shawn-furyan

That exists. It's called ZBrush (https://www.maxon.net/en/zbrush). But ZBrush can't replace Blender.

There's probably some price where it's worth the hassle. I feel like every OSS project starter should have at least a firm notion of where that line is before they publish. On one hand, maybe you'll get it, but mostly it helps clarify what your time is worth so that you don't feel guilty about rejecting requests on your time that don't meet your own standards for value.

Everyone took this VERY literally. Interesting.

> MOST people can remember all their jobs

indeed.

As a possibly former employee (who among us can recall every place they've worked in the past?) who may not have looked at any number of prior employment agreements in an awfully long time, and completely apropos of nothing, I just want to note that endemic is such a good and relevant vocabulary word for current events. I mean, there's the global pandemic, and other things people are talking about, all kinds of uses! Very relevant!

I like this because it's a really off the wall take, but it also feels a little bit like the sort of reasoning that gets you tangled up with a Bernie Madoff type figure.

It's true that unscrupulous people are often very effective. But it's also true that they are unscrupulous. Leaning into lack of scruples probably isn't the most stable of pro business strats, but I imagine it works out sometimes.

I was recently having a conversation where I speculated that with how bad some programmers are at naming things, some code reviews might actually be easier if you ran them through a code obfuscator first, so you can focus on what the code does rather than being tricked into making invalid assumptions by misleading names.

Get that newfangled SVGA outta here. VGA (640x480) is the One True Resolution™.

Would that it were so simple to assess the value and integrity of individual voices vying for attention among the roaring cacophony that is the internet.

I would be very careful about considering any actions that Facebook, in particular, takes to be accidental. From the very beginning, intentional recklessness ("Move fast and break things") has been their credo.

When you're being reckless on purpose, none of the damage you create is accidental.

What's you're point? This is a normative discussion. The presence of NDAs says nothing about what is morally correct. For example, Harvey Weinstein systematically used NDAs to silence his victims and cover up his violent crimes.

> This system also makes it hard for marketing and spam to get a foothold

> You’re certainly familiar with another federation [...]: email

aphorism rejoinder:

disinformation is worse than no information.

What you think this does: filter out inexperienced people

What this actually does: bias you toward hiring people who are comfortable lying

There was a Reply All episode on this conspiracy theory recently.

My thing is, why does everyone get hung up on listening to the microphone? Facebook surveillance of users and non-users alike is more powerful and creepier than listening in on the microphone!

I mean at least people have some understanding of audio bugs. Nobody really understands the byzantine network of distributed opt-in web trackers and data brokers that Facebook uses to put together its compelling, yet deeply flawed dossier on every person.

AAAND Zuck has been very publicly polishing up his presidential running shoes for 6 months...

> Are we really still repeating this nonsense?

I get the sense that this "fact" was used BECAUSE it's "well-known". It serves the narrative purpose of showing that Google is fallible, rather than sinister (truth be damned).

The article begins by describing the CEO of one of the 10 largest companies in the world's office furniture. It was clear from the outset that this was not going to be an article terribly troubled by a sense of duty to present a completely neutral reading of the relevant facts.

Eleven 9s of durability is an utterly farcical guarantee from a decade old service. A single big durability event in the next century would irrevocably decimate that record. They really might as well claim 100% durability, because it is no less plausible.

I mean, what are the odds that S3 will even be operating in 100 years? I'll certainly put $1 against $1,000,000,000 that it won't, and that's only one many ways it could fail the standard.

Downvoted, not because your general sentiment is wrong, but rather that this comment what-about's a specific threat identification. It is useful to raise awareness of general threats or wide-spread operational malpractice, but doing so in direct response to the identification of a specific threat is a distraction that primarily serves to engender a sense of nihilism about defense in general. That is counter-productive, and a specific strategy in propoganda.

Defense is not hopeless. Some threats are more immediate than others.

note: this is not an endorsement of the gp comment. I merely think that discussion of the gp comment should be focused on its own merits rather than nihilistic dismissals of it.

Bannon works for Mercer (Breitbart), who is paying Trump's legal bills. Bannon changed positions, not teams.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-legal-fund-paid-billionaire-ro...

Well, then this is superstition on the part of those execs. LinkedIn is the one tool that every recruiter uses. They are more likely to map out your employee network on LinkedIn than to even visit your company website at all (much less count on it for having accurate up-to-date information).

I'm willing to ride with this format. Magazines tend to be disposable except for when they have a particularly impactful in-depth piece or themed issue. This format is all themed issues with in-depth pieces. It also allows Stripe to focus resources more effectively on the supposed goal of delivering evergreen authoritative recommendations. This is something that is sorely lacking in the current environment where anything over 6-months old is often unusable.

