scooble

I did this. Had a header template, a footer template and a bunch of pages. My build script was basically ‘for page in pages cat header page footer > ouput’. Worked fine for its purpose (which was limited in scope).

I take a similar approach to you, and am also a solo dev. I would take a serious look at client-side frameworks if I was building something more appy than websity. It might also make more sense if I was working with others and there were separate front end and back end people so defining some kind of back/front end interface would make sense.

With regard to the admin, my experience is that usually the customer will have specific tasks that they need a workflow for, and the admin panel is often not a good fit for that (and things get messy quickly if you try to bend the admin panel to be something it isn't).

I’m ashamed to say that this was a factor in upgrading from my venerable x200.

The one time I decided to try my hand at interviewing for a coding position, the interviewer gave me a rather sniffy ‘what is that!’ When it came out of my bag.

Doing onsite demos with a vga only vintage laptop also isn’t probably the best look.

I may be misremembering, but I believe that at the time Elop joined, Symbian was still the largest smartphone OS by the number of devices. And (my memory is shaky here), the fact that Symbian and Maemo both used QT meant that there was a path for existing Symbian app developers to transition to the new platform. Maemo was slow coming, but killing it at launch still seems like an odd move.

This works with standard vim in a terminal as well. I too follow the old gods.

I went back and forth with ignorecase until I discovered that placing \c in the search pattern will make that search case insensitive. This makes it much easier to do the odd case insensitive search but keep the default case sensitivity. (\C does the opposite if your default preference is the other way).

If your vim is compiled with the correct flag for GUI operations (I forget which), you can yank/delete text into the * or + registers to make it available to the system clipboards. This won't bring the line numbers, and lets you avoid using the mouse.

>> My concern is that a premise held by diversity advocates ('people of different races have different perspectives') could be used justify racist acts (e.g. not hiring a person from a given background).

> I don't really see how this follows without some other premises

You don't see how the idea that different races have different perspectives could be used to justify racist acts?

How about this? "We don't hire black people because a black perspective would not be a good 'culture fit' at our organisation" or "we feel that a white perspective is necessary for the kind of work we do".

Typically, racist people like to seize on the suggestion that there are intrinsic differerences between people of different races to justify racist acts, so I'm surprised you see it as a stretch that a racist would readily agree that people of different races have different perspectives and use this to justify their behaviour in much the same way that white supremacists now talk about 'incompatible cultures'.

> Now there are contexts where presuming that racial background makes one's perspective more valuable probably is racist, but just because that is true in some contexts doesn't make it true in all contexts.

No-one has claimed it is true in all contexts. I said that presuming (or pre-judging) someone's perspective based on their race used to be called prejudice and was seen as a bad thing. Are you disagreeing that pre-judging someone's perspective used to be called prejudice? Or are you disagreeing that prejudice used to be seen as a bad thing?

> Perhaps I misunderstand you here. Let me instead ask a different question: Why do you believe that "black people have a different perspective than white people" is a premise shared with racists?

You've misunderstood me. My concern is that a premise held by diversity advocates ('people of different races have different perspectives') could be used justify racist acts (e.g. not hiring a person from a given background). Assuming that people who want to justify racist acts could be referred to as racists, this would mean that diversity activists share a premise with racists - which would be a concern for me. Nowhere in there is a claim that certain people will undertake racist acts 100% of the time.

> Usually, at least from what I've seen, racism is rooted in a belief that the other group is lesser in some way

If we are suggesting that different races have different perspectives, then this becomes an easy belief to support. Presumably perspectives differ in some ways which can make some more valuable than others in some contexts.

