kefka_p

> It's worse because it makes matters worse. To put pressure on people in order to get them to do as you want in politics is going to have the opposite effect of what you intend to achieve if the result is to isolate those that you wish to influence.

Intriguing. So an application of "if you have to argue, you've already lost"?

While I can respect that as generally true, I must respectfully disagree if speaking in absolutes. I realize the plural of data isn't anecdote, I've some personal experiences that would lead me to believe otherwise. Given enough time and discussion, I've pulled a few extreme sorts toward more moderate perspectives.

> I've never ever been able to get someone to see things my way by forcing them to break their connection with a person or they'd lose me.

This is a pretty key point here. Forcing people to do things doesn't work terribly well. I must ask if such a strategy has really been pursued? I've seen people criticize the connection between YC and Thiel, or Facebook and Thiel, given his politics, but I don't think I've seen many people actually issue an ultimatum.

> But I have been able to convince people to switch to another political candidate by systematic analysis of what made them choose their favorite over someone more moderate (here in NL we have a bit of a problem, politically speaking).

I can appreciate this point. =]

> If instead I would have told them if they voted 'x' they'd have to stop seeing me I wouldn't have achieved anything.

I'm guessing I must have missed something along the way. I'm sure some people have issued some such demands, there is always that one guy. Still I would honestly be surprised if more people were trying to force the issue than not. Does this run counter to your own experience?

> Polarization and isolation are the tools of the demagogue, and the wannabe dictator.

I couldn't agree more.

> They have no place in a functioning democracy, and as of now the US still seems to be one of those.

This point might be debatable, but why quibble unnecessarily?

> All bets are off if trump clearly loses the election and refuses to concede, an option he apparently explicitly keeps open.

I just can't even begin to clearly elucidate my feelings on this matter, so I will just note my agreement.

> That's flirting with civil war and quite amazing given that there is zero precedent for any of the other candidates in the history of the states doing anything like that and as far as I'm concerned for that reason alone Trump should lose by a very large margin.

This is a tough issue. Gore didn't immediately concede in the 2000 election and many were early that he threw in the towel so early given all of the documented irregularities of that election. As well armed as Trump's followers may be, I don't think they want to come to blows with the U.S. military.

> Anyway, as for Thiel, which is how this whole discussion started, he's the person to pressure, if you feel that he mis-applied his funds.

In the U.S. exerting pressure on associated businesses and organizations isn't uncommon. See Chick-fil-A and its war against LGBTs for example. Many boycotted, while many others people went out of their way to frequent the chain. Ugghhh. What's more is these tendencies seem to be accelerating. It's actually a fairly frightening byproduct of the aforementioned polarization.

I don't expect ties need be severed over the matter, though I don't think it unreasonable to expect organizations in which he participates, especially those of differing values, to make their own values known.

In any case, thanks for elaborating on your perspective.

Regards!

> If I'm to understand that Trump doesn't conflict with my values than you have really not understood my position.

I suppose that would be one interpretation, and I apologize for phrasing my query so poorly as to encourage such a perception, but the question could be generalized to any number of situations, agents, and agencies, no? In my defense, I did pose a question about Ayers and Wright illustrating how it might apply in another case where actors and agencies were different.

I was actually interested in whether or not the position you've taken on this matter is influenced by your own political values. It seems that would create a bit of a paradox. Those people taking issue with Thiel for political reasons and voicing an opinion on the matter thus pushing, shaming, and even blackmailing YC are "worse" presumably for acting on their political values. Yet you seem to see no issue with engaging in similar behavior against those people for doing so, which seems rooted in your own political values, if I understood your argument correctly. That is a lot of assumption and presumption, though.

I suppose I should just come out and ask. Why are people voicing their opinions, or "trying to push/shame/blackmail YC" worse, here? What exactly makes them worse? Worse how, exactly? Is this a categorical estimation of people's overall value as human beings? As tools of the economy? As social actors?

From Ayers to Wright, the right played the guilt by association game over the course of the last two elections.

Did you complain about "blackmail" then? Or do the dynamics change when it involves groups?

