giantsloth

His mother is a rich successful model. What poor person has the means to move to another country and start a tech company. How are you so massively illogical and incoherent in your ability to think?

You are implying that poor people are a result of poor parenting, this is beyond stupid.

Poor parenting is a result of poverty. It is massively difficult to parent well when you are in financially dire situations constantly, surrounded by other people who are also in dire financial situations, and sending you kids to massively underfunded public schools.

If race “doesn’t matter” to rich people, but is rather used as a tool by the rich to cause in fighting amongst the powerless (which is true and seems to be what you’re implying), then in fact race does matter as it affects how the powerless relates to each other. So racism matters, so you’ve contradicted yourself.

Thank you for your anecdotal evidence and the obvious truism that wealth opens doors.

Black people make 57.50 to every 100 dollars a White person makes. The majority of wealthy people in America are white. 90% of all people lose their wealth by the 3rd generation. Therefore the slim ratio of wealthy black families are going to lose their wealth and it’s going to affect them much more.

The majority Black people have only just started to be able build wealth after Jim Crow, where white people have had hundreds of years.

People enjoy helping people that look like or remind them of themselves phenotypically, therefor even people that became new money, science would suggest will receive more help from the more numerous amount of wealthy white people.

Considering black people were still living under Jim Crow just 11 years prior to 1976, it would have been impossible for a black person to enjoy the sorts of privileges that come from having rich and successful parents.

No one is devaluing his accomplishments, they are calling the article out for pretending he’s some kind of special snowflake, when in reality he had been dealt an ideal hand in life.

Articles like this remove all historical context to convince lower middle class people of all races that it just takes dropping out college and faking it to you make it to get what you want. This is not to say that there isn’t some truth to that, but let’s be real about the massive head start Gates got, so we aren’t just ultimately implying that poor people are lazy and deserve their lot in life, because if rich white boy Bill Gates can do it, anyone no matter how poor, unlucky, underfunded their public education or broken their family is can do it too.

I’m not saying people should just whine and accept their bad luck and victimize themselves either, you have to play the hand your dealt to the best of your ability, but articles like this just perpetuate a contextless ashistorical lie to sell to other mediocre neolibs.

The idea that it’s simple to build, design, audio engineer, graphic design, run a company, market the product, do accounting/taxes, figure out your legal stuff, etc is patently absurd

In NYC you expected to be at work at most companies for 9-10 hours a day, you are expected to go to all their social events, and you are expected to act like a logic lording startup bro (even when the company is far past the startup stage). Sure, they give you free treats, sure it's not hard to come by a job, but you are still ultimately expected to give up your autonomy to become a startup stooge.

All organizations are reactionary and necessarily settle on the state of the world at the current moment. This is an extremely bizarre line of logic you are using.

There is always version lock in at some point, and NO workers like change if it's going to cause them to lose their livelihood. This has nothing to do with unions.

Why do you care more about protecting artificial constructs like companies at the expense of power given to people building the products?

General consensus amongst the developers that work directly with the person being investigated. It's pretty easy. Head butting with poor managers and broken company structures with ZERO recourse is the problem. The strawman you're putting up is not.

I find statements like this both cringe and problematic. The heavy emphasis on industry defined identity is creepy, extremely impersonal, and backwards.

I've been a software developer in advertising, various startups and have friends in fashion and finance. While sure you can get some interesting insights into their industries, for example Gucci's new operating room spread is dope af, or the fact that hedge funds year over year make 20% on average using their "genius quants" (aka insider trading), I find that the actual people themselves are a relatively homogenous subculture across industries. That is a typically upper middle class white with a BS/BA in econ/finance/cs/communications who got "really drunk" in college, "loves" IPAs now and does sober February's as a challenge.

These are all various shades of yuppie identity non-diverse in thought, culture, or world perspective. They are boring.

I wasn’t counting isms, the article is about the treatment of people in anonymous chats based on gender, where women and particularly good looking women are treated more poorly. This Is about sexism, not about gamers learning to be mean to all people online.

I’m accurately identifying what the article’s subject is, how the commenter’s comment is only tangentially related, distracting and really missing the point. It’s a valid critique of the comment. Critiques can’t be expected to be padded, because it might make someone feel bad that they were wrong. This is illogical and anti-science.

I believe this comment is turning an issue of sexism into an issue of impoliteness that's developed around the culture of gaming, and I think that's a particularly toxic viewpoint.

Rather than addressing the real fact that women are treated as sexual objects by men generally, whether in thought or anonymous action in message chat boxes, this sort of comment turns it into an issue of "polite conversation". To me it seems as an (although it seems inadvertent) attempt to divert the attention from the real issue towards a non issue of "poor taste in jokes".

I still like particularly dark, demented, and a "punching down humor".

I've always felt a certain level of dishonesty amongst individuals who use polite discourse as a means of communication. There also seems to be a hint of classism in maintaining polite discourse.

I didn't think you were criticizing, I just find the source material and the homogeneity of their promises interesting.

Here is Bush's promise:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040116071139/https://www.white...

    Third, America will return to the Moon as early as 2015 and no later than 2020 
    and use it as a stepping stone for more ambitious missions. A series of
    robotic missions to the Moon, similar to the Spirit Rover that is sending
    remarkable images back to Earth from Mars, will explore the lunar surface
    beginning no later than 2008 to research and prepare for future human
    exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, humans will conduct extended
    lunar missions as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for
    increasingly extended periods.
    
    - Third bullet under President Bush's Vision for U.S. Space Exploration

Here is Obama's space fact sheet

https://web.archive.org/web/20081107061417/https://barackoba...

