zen928

For example, if you had protective headgear guarding you the innumerable number of times you were dropped as an infant then this conversation wouldn't be necessary, but society is forced to pay the price for enabling bad faith actors asking "questions" about an extremely well researched topic that you've either chose not to do any knowledge seeking on your own for, or are willingly ignoring to postulate another topic that absolutely no one who values their time would want to discuss with you about.

Maybe someone like you SHOULD wear a helmet in a car though, so good suggestion! :)

I don't think the intent of posting on a visible, high traffic public space is to only offend the onlookers but to also incite outrage that cascades into other communication channels. Free attention from vitriolic strangers stemming almost solely from lacking self control to the point of expressing frustrated opinions is all they could ever ask for, at a minimum.

A moving goalpost isn't a great argument either.

Replies like yours is why they made that post.

watched a political commentary with the primary cast having views similar to yours pretty recently, i believe the most applicable line that would resonate with your intentions would be "the only good bug is a dead bug"

chilling stuff! interesting future we're headed into with messages like yours being the norm.

I'll pile on since I find your "sudden" confusion on this comment chain to be a disgusting and shameful way to try and engage conversations with other people.

The top post tries to identify the results as reducing the hours of 5 days of work into 4, the response to that was highlighting that the goal wasn't to make up for missing hours but to try and measure the efficacy of needing that fifth day's 'worth' of hours. You then selectively choose how you interprete the topic to be either:

1) questioning why they couldn't use their results of 5 days VS 4 days to effectively say "if you're effective in 4, then why not 5?

then when questioned on how this doesn't make sense in the context of the article, feign confusion on the distinction and ignore the results of the article to flip flop to your other point:

2) questioning the articles results by asking others outside of the study to personally prove to you what the measure of "success" is since you see modern technology built with this framework (phones) as a reason why it shouldn't change

despite this being a nonsequitor that isn't a point anyone has shown interest in discussing. Then when asked why you went from being confused on why they couldn't use the results showing their effectiveness to try and enforce another "effective" day, to then denying the results and saying that it's already effective and to ask others to personally prove to you why it isn't effective (instead of reading the article).

Do you have any answer yet?

only if you consider "historical footage" to exclusively mean the "[original] historical footage [stored in archiving]" versus e.g. "historical[ly accurate] footage"

if "historical" is going to be used subjectively with no further qualifying statements then the meaning of "history" will be subjucated to the context it's being presented in, I don't see it's use here as contradictory

After that personality test, they ask you to complete a timed IQ test. After that, you'll reach a behavioral interview after which you get assigned a "take home" technical assessment, which then after submitting you can schedule to have technical interviews (potentially multiple). You can fail at any step along the way.

It was one of the more laughably ridiculous interviewing processes I've seen, and thankfully the only one I've seen recently that was so egregious.

Part of dealing with Islamophobia would be dealing with problematic posts like yours ascribing intentions and emotionally charged sentiments to statements that display no such intention. Go ahead and exactly quote the scrutinizable statement in the post above you, please.

It's a word you use when you want to signal to everyone that you'd like to cease having a polite discussion and turn it into a battle of ideologues, very commonly initiated by those who lack introspective processes that fuel the political narrative that they pretend to demonstrate against.

When someone's inner monologue is so full of derisive irrationality that buzzwords pushed with an agenda are the first "opinions" they share, its somewhat of a moot point to engage with them as the point of their post wasn't about having a civil discussion. I generally consider it an indirect act of kindness when people like this immediately show their cards, because it's pretty easy to spot and ignore (if the loud sound of their mouth breathing doesn't already give it away).

It's a potentially negative financial marker to the success of their business model of selling skins if their skins don't sell, I don't think there's any more sentiment to the statement beyond that

Will they also be paying what they owe on the added costs that could have been noticed earlier with due diligence? I'm imagining that what they'll receive instead is the compensation expected and agreed upon by both parties negotiated during either initial hiring or the multiple points in the year that allow for easy communication about changing payroll expectations, instead of hawking for dimes at first sight.

