noptd

> a joke

More like a thought-terminating false dichotomy that only serves to quash healthy discussion.

Let's leave these "jokes" on Reddit or Twitter where they belong please.

>it also shows criminal intent.

Hard disagree, unless you have some citations to back this up.

Two mistakes != Torture. You're obviously not arguing in good faith here.

>almost universally factories of extraordinary animal suffering

I'd love to see some sources that support such a strong claim. Otherwise, it just comes off as bait for argument.

Maybe you are being down voted because condescending remarks like this do more to turn people away from the cause?

Are you claiming that the ends can never justify the means? If not, then I don't see how their arguments would be inherently devoid of merit.

I guess it depends on how important you hold the lives of lab mice considering they make up the vast majority of the 1500 number cited.

>Please reconsider how that happened.

As should you since flamebait isn't conducive to good conversation.

Following up with an argument full of terms like "many" and "can" is not enough to support an absolute claim in either direction.

>There's a term for this: Victim Blaming

What a ridiculous take. Helping people build the skills needed to defend from being bullied is nothing like victim blaming, at all.

>frequently, if not always

When you're making sweeping generalizations and arguing in near absolutes, citations are very much needed.

>just saying more research needs to be done

Right, because the results of the previous studies amount to evidence that is too weak to conclude that red meat is inherently unhealthy to consume. I'm not sure how your comment contradicts this.

>I've been writing software almost non-stop for close to 25 years, and I still don't understand most of the code written by others.

I think you nailed it. In my experience, the increase in complexity isn't necessarily inherent to the amount of code so much as the amount of abstraction used as code size increases.

I've worked on some large codebases that only used simple, well-understood and/or well-documented abstractions which didn't feel as nearly complex as other codebases with abstractions that were more complicated than they were worth.

>Being a star performer doesn't protect you from layoffs.

Generally speaking, they absolutely do. Even in scenarios where an entire org is being cut, star performers will be reassigned to other areas of the company beforehand.

It may sound brash but it'd take either a major failure in management or a failure in reputation-building and visibility for a star performer to be cut during these types of layoffs. That's not to say that good or even great engineers aren't at risk, but you're not going to find "10x-ers" being let go.

>The future of desktop Linux is a VM under Windows

If Microsoft has their way, you mean.

>this provides productive evidence for a 4 day work week if everything still runs with folks checked out on Fridays and they’re not in the office performing work theater.

Not exactly. Unless 100% of workers are only working 4 day work weeks, it's impossible to account for the confounding variable of other workers picking up the slack when analyzing these trends from a macro view.

What a ridiculous comparison. Let's stick to arguing in good faith, shall we?

Yeah, this behavior sounds a bit anti-user to me. The action pretty much boils down to,

"Oh, you disabled Bluetooth and left it that way? Well, we know better so we're going to turn it back on without your knowledge or approval. You're welcome."

I don't buy the convenience excuse either otherwise the behavior could be disabled if desired.

Not sure why this is downvoted. Considering the parent led with

>I've hired hundreds of developers over three decades, and this is completely wrong

in order to argue from a position of authoritative experience, these questions are entirely fair game.

>all the evidence and data that makes this extremely unlikely.

Please, do share.

I disagree. You're essentially claiming that the need to prove an effect is removed once something is enshrined into law and that's not only illogical but dangerous to boot.

>How do you force anyone to not follow a law?

I'd imagine it be an ultimatum - if you enforce another country's laws on our citizens then you're also in violation of our local laws and will be fined, unable to operate in our country, etc

Exactly, it's such an easy problem to solve if you're actually interested in solving it which makes it quite obvious that Apple isn't.

Activation lock is effectively a remote kill switch, which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I'm no fan of Facebook but I have a hard time understanding why Facebook is singled out for this. If what FB did is illegal, then they can be charged for their crimes.

However if we're critizing from purely a moral standpoint, how is this any different than claiming that cell phone carriers should be preventing this type of thing over phone calls or texts?

For the record, I don't find that to be a convincing argument either but it's the inconsistency of perspective that irks me.

Honestly that reads like a creative writing exercise given the amount of inaccuracies in that rose-colored description.

I'd recommend anyone reading take that with a large grain of salt.

I wonder how that number compares to other forums and social media sites.

Seems odd to me that everyone is hyper-fixating on that site, as tasteless as it may be, when much larger ones are given a pass.

No, you need to be more precise in your wording if you're not getting your intended message across.

Sounds synonymous to "speech that could anger people". What a load of bollocks.

Is the style more important than the content?

Seems like he wrote it with multiple audiences in mind and I don't see how that detracts from his claims or message.