In that case extend the above to include the Weathermen or Wright's Church both of which were raised by any number of people any number of times.

Does it only make a person worse if/when it conflicts with your values?

By extension of this logic, are people who boycott a company for whatever reason, guilty of theft?

>Are you for real?

Quite.

> I don't think access to contraceptives for adult men and women has been a real political controversy for at least 40 or 50 years.

Contraceptives? I was talking about abortion, not about contraceptives.

contraceptive |ˌkäntrəˈseptiv| adjective (of a method or device) serving to prevent pregnancy: the contraceptive pill.

Abortions don't prevent pregnancies from occurring, they terminate pregnancies that have already occurred. Clearly not the same thing. This would by why abortion isn't listed under Oxford's definition for contraception.

To wit: "contraception |ˌkäntrəˈsepSH(ə)n|noun the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization."

To say that women have access to "contraceptives" as if such is a viable response to my comments about abortion illustrates your own ignorance of the facts.

Still if you consider abortion to be a form of contraceptive, I'll happily refer you to Roe v. Wade, countless bombings and arsons of abortion clinics, assault and murder of personnel at abortion clinics, etc.

Once again you're looking at things through a male perspective and seeing abortion as a contraceptive as that's the only aspect of reproductive control that you understand.

What you think carries little weight compared to what I know for fact. I've actually volunteered for non-profits that have distributed contraceptives and I know exactly what kind of challenges such organizations face.

The fact of the matter is, as I said before: "As it stands the opinions of people who have zero involvement in a woman's reproductive cycle easily exert legislative and legal control over the options available to women."

You respond to comments about abortions (termination of pregnancy) with talk about contraceptives (used to prevent pregnancies).

Such a retort is little more than a straw-man.

> By your definition of discrimination

I'm pretty sure I used Oxford's definitions and I'm pretty sure that was made clear. I'm also pretty sure I'm not an editor at Oxford ergo those aren't my definitions, but rather a standard on which the world for the most part agrees.

I saw what you tried to do there, and I didn't like it.

> regulation of any industry is discrimination

Not at all. People aren't corporations. They don't have gender or ethnicity. I can't say that I'm surprised that you equate women with corporations given the need of corporations for external entities i.e. executives, staff, etc, to direct their function. It says a lot about how you think of women, i.e. that they need somebody to control them and make decisions for them.

> Property tax is also discriminatory.

Once again the negative definition of discriminate is to "make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age".

Discrimination in the first sense, that is of differentiation, does apply to property tax as the law must differentiate between those that own property and those that do not.

Discrimination in the second sense, with its associated negative connotations, is a bit more difficult to argue for in the case of property tax as the courts have found the laws as regards such taxation to be just, that is to say, not prejudicial.

You're ignoring a crucial aspect of the negative definition of discriminate, that referring to which is unjust or prejudicial, just for the sake of the argument that you want to make.

Once again there are two definitions to include one that is neutral from the perspective of morals and values and another which is not. You're using one definition where it is convenient for your argument, and ignoring another, again where it is convenient for your argument.

Adding to that, you respond to statements about abortion with off-topic comments about contraception?

And you dare call my logic puerile?

> Women have the same access to birth control than men do ...

As it stands the opinions of people who have zero involvement in a woman's reproductive cycle easily exert legislative and legal control over the options available to women.

Can you provide even a single instance of male reproductive regulation subjected to similar legislative control?

> In fact, as it stands now, the options available to women are vastly superior

You think of abortion as a form of birth control because your involvement in the process is essentially binary. Either you want a child or you don't. Either you wear a condom or you don't. For women exercising control over their reproductive rights isn't restricted to the timespan of a sexual encounter. An association between birth control and abortion in the greater context of reproductive rights seems to me indicative of a singular and fairly rigid perspective.

> The fact that only women can bear children does not make the regulation of abortion "discrimination".

