn't happening under the DMCA, it's Google's own brand of copyright process more tailored to appeasing the giant media companies.
>Everything is systemic until it's people you don't like, and then suddenly they're personally morally culpable for their shit ass attitude. A whole generation of men simultaneously said "nah fuck it having a life is for fags"? When you see this many people with the same problem, the word "systemic" should come to mind immediately. They need to wipe their own ass obviously but I'm in no rush to blame a whole generation of teenagers for burning out the exact same way; I wanna know who sold them the video games, weed and tendies.
>I'm actually sad that most men don't feel like they can talk about their vulnerabilities and emotions.
Do they not talk about it, or have they not talked about it _to you_?
I used to believe the narrative that men don't talk about emotional issues, assuming my lifetime of experiences talking to other men about our perspectives, fears, limitations and feelings was some sort of aberration. It finally fell apart when I made some friends in the trades. If _they_ didn't even follow the mold, and were willing to confide in me whenever something was on their mind, then why is this assumed to be a widely-pervasive male trait?
As far as I can tell, men are more than willing to talk about personal topics they keep guarded. It just has to be with someone that they care to have a real conversation with.
You're missing the point of the article. Most people and organizations have written libraries and services that make common development tasks much easier when developing within their own software ecosystems. Google is just one of many.
The question this article is getting towards is solving those problems in a pattern that transcends individual implementations and the conceptual model becomes as ubiquitous as the filesystem hierarchy.
Dumping a "this works for $DAYJOB" solution onto the public by publishing a standard isn't the answer. If that worked, those problems would be solved and this article wouldn't exist.
I'd wager it was a "didn't care". They knew about the limitations, figured the product would work often enough to make some money and labeled everyone pointing out the problem as haters or technophobes.
Someone probably even pitched a keypad password based redundancy and got drown out in valley buzzwords about MVPs and shipping fast until they gave up.
My favorite part of social commentary these days is how it's layered in "I'm not poorly conveying a point, you're hearing me wrong and/or you're the problem."
Of what? Damages can rarely be calculated perfectly.
It's not the court's fault Apple falsified timecard data.
And I ought not to have it because I'm not hosting an online store or marketing materials for a megacorp? Fuck me for trying to have something nice without commercializing it, right?
You just described library boundaries. You did not describe why the interface has to be a socket.
>the average engineer doesn't need to know about the eventually consistent data model of your active-active session system
People can create unnecessarily connections between microservices too. It's only slightly harder than punching an extra hole through the public interface of an in-process API. Is that what we're spending so much time and money on.
Early contender for Best Analogy 2020.
You can't undermine a point nobody is really making. Maybe someone is making it somewhere, but tracking back up this comment chain I can't find it. 8 levels up probably_wrong explicitly says "No one" is such an authority. And further asserts that the type of claims suggest that the question is of a type where such an authority can not exist.
If I had to guess, what you actually want to do is tell people off for making and sharing personal assessments of social situations to the best of their own abilities and doing it at a lower evidentiary standard than you're comfortable with. If so, have the courage of your convictions to admit you think that either (A) nobody should do that at all, or (B) you're so much more better at it than them that they shouldn't do it. Or maybe (C) tell them to stop because you disagree but don't want to wade into such imprecise debate.
From the outside, you're not articulating your point well enough to avoid looking like epistemological flailing.
Automate deployment? Fine but boring. That's the prevailing dogma today. I don't remember where the devops hype train was in 2012. Package management had already been a solved problem for years even though it was (and continues to) be regarded as involving too much "icky reading" and a repository system using plain directories on vanilla webservers; all way too unoptimized for resume padding.
Learn how to identify and manage risk like an engineer? Understand how business process and software can implement risk controls and mitigations?
I kid, so I don't cry.
Why would that stop anything? I spent half an hour over Christmas explaining to an aunt why the circle game [0] wasn't a white supremacist thing. All because the media chose to fall for the most inept trap ever planned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_gesture#White_power_symbol
There are so many fun words like this.
I've only recently gotten any good at seeing the metagame strategies evolve. I used to get worked up when new words came into favor overnight to be abused in various ways.
Appealing to the authority of Jacobin and Chomsky won't get you back. Doubly so when the question that started this whole thing is (I hope you don't find this uncharitable paraphrasing): when do claims of foo rise to the level of "genuine foobar"?
The public shaming of Cramer was never going to change anything, and it wasn't meant to. It's purpose was to show the audience a public shaming and hope they stick around to watch Comedy Central's ads.
Jon Stewart's Daily Show was the media naval gazing at how fucked up it was. A form of impotent penance for those working in media. More fun than going to church to atone; and it covered it's own costs by delivering chuckles to the rubes outside of media.
Really? Tesla drivers are like 2% tech enthusiasts and 90% the kind of people seeking the latest and greatest flashy car.
