Said to apply also to how Assange runs his own operations internally, according to a variety of accounts.
Ironically enough.
7,631 karma · joined September 24, 2015
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341567
Ironically enough.
Its images and the research directions it spawned will live on far longer than anything most of us will hope to every be able to bring into the world, or otherwise accomplish.
Don't go down this route.
Which "route"? The "asking questions" route?
It's still going on, just under different guises.
So while we still don't know exactly what happened, the plot does seem to be thickening.
"Doing right by those around me, even if it doesn't change the whole world" is another way you could look at it.
I agree that it seems she's a bit over-triggered by that $6 loaf of bread, at least.
Are you really sure about that? You may want to revisit this assumption.
She did this, she explained, because she was uncomfortable with the inequality between herself and her nanny, a Latina immigrant. She had a household income of $250,000 and inherited wealth of several million dollars. Relative to the nanny, she told me, “The choices that I have are obscene. Six-dollar bread is obscene.”
Then how about paying your nanny enough so that she can also afford six-dollar loaf of bread now and then, also?
The remedies for this kind of "guilt" are ready available and quite simple, actually.
Because the current criminal "justice" system has very little to do with actually preventing and helping society recover from the effects of criminal behavior. It's about generating false appearances of "retribution" (or making people "pay" for their crimes, whatever that means), and the (deeply) false appearance of some kind of "moral balance" in the world, generally. And reinforcing systems of (low-key) terror and control on the general population.
It only encourages people to revert to evil.
You got it. That may not be the stated goal of the current system. But it's certainly one of its inevitable outcomes.
The tragedy is that it's not just the offenders - or even those wrongly accused - who suffer from (and become morally corrupted by) the current order. It's all of us.
Nice to know, and I wish I understood these issues, and these kinds of arguments better.
I'm just saying - the original blog post didn't come anywhere near to making that kind of an argument.
Given that, after all, it's just posting likes we're talking about. You'd think that with such a bold proposition as "Why category theory matters -- no really, it does!" this would be about hot-synching whole data centers, or getting drones to deliver medicine in Africa, or something like that. You know, something perhaps unthinkable (or maybe just far less tractable) with procedural (or just less sophistical functional) code.
But no, in this case apparently it's about... updating your FB likes.
Barbaric and shameful though it is.
You're dodging the central issue: that it was the miners' act of trespass that, in itself, constituted the "initiation of violence" in this case.
But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well.
Sorry, but there's a very clear moral gradient at play here. It seems like you're trying to suggest there's at least some rough equivalence between the actions of the two parties. But if so, then I just don't buy that argument, at all.
That's clearly not a relevant analogy.
Why does the concept of "ancestral property" somehow suddenly make violence acceptable to you.
Look, it was the person above me who was saying, basically, that it was the miners' violence against the tribespeople that was "acceptable" (paraphrasing, but that's what they basically said). So perhaps you should take up this line of discussion with them, instead.
All I'm saying is - if you knowingly invade territory known to be inhabited by an "uncontacted" community -- that is to say: by definition, a fully sovereign community, and not bound by any treaties with your own government -- and you don't expect the same kind of response (i.e. violent) any self-respecting community would make when not just their land, but their very survival comes under direct attack -- then at the very least, you're pretty damn naive.
And on top of that, it becomes really, really hard to see why you might deserve any sympathy.
As you would do, if a bunch of assholes started encroaching on your ancestral property.
So if the gold miners said they either had to kill or be killed, I'm inclined to believe them unfortunately.
No -- what they needed to do was just GTFO out of there, being as they clearly had no business being in those areas in first place. Paycheck, or "boss's orders" be damned.
And not just "settlers" and miners acting on their own - but acting on the direct behalf of, and and funded by their local governments:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/revealing-the-history-of-ge...
https://friendlyfieldsandopenmaps.com/2017/09/07/beauty-in-m...
By "doing nothing" what they really meant was "by not doing all that much work".
Compared to people who, you know, actually do hard, serious work for (much less of) a living.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
And potential collaborators and colleagues, likewise. Just give me people who are solid in the better practices of whatever language they use (even if it's Java or vanilla C) -- and reasonably aware of the current landscape (even if they chose not to, or heaven forbid, the quotidian needs of the real, money-earning products they work on don't exactly make it feasible to adopt the latest and greatest tools or platforms) -- over the type of folks who instinctively cargo-cult nearly everything that's been trending in the last 18-24 months -- any day, please.
AngularJS has been deprecated even by its own creators... so that's a bad example.
But don't you remember -- AngularJS was (if you took certain people at their word) the absolute shit some 4-5 years ago (that's slang usage of "the shit", as in "something really, really good you just have to get into, man"). Whereas now it's... well somehow no one wants boast about using Angular anymore, do they?
That's why it's such a good example of what I'm talking about.
I think the point of the article, which was rather subtle actually, is that "top of their game" is best defined in more general terms than simply "skilled in the top random webby crap from from the last 18 months".
I've been able to rewrite front-end code in a different framework with less than 1/5th of the code to maintain.
And about 10,000x as many dependencies, not to mention (if not exactly a shit-ton) a considerable degree of implied bulk in the form of new abstractions ("transpiling") and random contextual crap (packaging, etc) to maintain as well. And the implied path-dependence (for the sake of temporary benefit that comes from adding X, Y and Z to the project... it's going to be that much harder to refactor and shift to something else). All for the sake of a simple autocomplete form, and maybe a popup or two.
Which is exactly what's so cool about "boring" developers -- they see not just the positive tradeoffs in using the shiny stuff ("1/5 as much code") but the negative tradeoffs ("So you mean that hot new AngularJS thing everyone was yelping about 3 years ago... suddenly isn't looking so hot anymore? How come?") as well.
The argument cuts both ways: not only can one strongly benefit from a basic understanding of trigonometry when learning calculus (how the derivatives of sin/cos/etc all related to one another) - it really isn't possible to get far with basic integration techniques without learning the fundamental trig-based substitutions. And ultimately you can use any set of subjects, in just about any order. What matters is the thought processes, and that what you're really trying to teach is not a set of facts or techniques - but the underlying mathematical essence of these techniques.
So at the end of the day, what it really comes to is: "It doesn't matter so much what you teach, but how you teach".
But unfortunately by this point it's beyond dispute that Google has engaged in some seriously questionable behavior, on ethical fronts -- such that to refer to this conduct as a serious "mistakes" smacks of denial, or whitewashing.