The internet currently provides more breadth in the area than a single person could possibly need. I laud the focus on depth.

> Climate change is true not because of a lack of challengers.

In fact, the opposite is true. The theory that the rising atmospheric carbon level is causing a rise in average global temperatures has had many competing theories going back decades. None have been nearly as consistent with the observations as this theory.

Likewise the theory that the rise in atmospheric carbon is due to human activity has had many challengers, but none have explained the observations as well.

What will come of rising temperatures is a matter of less agreement, and less certainty. Rising water levels in the back yards of most humans is a common worry among scientists, but the current situation is rather unique, so nobody really knows what will happen, much less what the timeline will be. However, temperature deviations of the magnitude we are currently in have drastically altered global climate in earth's history.

source: basically summarizing from memory this recent dive into the subject of what the established science on climate change says from the excellent 'Science Vs' podcast from Gimlet: https://gimletmedia.com/climatechange . Corrections welcome.

A $2B investment doesn't really preclude other similar future plays for a $200B company. So I think there's not enough information to draw that sort of conclusion.

It was my own off the cuff phrase. It's hard to relay the subtleties that I am trying to get across. I think that a lot of career programmers overstate the difficulty of their jobs, and how impossible it would be for people who don't closely hew to the archetype of the genius iconoclast hacker to contribute at all, even when they've demonstrated relevant aptitude and competence. These biases strike me as damaging to the motivations of people who don't look like, or particularly relate to anyone held up as a paragon of that archetype. Also, looking like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg, or even Woz, doesn't actually strike me as being relevant to someone's potential as a programmer. That's why I call it bullshit. Because the tech industry selects for people who outwardly present as stereotypical hackers without even doing much to verify ability in many cases, while constantly relitigating the bona fides of people who don't outwardly present those superficial qualities.

Put another way, why have I seen many very good female programmers trapped in lower paying positions like QA and X-Analyst (but doing legit programming as their job) when there are men who are shitty programmers making 50% more and in a social position that gives them license to condescend to these women?

Oh, understand. Yes, I misinterpreted the subjects of the statement.

[1] edit: oi, changed "understood" to "understand". The former implied that I immediately understood what you were saying. I was trying to say that I didn't initially understand, but do now after the correction... sorry if that caused more confusion.

I don't want to speak for my wife, but she has been actively involved in Girls Who Code, and seems to have thought that it was worthwhile. As I understand it, it's more about letting girls know that programming is an option, rather than being about segregating female engineers. I think this is necessary because I have personally seen the assumption that men are engineers and women are support people limit the careers of women who were more accomplished and competent than men in more prestigious engineering roles. From my perspective, there's a lot of bullshit mythmaking in programming that plausibly dissuades many, IMO disproportionately women, from approaching the field, and which seems to have a tendency to funnel women to less prestigious/respected roles tangential to engineering.

Response to parent's edit:

> we're both pretty standard-issue silver-spoon white Midwestern liberals

I can see why you would draw that conclusion, but your assumption is pretty wide of the mark in my case. I grew up very poor in the deep South.

14 day old anonymous troll account intentionally distorting several claims I made.

It is a continual frustration to me that the male-dominated tech community is so bad with these issues. Predictably, the top comment on this post that tries to move forward on a very real problem that has been empirically established is an appeal to stick with the status quo.

I'm sorry, but companies have always focused on making money. Saying that the way to handle this very specific problem is to focus on making money is an appeal to brush the problem aside completely.

The top comment, for good measure, even obliquely swipes at active events taken by small local groups to tackle the issue, such as Girls Who Code, because men might be silently stewing over their existence...[1]

I am opting for a top level comment here because my frustration is less with the comment itself than that the community as a whole has voted this comment to the top.

[1] Before I get kneejerk responses that the comment didn't specify the group, let me belabor the point that the context of this discussion is SPECIFICALLY women's difficulties working within the masculine tech culture, so MinorityCodingClub trivially translates to WomenCodingClub, which sounds an awful lot like Girls Who Code, which has been gaining prominence of late. It is a cowardly oblique swipe at these sort of organizations. It's a cop out not to name the organization that you have a problem with explicitly, an attempt to lash out at such organizations while maintaining the comfortable position of plausible deniability. Everyone gets it though. So I won't countenance "shocked and appalled" denials that organizations like Girls Who Code were the target of the swipe.

Not even all that slowly. Their reputation has been significantly tarnished by this in about a year.