> ten years ago Steve 'Asshole' Jobs played a hilarious prank on all the digitally-illiterate 20th century luddites by pick-pocketing their ol' trust, reliable telephones and replaced them with computers instead. Tee-hee! Let's see if they notice the difference! And then he promptly died.
> The result, we see today, is a stratified understanding of "the internet".
> One level consists of everyone who really knows what the internet is. The internet's early adopters were a bunch of nerdy white males out of touch with society, guilty as charged. Annoying athiests and such. The thing is that this group (which I count myself among) knows how communities online function because they've been part of them for decades. They've lived the lifecycle of growth and collapse of forums (platforms) again and again. They see how technology brings people together, but not the people in their immediate life. Rather, safely brings anonymous groups of people who hide behind pseudonyms and avatars together through common interest and lively discussion and debate. [...] They see the new digital medium for what it is: connections between individual users spread across many different forums and platforms which are ever-changing, rising and falling. friends/strangers/communities first, platforms/sites second.
> Another level, the social media level, is what Fruit Juice Jobs foisted onto the unsuspecting public who now think they understand current technology and the state of the art of digital communications. Of course, they don't. They are sold a bill of goods and put all their identities into profiles which are used to sell them shit. And of course now they are vulnerable to a) people who spend hours arguing on the internet and tearing stranger's ideas apart (me right now) and b) actual trolls who love exploiting psychological vulnurabilites to make their victims squirm and squee and cry and through tantrums for the sake of drama (4chan, etc.). This decade-young group has no experience in what the internet actually and take no personal responsibility for their own online safety. For instance, they assume or act like a) Twitter will be around forever and b)Twitter can just block the bad guys and create a peaceful, harmonious online community. They cede all personal responsibility to a corporate hiearchy, like they were customers in a fast-food joint demanding to speak to a manager or some shit. They see and use the old medium in the new one, as McLuhan would say. Like how every town they visit has the same half-dozen franchises, their internet consists of the same top-5 "apps" and Google. Platforms and friends first, strangers/communities second.
What changed? My rough list is:
1. News bloggers got online and turned flamebait into their business model.
2. Normies got iPhones and started posting online. They never read an netiquette guide. If they had heard of the concept at all they dismissed it as computer nerd nonsense. They don't think about online communication systematically and expect every interaction online to be like talking to customer service: they get to say whatever they want, and only hear a very constrained window of things back. This backfires in all the obvious ways.
3. "Platforms" with KPIs based on engagement are incentivized to enable the largest flamewars possible and put it in as many people's faces right up to the point they start causing bad PR.
4. People with basically zero forethought thought they could fix society by being paternalistic to strangers.
Almost all art analysis I see has to penetrates my zone of not seeking it out. So maybe it's being done impeccably somewhere, but in the stuff I see, the "analysis" is really a lossy description of the person doing the analyzing.
It tells me their frame of reference. The parts of the work they'll care about, and their analytical blindspots. It tells me about their views on hot contemporary issues, their pet peeves and hobby horses. It shows me the types of conclusions they were taught to draw. Very rarely does the analysis tell me anything about the work beyond the unambiguous facts visible to every layperson.
So, basically all the information they have on me? I don't log in to facebook all that often. By not helping them survive me, they'll coyly pretend like they have less surveillance data tied to my account in their database than they do. I doubt they're going to purge those surveillance records "technical and accuracy" reasons.
It's a subtle distinction, because once someone is primed that these are the two options, everyone thinks they're in the second category. You have to give someone enough rope and hope they offer up how much they "love" their toys.
I like this article because the container toolset ecosystem needs criticism to evolve. And we don't see enough of it.
"devops" has made the same slide to meaninglessness as "agile." At one point they might have meant something about the philosophy of getting a job done. They don't anymore. They're buzzwords for a bunch of mutually-incomparable ideas, and as long as we pretend there is still meat in the concepts we're just lending buzzwords credibility.
"devops" is a verbal pyrbar for whatever change management already wanted to make, and shouldn't be seen as much more than a string of characters to get a resume through a regular expression.
It's similar to wishful thinking to believe vague "humanities education" would impart any ethics.
And at least in the science labs you don't have to figure out whether or not your grade depends on how well your reports parrot the teacher's own options back at them.
Lots of "people on HN push stoicism" because a great many people in all walks of life share life lessons that can be categorized as stoic.
>Not all of us are 100% unaffected by dealing with jerks, and we like to get ourselves out of toxic environments that make us unhappy. Is that so bad?
This is reductive. If you were to undertake a real appraisal of the ideas with a goal to separate the wheat from the chaff, as well as feel out the boundaries of what is often presented as blanket advice (rather than try to get one over on "people on HN"), the advice people are trying to offer would make more sense.
That's a huge insult directed at exactly the student they claim to be supporting.