Perhaps you should study the definition of discrimination. My OED lists two definitions to include: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex" and "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". In its most neutral definition, that is in the sense of differentiating two things, discrimination is rendered necessary by laws regulating abortion specifically as a direct result of the fact that women are the only ones who can become pregnant. The definition with more negative connotations makes reference to prejudice. The Wizards of Ox define prejudice as "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience", or alternatively "harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment". Give that anti-abortion laws are passed, in part, by men whom by definition have no actual experience with the subject of legislation, it doesn't seem much of a leap to interpret such behavior as being prejudicial and thus discriminatory.

> Do you think that abortion on the day before birth should be legal?

In some cases, absolutely. Consider a premature baby born five months before it should be with no hope to survive, or the case of last minute complications that threaten a woman's life, or last minute discovery of terminal congenital defects.

> How is the pro-life position discriminatory against women?

In that you don't already comprehend, I doubt I'll be able to aid in your understanding, but here goes nothing.

The state allows men to exercise control over their own reproductive systems more completely than women.

It really is that simple.

Men have all options available e.g. vasectomy, wearing condoms, etc. Women on the other hand see the "party of small government" lead the charge into their hospital rooms, dictating to them what rights they have insofar as control of their own reproductive systems goes.

If men also could get pregnant, it wouldn't be discriminatory. That the only reproductive control technique to be denied women is a technique only available to women, any laws to restrict such techniques are inherently discriminatory toward women.

The attempts to restrict abortion effect women's rights directly, far more so than men, many of whom vanish before a child is even carried to term.

Does that help clear it up?

But then ... is life much more than a brain training exercise?

If you consider the matter in the long-term, the sustainable model is the only approach that actually provides returns over time. At the end of the day the argument is everything now or a little now and a little later.

> Well, given that most Android users don't do that, and that iOS users do their share of custom ROM installation ...

I never named any specifics on the matter of platform preferences as regards installation of custom roms.

You seem a bit defensive.

> I use an iPhone 6S daily at work, so I'm not one of those people [who ... find computing on devices they don't normally use to be more difficult than computing on devices they normally use]

You're employing a different and less expansive standard of normal use than I. Using a tool for work is using a tool in only a single context.

Unless you have a lot of time to burn playing around on your phone at work, or develop for the phone you use at work, you're not likely to get to know how to use the device very well outside of the specific tasks entailed in your job duties.

> and I don't deign to speak for them or anyone else.

Reference my comment to r00fus above and note the terminology I used when speaking of my opinions.

"I like a happy medium myself.", "I've found", "I can", "to my satisfaction", "I don't have to"

I made no less than five references to myself in a single paragraph where I rendered an opinion on personal preferences. And even then I didn't resort to suggesting experiences that forged my personal preferences dictates what is best for others.

> As far as my experience is concerned ...

"The plural of data is not anecdote."

> yes, Android is better

This is the kind of generalization I have a hard time with. Android is better for some tasks, and iOS for others. Just as Windows is better for some tasks, and macOS for others, and Linux others still. One should always use the right tool for the job. You won't see me making any sweeping claims about which platforms are better.

I like a happy medium myself. For whatever it is worth, I've found that despite an appliance-like nature, I can extend iOS with third-party and custom software to my satisfaction. The key point here is that I don't have to resort to such in order to have a good experience as an end-user.

I'd argue that iOS falls between the extremes you've highlighted. It isn't really a general purpose computing platform as evident in the differences between say how multitasking and filesystems are implemented and what they expose to the end-user. On the other hand, the core OS has always supported preemptive multitasking and has always had a real filesystem to boot. The limitations of the presentation are inconveniences to be sure, but still I can slap together an app in Objective-C or Swift and slap it on the phone with ease.

That said I'm sure there are some tasks more easily achieved on traditional systems. That noted, if memory serves this was also the case with the PC/desktop transition. Desktops couldn't do everything big iron could do, but they did enough, it would seem.

I'm a technophile myself albeit one that has spent the better part of a lifetime interacting with non-technical users. Such experience has left me with impression that expecting end-users to do anything I would consider bothersome, or requiring even a modicum of effort, is a no sale proposition. This is true when it comes to actually improving one's experience, to say nothing of achieving a reasonable baseline. If people have to jump through hoops to achieve usability, it seems a fair bet that they won't be a repeat customer.