> I'm not suggesting that there is one black perspective on things, much as there isn't one white perspective on things, that would be reductive

You may not be suggesting this, but it often seems to be put this way, including by the comment I replied to, which stated that:

> every single member of the marginalized group has some life experience that no member of the majority/powerful group has. So although it's a prejudice, it's a correct one

If 'perspective' here is understood as the thing arising from the single life experience shared by a social group, then it seems like a natural reading to see it as a single thing. But part of the problem with this discussion is that the claim that 'people of x race have a different perspective' is assumed rather than argued for. I am not at all clear on what is shared by black people from all walks of life all over the world and not shared by white people from all walks of life all over the world (who have their own version of it) - and how that thing is relevant to hiring an intern at BigCorp so it would be nice to see the idea expounded on a little more.

> Can a white child and a black child come out of a class on slavery with the same perspective on it?

Possibly not, but would two white children or two black children come out of it with the same perspective on it? What prior judgements can we make on those individual's perspectives based on their race? It may be the case that the white children would feel tremendous empathy with their fellow man and campaign vigorously for reparations. Similarly, the black children might come out of it thinking (like another prominant black man) that 300 years of slavery sounds like a choice. In my view, there is very little we can say in advance about the views of those children based on their race, and we should wait until we have the child in front of us so we can ask them about their perspective. And when that child is older, and applying for a job at BigCorp, we should extend them the same courtesy.

They invoked experience to support a claim about perspectives.

I consider racism morally wrong and therefore people who act in a racist way are acting in a way that is morally wrong. This is a valid inference, not prejudice. Prejudice might be if my inference was not valid, e.g. that racist people are sexist. That would be wrong.

I find that claim very implausible. I would also be very concerned as an anti-racist if I found myself sharing a premise (e.g. black people just have a different perspective to white people) with racists, no matter what the rationalisation. Particularly since it would legitimise discrimination in contexts where that perspective was seen as undesirable.

Also, the act of prejudice was seen as wrong, not particular prejudices.

You seem to be talking about diversity in the hiring pool being good whereas your interlocutor was questioning whether diversity in hirings was a good.

I remember when this was known as ‘prejudice’, in the strict sense of pre-judging aspects of a person (such as their perspective) based on e.g. their race.

It was considered to be a bad thing, so it’s been very strange to see it used as a premise by diversity advocates.

"One CD sold at a gig for $10 is equal to about 2,000 Spotify plays"

Assuming the album is 10 songs, am I then right in thinking that once I've listened to an album over 200 times (2000 individual song-plays) then the artist would have been better off if I'd used spotify rather than buying the cd?

200 plays over a few decades of album ownership sounds like a pretty low threshold for cds to be better for artists than spotify. Perversely, it looks as though the only artists who will have done better from me buying their album are ones I grew tired of quickly (though my reselling the album could mitigate that).

The killing of the n9 is the one thing in tech I'm pretty sure I'm never going to get over. It was awesome, and they killed it.

The police did include the murders in the official statistics . I think the problem here is that you don't understand the data you quoted and how it relates to the demographics of the UK.

Racially motivated murders, which the article is about, are hate crimes. As such, they are prosecuted as hate crimes in the UK.

The calculation I made was from official figures. A smaller percentage of a larger demographic can make up a large percentage of the total.

Even if you want to ignore every number except your 25%, those white victims of racially motivated hate crimes presumably exist, do they not?

The figures you quote are the percentage of victims by ethnicity. So, for example, the number of black people who have been victims of hate crime. I was referring to the total number of victims by race. I suspect the latter number was in my memory because of how these, and similar, figures have been reported in the past. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race.

Some back of the envelope calculations suggest that my 'roughly half' is correct given the figures you provide. Of 1000 people in the UK, 920 will be white, and 80 non-white. Given the rate of white hate crime victimisation you gave, .92 white people in that 1000 will be a victim of hate crime. If we lump all the non-white people together and use the highest rate of victimisation (Asian:1.1%) that gives us .88 non-white victims.

The comment I replied to claimed that racism against white people does not exist in the western world. That claim does not appear to be true.

"Racism against white people? Definetly notin the wstern world."

Iirc, in the UK, around half of victims of race hate crimes are white.

