lkerrekfjk

> Take a women who is a talented programmer and enjoys programmer, but chooses not to work as a programmer because she is sick of constant sexual harassment. Should we respect her choices or design interventions?

Nice strawman you are doing here. You're implying women aren't choosing STEM careers because of sexual harassment which is a complete lie. Your assertion is backed only by your misandrist ideology who sees men as harassers. But facts don't care about ideology facts are facts and you chose to live in a lie.

Wouldn't that be assault as well?

Opal gate is the canonical example of this:

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

It's interesting the "complainer" ended up being hired by github then fired from the same github.

> Ms Shahnaz was born in Pakistan and worked as a lab technician in the US.

I'm not american, though I spend some time in US, mostly in Maine. Every-time I hear this kind of stories, I can't help but thinking: you go through all that trouble to immigrate to US to build yourself a lot of opportunities for your life and all you end up doing is shit like these? while millions of people are waiting in line wishing for a better life? Same for anybody living an Europe who rushed to go live in the Caliphate... while people are fleeing these very places because of the insane violence... I can't understand this.

You certainly do not need "infinite scaling" to do that. Just a queue of workers running on a dumb server or even just a crontab... Yes it is the very definition of over engineering.

I'm not sure what all these articles are complaining. Facebook is in the business of selling influence, just like Google or Twitter, that's how they make money. The product is people's attention span, just like TV or newspapers or any website or business financed by advertisement.

So what is the problem here? the fact that anybody around the world can buy influence on Facebook? When you needed millions before to buy a spot on TV or newspapers?

It's the black smith complaining about the automaker all over again.

It's nice, but whenever I see lists like these I always say the same thing: If your checklists can't be automated on the CI server they are worthless for developers. I'm not a huge fan of Go, but it needs to get credit where credit is due. Writing code quality tools and linters is extremely easy with that language. Which helps keeping codebase quality extremely tight.

> No one says that. In the context of our society, talk of "white genocide" means (by default, although it should be judged on a case-by-case basis) co-opting white racial speech, and presenting it in a manner that demonstrates its harmfulness. This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society. If someone unfamiliar with the realities of our society takes a subjective offence, then that's their prerogative, but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.

And in the context of this thread, we are effectively talking about Twitter, which is a global website and the fact that Tweets are always interpreted without any context to begin with, because that's the nature of Twitter, it is not a forum with structured threads. It's a place where people literally shout things, that's why it is called Twitter. It's a mess not designed to convey any context whatsoever.

My point is absolutely relevant.

> This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society

Well, there is absolutely no nuance in a Tweet verbatim "All I want for Christmas is a white genocide", it's perfectly acceptable to interpret it without whatever understanding you think as "objective", especially for a global audience.

> but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.

What law? we're talking about controversial speech on Twitter.

> Perhaps, but the goal isn't to ban speech that offends you personally, nor is it to solve problems, but to ban speech that harms your standing in society, as in my example.

And this kind of extreme, offensive and divise speech doesn't harm the US society? then by all means...

> The problem isn't controversy, but actual harm inflicted by dehumanizing others, as I explained in my other comment.

No, the problem is controversy. Spewing bullshit on Twitter and gloating at "idiots", isn't going to solve anything. The person that talked about "white genocide" is a professor I believe, so he is supposed to be a bit smarter than the ones who he likes to call "idiots" yet falls into the same trap as them, with his excessive, divisive rhetoric that gets him brownie point on Twitter, but that's about it.

What you don't get is that you're not going to build bridges and inform people on these various subjects if the first thing you do is antagonize them. He is absolutely part of the problem. He didn't need to say that, it's genuinely offensive and gratuitous. You can talk about context all you want, don't expect context on social media, there is none, his comment was heard by the entire planet, and in European countries that suffered greatly from genocidal attempts like Bosnia,Ukraine and others. Go tell an Bosnian 'your genocide is less important than what happened to black people'.

AFAIK they are using C + Gobject which doesn't help finding new contributors.

> It's always safer to be less political.

Not anymore. If someone at work brings the discussion to some wedge issue and you dare say nothing, or "I don't have an opinion about it", God helps you. You'll be labelled anti-X, Y-phobic or Z-supremacist because you dared not expressly agree with someone's "right side of history" political stance...

> Well fwiw we do ban gambling in most jurisdictions, and many internet services have adopted the gambling industry's tactics for user addiction. So it's not entirely without precedent I would think.

What do you with the government would ban exactly?

A simple approach to that problem is to stop using Twitter. I don't have Twitter account nor a Facebook account, nor I read any news or content originating from these services.

Nobody forces anybody to use these services or rely on them in anyway. The author himself has a Twitter account. So if he really disagree with Twitter content why doesn't he close it? Facebook, Twitter and Google are in the influence business, they sell eyeballs to the highest bidder, that's their product. Every decision they will make is to pursue that goal. If you despise these platforms, then why are you using them?

This article is quite emotional, and quite hypocritical at the same time. Yes people spread bullshit, and no, nobody is forced to pay attention to that in anyway.

Yep, me as well, I wish I could activate that globally for all people I follow at the same time. Retweets are the worse in terms of useless signaling. They also added a filter filtering tweets containing words. What I would like is the opposite, for user U, filter all tweets that do not contain word X,Y,Z so people stay on topic. I'd also like to see a record of the tweet that made me follow user U.

There is quite A LOT of that these platforms can do if really want to make the experience better and stop the flow of information that is completely irrelevant to the user.

> Did projects in language de jour (i.e. Java) and hated it

Because there is one thing Go isn't is "le language du jour" (ou du mois) ??? Come on.

Personally, I'd still be betting on Java which has really become better and simpler to work with/deploy compared to 10 years ago, it's especially true for web apps, and has the largest ecosystem of all languages. Go is nice, but has a poor ecosystem for enterprise integration, its type system is the reason why it will never replace languages such as Java.