jdbernard

I assume OP didn't mean that a single overarching ideology was driving all if these changes, but rather that each of them individually is ideologically driven (and therefore immune to questioning). They all seem to be directly counter to the end-user's desires but are off-limits to redesign.

Anecdotally I have had the opposite experience. My smaller bike with a v-twin engine and loud aftermarket exhausts is apparently much less noticeable than my larger sport-touring bike with quiet stock exhausts.

That's why he is regretting the use of the MIT license. He wonders, now, if having chosen a less permissive license would have given him grounds to shut them down, because they would be in violation.

I don't think so. I think the core of Djikstra's thought is that mastery of your native tongue coincides with strong communication skill and ability to logically organize and present thoughts. You can articulate your thoughts and do so in a way that others can understand. Working outside your native tongue may add hurdles, but from my experience having worked with brilliant people who's native tongue is not English, those hurdles can be overcome. The skills still translate.

Personally, I think we should consider making legal IP protection opt-in. In other words, with a product like this you should provide a way to remove the protection to the Library of Congress, for example. If you fail to provide this, then you cannot use the courts to enforce copyright/patent/etc.

IANAL, but in my opinion this isn't actually a freedom of speech issue, it's a corporate personhood issue. Tesla the company should not have constitutional freedom of speech protections for it's marketing communications.

FYI, on the front page, https://nim-lang.org, in large type you have this:

> Nim is a statically typed compiled systems programming language. It combines successful concepts from mature languages like Python, Ada and Modula.

As other commenters have noted, this is a stretched across the front and back. It makes me think this illusion was not intended and is more an artifact of having a mirrored image so that the back is a reflection of the front. I don't see any issue with the book cover as it appears on the linked Amazon page, for example.

The way I read this passage, Jesus was speaking to the impossibility of the rich being saved. I don't see it as "if they became poorer they could diminish themselves to the point where it was possible," but rather "in their own power they cannot be saved, the value system that led them to build and maintain their wealth is contrary to the value system of heaven." In the next verse the disciples are shocked and basically say that no one could be saved in this case. Rather than correct them and explain that the rich can be saved after divesting themselves of their riches, Jesus replies instead (paraphrasing), "Yes, you're right. It is impossible, but God can do the impossible." This also leads me to believe Jesus meant "camel," not "rope."

I believe that a key position of the early church's teaching is that an inward change of the heart is not genuine if it does not manifest in outward concrete action. That's how you reconcile, for example, Paul's statements on salvation by grace and not works, with James' demonstration of his faith by his works. The works themselves don't save you, it is the sincere turning of the heart and belief in Jesus Christ. Paul made this point firmly to counter others who were teaching salvation by adherence to Jewish ceremonial law. But if your belief in Christ and turning of your heart does not result in changes in how you live, specifically following the commandments of Jesus, then James would question the sincerity of your conviction.

It matters because I think that this coercive aspect does has moral implications. It is a core moral position for me to be as minimally coercive as possible in all actions. Or put differently, I believe all people are equal in value and should have equal access to self-determination and freedom of choice. At some level cooperation at the level of civilization and society requires that we surrender our individual freedom to some degree, but I believe one of the strongest lessons of history is that, as a general rule, nobody is a better judge of what is "right" for a person then that person themselves.

With that as a principle, coercive choices require, morally, a higher bar of justification.

If we truly throw concern for others our the window, I believe we ultimately lose the foundation for cooperation and polite society and eventually degenerate into some form of "might makes right," and I would argue we're already there to some degree.

As you can probably guess, I am doubtful that the value of RTO justifies the coercion required, at least as currently envisioned and with offices as they are currently designed. And the proof of this, to me, is the exodus of workers from companies making this mandate.

I recognize that company ownership has the ability to require this, but they have to recognize that this kind of coercive action is counter to a spirit of cooperation and "ownership."

From the employee POV, even if I was a RTO supporter, I would not be in favor of mandatory RTO because of this coercive aspect. I prefer not to force my preferences on others in any aspect of my life.

I recognize that this may be a point where we disagree, but that is why I was so passionate to point out that the two positions are not the same. They differ on a point that is critical from my point of view.

What I mean by positive action is, you are requiring me to actively do something. I agree that we all have preferences, and often we cannot satisfy everyone's preferences, particularly when they are at odds as you have pointed out. Fair.

However, I see a very big difference between a preference that requires other people to take specific action to satisfy, and one that does not, and that's exactly the dynamic I see here. It is that expectation that other people will do things that they prefer not to do in order to satisfy your preference that I see as entitled.

As an aside, I'm not arguing right or wrong. I actually see many benefits to a good office environment (see my sibling comment in this discussion for the problem I have, basically that the majority of office environments are not good). I'm arguing coercion vs. freedom. My argument is that the RTO position is coercive in a way that the WFH position is not, that it's not the same.