    Human spaceflight is important to America’s political, economic, technological,
    and scientific leadership. Barack Obama will support renewed human exploration
    beyond low earth orbit. He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the 
    Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more 
    distant destinations, including Mars.
    
    - pg 3 paragraph 4

> Are you talking about some notion of “consistency” that has nothing to do with logical consistency?

Yes, the section is called "On Requirements" and the paper is about building programs, not abstract or theoretical computer science/logic.

> The whole point to making a formal specification is reducing the potential for misunderstanding. In fact, the only way to misunderstand a formal specification is to be mathematically incompetent.

I suppose we're talking about the semantics of the word formal, as well as the level of granularity one can hope to achieve over a specific problem domain. While I have no doubt that all processes can and will eventually be reduced into an algebraic function, currently, do to a level of randomness and misunderstanding of our natural world, we simply do not have a finite amount of variables to statically analyze against.

> This makes no sense whatsoever. It's up to people to make up their minds about what they want. If they can't, then maybe they don't deserve to be written programs for?

It makes perfect sense. To account for every edge or use case for a requirement you'd have to create many different interfaces/points of contact to suit every need. For example, if I want to create a dating app, the interface and underlying code for a mobile device will break consistency with the interface and underlying code of a web page. You could be consistent with a translation layer, but then the interface or code will be incomplete for that particular use case.

> Formal analysis can be used to show the absence of bugs, but never to show the correctness of the specification.

Working in a horizontally stratified organization where the programmer doesn't learn the business domain is ill advised. Often the programmer has the most context and understanding of both the business processes as they are being formalizaed into code. Additionally your understanding of the specification may be flawed or simply written incorrectly, and this can never be formally analyzed.

> Programs can exhibit “faults in construction” that would be forbidden by a modernist approach.

In other words, a program can have a bug as a feature, or something that is wonky, but tolerated.

Guitars (or any musical instrument) are essentially REPLs and therefore do provide instant feedback and often gratification.

Learning to do anything well takes a lot of time, so that statement is true == true. Learning to have fun with something often happens (and in the case of a guitar) quickly.

Lowering the barrier to accessing guitars, mixers, computers and software to get a recording up is the real challenge, because that takes cash.

I'm going to posit that most of us are spoiled by how much attention we get from recruiters, which is why the attention on this article seems to be on the legality of scraping someones site are not.

The focus should be on how disturbing it is that a company is using metrics like "independence from employer brand" to take the power out of the hands of the worker and put it into the hands of the corporation who already wields so much power and influence over our society.

Programmers are lucky, a last bastion of decent treatment by corporations. Companies like HiQ are looking to tip the scale back in favor of the corporation, run by people like Mark Weidick who want to be a useful and well kept pet and identify as a "Silicon Valley entrepreneur. Hollywood wanna-be." (twitter)

I fear secretive preemptive firing and hiring. "Talks" from your manager, based on encroachments into your private internet browser. This will force developers to combine their personal identity with their corporate identity (which far too many developers do already wearing their respective companies t-shirt like a big walking free advertisement) and curate their online life to reflect how grateful they are to the lords of their fiefdom.

This study was funded by big Pharma and Nestle... I’d be hard pressed to trust it.

I implore you to checkout create-react-app to get a hello world really quick:

https://github.com/facebookincubator/create-react-app

  npm install -g create-react-app

  create-react-app my-app
  cd my-app/
  npm start

Your sentiment is correct that tooling around these pieces of technology needs to always be first class. React failed miserably, and Vue did an AMAZING job.

I'm probably starting to sound like a shill for React. I've used both and love both. I do like that React is "just javascript", which I think is why I use it.

It doesn't support sass, but it does support scss.

Interesting critique. I would highly suggest checking out template literals: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

Yeah styled.div is a function as you can check out in the mdn docs I linked, it's really cool stuff.

Inheritance is done like:

  const List = styled.ul`
    li {
      padding: 10px;
    }
  `

  const HeavyPaddedList = styled(List)`
    li {
      padding: 20px;
    }
  `

If you wanted to just change the li you'd have to:

  const ListItem = styled.li`
    padding: 10px;
  `
  
  const HeavilyPaddedListItem = styled(ListItem)`
    padding: 20px;
  `

You're writing scss within the text blocks. You're correct that you need some understanding of JS.

I've never worked with designers that wrote css, I'd also probably not trust them to do so (my own failings).

I don't agree that it looks like an unholy mess (hyperbole may be lost on me), but I can see how it could be jarring at first look. I had a similar reaction when I looked at Relay (https://facebook.github.io/relay/), when they used literals for data fetching.

I agree that single file components are awesome. I wish you had been introduced to styled components in react:

  import styled from 'styled-components'

  const Container = styled.div`
    padding: 10px;
    background: ${
      ({ isHovered }) => isHovered ?
        'green' :
        'red'
    };
  `

  const H1 = styled.h1`
    font-size: 15px;
  `

  const P = styled.p`
    font-size: 10px;
  `

  const MyComponent = ({ isHovered }) => {
    return (
      <Container
        isHovered={isHovered}
      >
        <H1> Hello <H1>
        <P> This is a thing </P>
      </Container>
    )
  }

JavaScript looks nothing like the “created in 10 days” version to which you speak. I would highly suggest you take an uncomfirmation(?) biased look at the language as it is now. Asyncs simplicity is arguably a reason why it’s a good platform to build off of. I agree I would rather have a single binary, and node may not be the best platform for shells on this point.

This happens in all languages... look at the Toyota acceleration bug for a real world of example of your hyperbole. They were using MISRA C. Languages dont fix spaghetti, laziness, tight deadlines, bad engineers, etc.

I'm not quite sure this says 99.99%, but it's bleak none the less.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/w...