Frankly a lot of people don't get the hype about having to install custom ROMs to make their phones behave in a tolerable way.

People are always going to find computing on devices they don't normally use to be more difficult than computing on devices they normally use, yet to you this is proof Android is better?

Have been using Karabiner for years.

Works great if you have an "I set my drink too close to my keyboard" moment and need to make a spare PC keyboard work with your Mac to meet your deadlines. =D

Frankly without encapsulations inside of encapsulations, the author would have never been able to make this blog post. Reference TCP packets wrapped inside of Ethernet 2 frames as the basis of the entirety of the internet.

I don't think this is as "extreme" as some perceive it.

I, for one, do want technology companies making ethically informed decisions. It doesn't mean they will always make the right ethical decisions, but it has a far higher chance of positive outcome than simply avoiding the matter altogether.

I can understand why the author is somewhat frightened by the prospect, but fear doesn't justify inaction.

To say Twitter isn't free speech because it has limitations seems dubious. The U.S. is fairly well-regarded on the rights of speech, but even here there are limits. That doesn't mean free speech doesn't exist, it means it is paired with responsibility with penalties for failure to abide by those responsibilities.

We've already demonstrated that some animals stand well above the capabilities we've historically attributed to them. While I don't share your enthusiasm for an improvement in human behavior as a consequence, I believe the nature of such intelligence is entirely too obvious to be ignored entirely. :)

Enterprise Objects Framework just worked.

Pretty much every other ORM I've worked with has been terrible by comparison.

Not kidding at all. There was a lot of noise during the transition on various mailing lists, as I recall. Even as an end-user the issue presented quite a few problems. While AVFoundation is generally a better API it remains less capable than the QuickTime umbrella was. Again refer to the functionality provided by vDig and Sequencer APIs. A simple case: try to slap together a video mixing app sometime that takes input from the camera or other source, processes some effects on it, and dumps the output back as pseudo device that can be used by other apps. Unless things have changed drastically the last time I looked into the matter, such a thing isn't possible within the constraints of AVFoundation itself. You have to resort to the essentially undocumented CoreMedia IO API. Apple does provide similar functionality for other types of devices at a higher level i.e. scanners, digital cameras via some other API I can't recall off the top of my head at the moment. =]

I've uninstalled some software I've paid good money for as a result of this behavior. Further Comodo will net exactly zero recommendations from me until this behavior is rectified.

Utterly intolerable.

While not the person to whom the question was directed, I'd offer that the move from QuickTime to AVFoundation (taken directly from iOS) & friends (CoreMedia, CMIO) was one such example. Core Media I/O was released a few years ago to replace vdig and/or sequence grabber IIRC. Despite being released a few years back, the only documentation available for CMIO is a sample project. AVFoundation was limited in terms of codec support relative to QuickTime offering only support for built-in codes. Just as an example. Of course QuickTime had no 64-bit future so Apple had to do something but it was and still is a bit of a mess years down the road.

While some of the examples are more apt, iPhone/iOS actually integrates a good deal of open source software itself i.e. Darwin, WebKit, LibDispatch, Core Foundation, Swift, etc. Further the openness of Android has been called into question by many over the years. Android isn't just AOSP anymore than iOS is just Darwin. I imagine a degree of the innovation provided by OSS has helped Apple keep profit margins as high as they have.

That is true. I failed to adjust my perspective for the fact that not everyone has nearly thirty years of programming experience given I still consider myself an amateur.

Still we should recall the utility gained in using the right tool is finite and variable. In some cases can be like night and day while in other cases a moderate or negligble improvement might be all you see. Under some circumstances familiarity with a given tool may outweigh the advantages of using a better suited tool - especially if a team lacks well-rounded expertise.

Reinforcing the other side of the argument is the fact that programmers are often subject to constraints placed on them from on high that restrict the choices they might make in such.

Given the specific situation, the author seems to build a pretty good case for SQLite at least by my own limited understanding of the facts.

Some people are unfamiliar with the phrase "right tool for the job".

As the developers behind the project, I'd have to think the authors are in the best position to make the determination about which tool is appropriate.

Ever heard of workspaces?