I will take several simple example to try and explain how I see this difference.

Consider a Christmas party. I want to wear red and green. I don't care what other people wear. I'm not putting any restriction or obligation on other people. I can satisfy my preference through my own actions alone.

Now consider that I wan everyone to wear red and green. I am not going to be happy unless everyone is wearing red and green. In this example I cannot satisfy my preference without convincing or coercing other people to respect my preference. I am expecting my preference to win out over everyone else. I can frame the argument as "why should their (individual) preference to wear white supercede my (collective) preference that we wear green and red?" It is not the same because my preference in this scenario requires other people to actively change what they are doing.

Now, as you have said, this is not necessarily right or wrong (maybe we're taking theme photos, who knows), and I'm not making the argument that WFH is morally superior or necessarily more productive/better in any way. All I am doing is pointing out that your position is coercive in a way that the opposite is not.

> They are trying to get people to work with them who don't want to work with them. This is exactly the same thing as RTO does to WFH people.

This is not at all the same. There is a clear difference, again, between the RTO position which requires positive action from other people (travel in to work, come into a physical location) and the WFH position, which does not require anything of their RTO colleagues beyond what the job requires anyways. How can you not see the difference here?

"They are trying to get people to work with them who don't want to work with them." What is this supposed to mean, concretely? Are you saying that because Bob is not in the office you don't want to work with Bob, but Bob is forcing you to work with him? This is not the argument WFH people are making. It is management that has a vested interest in requiring people to work together. I've never heard a serious proponent of WFH arguing that you have to work with them.

Are you saying that having remote team members requires you to use tools and practices that you don't have to in an in-person setting? I would counter that Jira, Zoom, Slack/Teams, Email, etc., all of these "remote/async" tools are not unique to remote workers. And they pre-date the normalization of remote working. Even in a fully on-prem model the vast majority of companies are still using these tools because of the convenience and control they give management, because they have offices distributed geographically, and because they want to be able to communicate beyond the in-office hours of operation. Again, this is not something that the WFH people are pushing onto the RTO people, it is something management at large has decided for the company.

Really, it's hard to take you seriously and I'm sorry for my attitude, but I can't help but see this as an extremely entitled position that is requiring other people to go out of their way to accommodate your desires. If I'm misunderstanding, please correct me and name a single positive action that a WFH proponent is requiring an in-office proponent take that would not be part of their regular job responsibilities in an in-office setting. Not a "they are depriving me of my preference because they just won't do what I want," but something they are actually requiring you to do.

I'm sorry, but you are the one making the "standard mistake," logically. It's the incel argument. You're trying to say this is a two-way street, that the dynamics are the same in both directions. That's obviously false. It is a one-way street here. The people who are wanting to RTO are trying to exert active control over the lives of others. "You must change your habits of life to accommodate my desires." This is not what the WFH position is doing. The WFH position isn't trying to force the RTO people to do anything.

You complaining "your unwillingness to come to the office is forcing me to remain lonely in the office" is exactly the same kind of argument, structurally, as the incel argument "your unwillingness to have sex with me is forcing me to remain a virgin." Yes, there are some things that you cannot do alone, but that does not entitle you to force me to accommodate you.

There are lots of reasons why offices tend towards bad rather than good. If I sat and thought about it I could probably list a dozen systematic biases towards crappy office spaces. Here are just a few off the top of my head:

- Open-plan offices, hot-desking, and other negative patterns are more cost-effective for a given amount of space.

- Cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all spaces are "easier" to manage from a personnel/HR point of view. Less griping about who gets the "good office," as there is no good office. No need to think about differences between people, we can just treat them as fungible "human resources."

- Similar race to the bottom regarding amenities (coffee, break rooms, etc.). Just look in the other comments of this thread. It's easier to target the least common denominator than provide personalized/individualized benefits in a manner that's fair to everyone.

- Insecure, distrusting managers promote bad office spaces like open plans, hot desking, etc. in order to better micro-manage their teams. Good managers can push back, but in practice the bad managers tend to be the squeaky wheels and get the grease.

I've worked for 10 different companies so far in my career. All but one I would consider a good company. But of those nine "good" companies, I have had one good office space. That's why I've been remote for the last 6 years. For me personally it was either go remote or leave the industry. I'm never making a open-plan or even cube-farm layout my primary working space again.

Why should the taxpayers bear this cost instead of the business who is choosing to terminate the person, especially in situations like those discussed where it has nothing to do with the performance of the individual?

As a counter-point, I've almost never had a job interview depend on leetcode-type problems in my ~20 years.

Even at the archive link the styling hides most of the text. Firefox Reader mode make it visible.

There is nuance because the behavior around physical spaces is well established by law and social norm. This is absolutely not true for the internet, as evidenced by this very debate.