I know you're really really sad that one person can't hold all similarities to their chosen likeness in copyrighted perpetuity, but it sounds like you have a problem that things are SIMILAR and the artist isn't getting paid for any adjacent likeness instead of content itself being directly stolen. Regarding that topic, you should be able to find my morally, ethically and legally backed response via midjourney by prompting it to create the world's smallest violin.

This discussion makes people immediately place themselves under the boot of technology and display active helplessness almost entirely because they can't handle the mentality that it's now a commodity to get what they consider a "unique artstyle". That you can be "unique" if you consistently draw a line in thicker shades around borders and use flashy colors in a way no one has decided to try yet, and that this style "belongs" to you being extrapolated to the point of your artistic hobby becoming the only reflection of your identity as a person. Sad for those who staked their lives around capitalistic ideals.

Do you need to have the validation from others that your art exists for you to want to create it? If I read every book by only jumping to the final chapter, am I interpretating the work incorrectly or am I not interpretating it how you specifically look for it to be validated?

I keep photographs of moments as memories, eventually I'll collage them together, maybe I'll do this a few times to develop a style that I enjoy. For the argument, say that it looks horrendous but in a consistent way that I like. This collection and its output have significance to me and to others I'd share it with because of the attachment to the reflection of my identity, not because it was something I created "correctly". If AI art was generated of every moment of my life and done in the same style, it wouldn't have value not because it was made incorrectly, it wouldn't have value because it has no personal meaning to anyone.

If you view art without meaning to others being less financially valuable as an attack on all creative work, I don't think you view art much better.

People like you having the certainty your freedom to casually engage in these types of topics that may be critical of powerful entities won't result in a form of specific targeting that gives a legally accepted pathway to finding out your private information. Or something.

I think it's an error to conflate the history of commits to being the "history" of the repository, simply because you're putting an assumed expectation that each commit represents a progression from the previous

to illustrate: I could create 10 different small commits from a list of unstaged changes that follow a pattern of progression, I could create 3 commits that group properties (e.g. "added interface and implementation -> lint -> add tests"), I could do all of this in a single commit, but none of those represent the reality that none of these commits werent done as the work was done and that the commits were arranged after the fact to conform to a personal standard that has nothing to do with timeline objectivity. it's not a history of anything other than of how the committer decided to layer their changes.

Try to not frame general statements through the lens of your worst critics, and to actively give charity while interpretating messages from people who don't demonstrate harmful intent. I don't see anything hostile about someone claiming that those who might feel intimidation by a language they don't speak will feel at ease (because the primarily content is in their language). Assuming a negative intention on a message of seemingly good will should be a moment for you to pause and consider why you think that way, instead of conjuring up post-hoc reasoning to decipher a hidden hate message.

I agree that it's sad you agree with this.

devs have to use it to hoist it to a platform that can accessed by others before users can use it, right? imo users don't typically use open source software, they use generated artifacts from an upstream development process representing the capabilities of the software. users don't "use grafana", they use the implementation of how you deploy it.

it should be improved upon by responses from the users who use your implementation, but what you're saying suggests that efforts like architecting your software in ways that improve/maintain development standards or packaging your software in a dependency manager before delivering any level of user facing feature is a sad assumption to you. I don't think the concern of usability here takes the entire picture of a project into context.

It's so funny to me seeing variations of this post in response to anything related to what could be seen as a weakness to the actions taken after acquisition, while also seeing this in posts promoting twitters relative stability. It's just so transparent to what your motivation is and laughably pathetic how you feel the need to reaffirm and defend your stance on musk (lowercase) at any opportunity that projects any positivity on his decision making.

Oh, right, the topic that neither of us were actually taking about. Yep, I don't think anyone reasonably minded would be using a twitter tor exit node with twitters current reputation. Probably best to remove a service that no one would ever trust you enough to use.

I don't agree that companies like boeing failing to secure their own assets properly is taking society hostage, rather than the absolute lax and laid-back approach to digital infrastructure that leads to allowing these weekly emerging "cyber terrorist" groups to take advantage to begin with.