Assuming that this is not already covered by your contract, and that you are not going to flatly refuse, it may be worth thinking about possible areas of negotiation.

For example, if you have to be available for 3h per week, you might suggest retaining 1 vacation day of that week. Similarly, you could suggest that you retain the vacation day if you end up working more than one hour on any given day of your vacation.

As well as ensuring you aren't giving away your vacation time for free, this also sets boundaries. The risk here is that your 3h a week effectively turns into you being on call for the vacation.

> To me, this seems to be putting the cart before the horse, as if the truth of a statement is dependent on its linguistic properties.

I suspect that truth of a statement will depend at least in part on its linguistic properties, since the meaning of the statement will determine which part of the world will make it true or false.

I think that this is the bit that Brandom is concerned with - the question of how language gets the ability to say anything at all.

Your post seems to make a set of assumptions about women's abilities and preferences (for example their ability to thrive in a hyper-competitive environment).

It's not clear why these should be any more acceptable than the claims Damore made.

These kinds of discussions tend to overlook that using tools that you enjoy using and are familiar with can be a virtue in itself.

I doubt that any of the editors/IDEs under discussion make it impossible to do the work we need to do. And I'm willing to bet that forcing an employee to use a tool they don't enjoy will have a much higher impact on their productivity than any marginal differences in functionality between that tool and their preferred option.

I use vim because I enjoy using it and it is sufficient for the tasks I need to do. The idea that this reason is not enough and I need to justify my choice by proving it is a more productive option than all other editors/ides strikes me as deeply odd.

There was a period (before Feb 2018) where 'more than twitter, less than facebook' was my standard answer to the question of how much profit my startup was making.

Rationalising is a kind of ethical reasoning - constructing an account of something that shows it to be consistent with a wider body of ethical beliefs. So in your example, the idea of agency is a way of making the idea of responsibility mesh with our belief that things should be fair.

It is not clear to me that a computer can hold ethical beliefs, or that it would be troubled when some other beliefs are inconsistent with those beliefs and motivated to find a rationalisation that makes them compatible.

> True. But agency is just how we rationalize responsibility being "fair", no?

I doubt this is a description many people would agree with - that agency doesn't exist but we just pretend it does so we feel better about locking people up to modify their behaviour. Aside from anything else, if we are probabilistic systems, we presumably can't actually do things like rationalise, or design things like legal systems. Similarly, I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the legal system as having a goal if it is a (presumably slightly more complex) probabilistic system.

Of course, just as with materialism we can bite the bullet and accept that our typical descriptions of human life are strictly false and the real story is just a scaled up version of billiard balls knocking each other around (mutatis mutandis for the probabilistic picture). But if we want a picture that lets us keep some of our current view of human life, it is not clear that bringing probabilistic systems into the picture helps any.

I suspect that a key question is whether a probabilistic system is enough to bring agency into the picture. I can't be held (e.g. legally) responsible for my actions if they are the product of strict cause and effect processes. But it is also not clear if I can be held responsible for my actions if they arise from probabilistic mechanisms.

I suspect it can't by definition. It is not clear how an unmanned vessel can maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing (rule 5) for example.

It is possible that it has the ability to determine things like which tack another sailing vessel is on (which it will need if it is sailpowered) as well as identifying things like day shapes, light patterns and sound signals and adjusting its behaviour accordingly. I am a little doubtful though. Similar projects seem to rely on AIS for collision prevention, which will mean that it can't 'see' any recreational vessels who lack AIS type A.

Thinking about it in the context of the colregs, 10kts is above the hull speed of a 40ft sailing yacht, and is probably plenty fast enough to sink that yacht in a collision.

I have an IKEA bookcase with my laptop on the middle shelf and a monitor on the shelf above it thus making a ghetto standing desk. I shift between this and a sitting desk throughout the day, using the monitor (which is inconvenient to move) as an incentive to stand as much as possible.