114 karma · joined January 12, 2021
We have added so many layers and translations between our frontend and database.
Graphql brought us closer and it starts to run into some of the security concerns already.
What if someone just made this direct sql interface safe/restricted?
1. Hashes queries and uses GET requests.
2. If missing, sends a standard graphql as POST
I guess the big advantage is that when you write a manual query you can still pull down more data than you need by accident. Whereas this approach only pulls down what you need.
Surely someone has studied this though. “Why did you not choose comp sci major?”
All the answers are there. The fact we don’t hear about it is probably because it doesn’t fit the narrative that intersectionalism wants to tell.
Last time I went to research the history of why women were dominant in tech and then then minority, it was nothing to do with sexism surprise, surprise.
Exposure to computers at a young age is everything.
I will do some more research though and come back <- the best part about HN conversations for me.
I don’t think sex plays into capability but more so motivation. If there wasn’t science to indicate there is a difference in what men and woman are drawn to...then you could write it off...but there are differences and those differences seem to play out.
The fact we hear more stories from women is because they are on trend of sexism. Whereas the same stories from men are just office politics. Take any office politics story, make the aggressor male and the subject female and voila - you can claim it’s sexism.
See leadership.
30% Asian (6% us pop) 60% white (65% us pop)
Asians widely over represented.
Should we give less jobs to Asians and more to blacks and Hispanics?
This kind of points to socioeconomic and educational opportunities in early life. Blacks come from poorer backgrounds etc. But why bring race into it? Why not lift up people from poorer backgrounds of all races, instead of racist affirmative action policies.
These diversity reports are basically saying: we need to make our employees less racist and sexist when hiring.
Something you see often is developers who were bullied at school, finding refuge in their computer, finding something they enjoy, and then the feminists canceling them because they don’t have the social skills to understand all the new rules of what is not politically correct. E.g. James Damore - the fired Google guy - was just quoting scientific evidence regarding women in tech but without realizing the sensitivities of 2010+ and that some things are better left unsaid. This is simply a lack of social awareness, and now the nerds and re-bullied day in day out because they started making lots of money.
The reality is distorted though. Like in this article many would argue that none of it is sexist and it is just human behavior.
Whereas other women reading this have their biases confirmed.
I really struggle to find any sexism stories that describe situations that don’t also happen to men.
Human nature is to pattern match. It’s easier to blame groups than to blame individuals than to blame yourself.
This is true. There is scientific evidence that shows men prefer things, women prefer people. This is not to say women can’t succeed in tech or are not as good at tech, but the fact that women choose other fields belies this nature.
Women are better at language, social interactions, etc. So when her boss says to use her “feminine” skills to talk to a difficult co-worker, it’s simply a comment on a predisposed advantage women have over men when looking at the statistics.
Surprisingly, this would probably make females better managers rather than code monkeys. Managers make more money too.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/
> the times I was over-explained, or the times interviewers made a “not bad” facial expression when I replied correctly to technical questions
The problem women have today is that they are programmed to see everything as sexism, when in fact such things happen regardless of sex.
This really approaches disbelief. A “not bad” facial expression being sexism.
When she was fired for lacking team chemistry, I don’t doubt it when you have someone psycho-analyzing every single gesture and seeing it through some sexism lens.
And a junior developer out of college complaining about being “over-explained”. How hard is it to say “I am very familiar with this topic” and move on.
Primary sources are the best for these kinds of questions. “The truth about hitler” (1935) by Churchill provides a good summary of his thinking well before the war broke out.
Everything about Germany at the time was alarming. It’s baffling how no one took it seriously. A militarized dictatorship is a clear threat of another war - which is exactly what happened. Compared to democracies, there is infinitely more danger as an aggressor in conflict. The decision comes down to one man and opposition is silenced.
He also mentions the anti-Semitic views which were already clear in Mein Kampf to everyone. This was not the primary reason of course as peace and security in Europe was always paramount, but if Germany wanted to be anti-Semitic itself all the Jews could leave instead of being hunted down over Europe by a single invading nation and left nowhere to hide which would have left options rather than war.
All in all the idea of “pushback against a competing empire” doesn’t seem to play in my reading of things at all.
https://archive.org/stream/W.S.ChurchillTheTruthAboutHitler1...
Do you imply that the only groups in society are liberals and white-supremacists?
This is the problem liberals have...they have to get onboard with all the progressive stuff because they don't realize that everyone else is not a white supremacist as they are told by the NYT.
A lot of Trump support came from former Democrats who realized that they are no longer onboard with the ideals of the modern Democrat party pandering to the Progressives. These people didn't want a traditional religiously crusading Republican - they wanted opposition to identity politics and globalism.
There are good people in the center, and this Peru guy will be fine - but he should have realized a long time ago the NYT is not for people like him.
What usually happens though is when I finally start I realize there is a ton of stuff not clear and it becomes a nice challenge again without any easy obvious solution, and I regret my procrastination, and power on into flow.
The power of procrastination for side projects it’s absolutely amazing. It’s always this “if only I had more time I could finish all of it!”. But then when you have the time you become lazy.
I can imagine that it’s mostly for convenience.
I can think of use cases including:
- downloading a single package from a monorepo
- being able to copy paste a url from GitHub for the directory you are currently viewing
There are many other scenarios that could have played out.
The transference of knowledge and institutions is undervalued.
Techmeme
TechCrunch
R/programming
Reuters
The best change I made was to never visit nytimes, etc. Far too addictive and designed to enrage.
A pre-shift only needs to fail once and you have a co-workers recklessness injuring another worker.
I wonder what unions think of drug tests? As a union member I might prefer that my coworkers were tested to be honest if I worked closely with them around heavy machinery.
I think the mistake siliconvalleyites have is that they imagine everyone as intelligent and rational as they think they themselves are which leads them to encourage open discussion.
But it’s clear throughout history that all people are stupid sheep on occasion and their thinking needs to be curated in a way.
Therapeutic use for diagnosed conditions - interesting.
Safety for recreational use - interesting.
As a recreational activity - seems like we have enough fun already without adding more risk.
Just my 2cents.
Prescription drugs are more controlled because easier to OD.
It does seem like acute danger is a big factor in scheduling. There’s always the argument that drugs were scheduled out of fear and bad science. But maybe as more knowledge was gleaned over the years, it just became sensible for other reasons to leave the laws as they are.
Honestly, society is better that you don’t have a large contingent of people abstaining. And the idea that people make their own choices - I think this is greatly affected by parental attitudes. So you could easily see a big jump in a few generations from changing attitudes.
When you think about the argument for decriminalization, the issue of public safety from addiction and overdose is not very much considered. Publix safety from crime, yes. But there is inevitably an increase in risk.
What’s good at least is that we have a baseline of usage and addiction from very strict drug controls. So we can always monitor if things get out of control via more legalization.
Heroin and opioids may be slow and gradual, but then it’s an insta kill.
Maybe food for thought though about how society views direct vs indirect causes of death.
Imagine being in the nursing home with the heroin addict who thinks he has everything under control.
Everything is about risk. Bad shit happens in life and people have to deal with it. Bad shit can happen unexpectedly. And it’s difficult to know how it will feel when it happens. Look at how many people will “hit the bottle” because someone dies. Or a relationship ends. Imagine if that becomes something 100x more risky.
We see all the disastrous effects from legal drugs and now he wants to add more to the mix.
The difficulty in obtaining drugs reduces their use. That is the bottom line. Everyone wants to argue against it but it’s the clear reality.
This guy just lives in a bubble.