If you will indulge the hypothetical, and we step back from the established social norms (people know you are expected to pay), who is responsible for making sure customers understand the need to pay? The theater. If the theater doesn't secure their doors and doesn't say anywhere "you must pay to enter," then it's a completely reasonable behavior for someone to enter and watch until they are asked to leave or pay. If they refuse to leave, they're trespassing. If they are told to pay before entering and they sneak in, this is clearly trespassing.

But this is not really the same thing as online advertising. Online advertising is more like, you ask them to deliver a DVD to your house, and the agreement is "we'll deliver the DVD if you also let us place a camera and microphone in your home to watch your reaction to the DVD." Then you allow the DVD in but refuse entry to the spy gear. It would be very problematic to try and force people to accept the spy gear, or prevent them from denying entry to the spy gear. It would lead to laws purposefully designed to deny people privacy and control over their own homes. A much better solution would be for the company to just not allow you to take the DVD unless you also take the spy gear and to create laws around that behavior if necessary.

Here he is alluding to dark matter. So the light universe is our observable universe, the dark universe is the hypothetical universe made up of dark matter that we know has to exist, but so far have no means of observing or interacting with. That's the analogy he's making between the Red and Blue teams. They co-exist in the same space but manage to avoid interaction.

That was the meaning of that first bit from the article that OP quoted.

My wife's exposure to the daily habits of public schools in our area as part of her internships towards a degree in childhood education are a huge part of why we chose to homeschool. My experiences going through the public school system are another big part. Your explanation fits our scenario completely.

SVN may have been more widely used, but it was on the way out by the time GitHub was launched. It was the incumbent, at least in communities at the forefront of change. GitHub and integration with Microsoft tools certainly accelerated it's adoption into the enterprise environment, but among the "new VCSs with a future," git had already won.

Healthy depends very much on the relationship, as a sibling post pointed out. I'm not a fan of the "if you have nothing to hide" argument in the general case, but in this case of my wife we have nothing private between us. In fact, its the things we share that make up the bulk of what I consider private from others. I figure that if Google, my cell provider, the government, and who knows how many other corporate entities have ready access to my location data, why not her? In practice she has more interesting and useful things to do with her time than watch me all day.

Coming soon to a third world near you! Except the power imbalance is even greater, so it's likely to be even more restrictive.

As much as we like to decry middle management in tech, this is the purpose, in my opinion, of good middle management. They should be the API between a self-organizing team and the broader organization. They're a glue layer that helps preserve team autonomy in a context where cooperation and coordination have become more important.

The analogy doesn't hold. Not all copyrighted works are or will be culturally significant, but all have the potential to be culturally significant. We have no way of knowing ahead of time. It's regulating haystacks as if any individual straw may actually be a needle.

You know the situation better than any of us here so trust your own judgement.

However, it's more than just preventing photos. It's about respecting boundaries. At some point your parents need to respect your authority in your children's lives. They're your children, not your parents children. Ultimately you are responsible for their wellbeing. They should be supporting your parenting, not undermining it.

This, obviously, is one issue among many, and may not be representative of a broader pattern. From your hesitation it sounds like this is one disagreement in an otherwise healthy dynamic. Again, you know better than us. But if it is a pattern, I encourage you to play that pattern forward. If your parents don't respect your boundaries, what does it look like if your parents don't respect your children's boundaries as they grow?

The other other alternative is for Reddit to meaningfully engage with the issues that the mods have raised around API pricing.

The comment I was originally responding to implied that communism was a solution to the dangers of state surveillance and potential retaliation against a whistleblower like Snowden. Specifically, that this wouldn't even be a concern under communism. In my opinion it is unrealistic to assume that a nation will be able to self-govern without some governing organization that provides and enforces law in some form. I don't really understand what their point was when they said:

> In a commune, there isn't a state which can secretly surveil in the first place, making the issue a moot point.

But I assume they had some point beyond snarky posturing, and they envision some version of the world where this is true. To try and understand their point, and to better understand how their vision of the world differs from what we currently have, I was trying to get them to anchor their abstract point in concrete examples. I also wonder if there is an inherent contradiction or at least cognitive blind-spot in their thinking because every time communism has actually been tried in the real world, it has led to the most highly surveilled states, not the least. Again, just empirically speaking. We can have the "no true Scotsman", "communism has never really been tried" all day, but again we're leaving reality for untested hypothesis.

In that context, your reply that a theoretical communist country would not have a government is a bit irrelevant to my purpose, because that is again an entirely hypothetical proposition with no precedent in reality. So what is real and worth discussing?

I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organized themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.

There is no real-world example of a communist country under that definition. It is purely hypothetical and never been successfully applied. We can speculate about literally anything. What's realistic?