They may be inappropriately handling the contents relative to their scope and potential damage, but that's actually not their prerogative or their concern. It should be a punishable offense beyond "ransom fees" to be in such a position that you can get so easily exfiltrated when entrusted with nationally secure data. Making a big display to the company to pay up a ransom means this has likely already happened silently multiple times to varying degrees without notice, and that anything after the initial public response is just theater. Its unfortunate that I have to feel embarrassed by the security posture of businesses that have absolutely no excuse.

It seems that misinformation when the crowd of low-life online celebrities who took the chance to relentlessly virtue signal "awareness of mental illness" around Robin William's death will never truly leave us.

He was depressed from being diagnosed with Parkinsons (ultimately diagnosed as Lewy body dementia) and feeling like he was already losing control of his mind while suffering severely with related complications for over the final year of his life, slowly escalating from signs he was actively seeking healthcare professionals to understand before he got a diagnosis.

Do you see a possible connection between feeling a loss of control with thoughts in your mind with a Parkinsons diagnosis and being depressed, or that he was depressed his entire life while holding an emotional front and the fatal diagnosis was just unrelated and no one could have seen it coming and that we need to be aware of the signs? It's so disrespectful to every party involved to chalk up what happened as something that couldn't have been noticed or prevented.

You don't avoid drowning in water by avoiding water, you avoid it by learning how to swim. In the case that you find it necessary to swim, you now aren't limited to drowning.

Your privacy extends beyond what you personally expose, being aware of what others see and use your information for and how your information can be protected is how you maintain privacy. You can't fully avoid others keeping information about you online by not being online (banks, retail, flying, identity, tax information, pictures on facebook, school records, ...), but you can understand the evolution of systems that would use your personal information to decide on how you can obfuscate or limit sending information to maintain your privacy. Holding bad actors accountable for mishandling information isn't contradictory to trying to keep your privacy.

Any reason why your doubts have any higher validity than their suppositions? If you want to shut down their viewpoint, you could augment your statement with examples backing the level of confidence you seem to display about your stance despite it being a assertion based entirely on your personal feelings.

I doubt you can make a claim on the self imagined apathetic response of a faceless group of people 150 years ago. You "doubting" isn't any more valid. I don't see it as unreasonable that institutional discrimination existed in 1876.

Not accounted for in the initial calculation is cost of adoption needing to learn how to apply them in your workflow in the most effecient / least disruptive way to realize the 5% improvement

I don't think anyone's against self improvement, but the cognitive overload of continually juggling multiple 5% improvements vs a possibly more-disruptive (but in reality usually more streamlined) 25% improvement down the line just doesn't make sense if you value your own time, especially if you have to essentially embed yourself as an expert into the domain to be able to follow improvements

Great resource, thanks for sharing.

Evidence for the statement that being potentially misrepresentative of your output can be misleading to others and lead to an incorrect conclusion, or that misrepresentable conclusions can be used by deniers to field their viewpoints ...?

Is there a certain type of evidence that would placate your very specifically worded and anti-intellectually framed question?

Calling companies that hold a patent you find valuable and aren't distributing it's use how you personally see fit a "patent troll" isn't just inaccurate, it's an intentional mischaracterization for the purpose of eliciting a negative emotional response solely to spread your narrative. It cheapens the meaning and lowers any engagement to fight for the same cause when you realize it's a facade driven entirely by sour grapes and a lack of understanding of the patent system being criticized.

I guess it's okay here though, because [passionate story about side project idea using eink that could be tinkered on but never actually idealized into something].

How do you deal with intentionally harmful actors trying to smear technological progress by repeating specifically dishonestly framed questions living rent free inside your clueless defenders' brains through lite propoganda viral marketing campaigns?

I guess by being honest that the problem can be tricky to solve but back up the dialog to state that every podunk online article you read is framing human inconvenience from backed up traffic as more important to immediately solve over saving more lives :)

The added software is their implementation detail, not your individual concern. Presumably, you've given permissions to run the application that didn't change (it was always capable of doing this and you initially agreed) or required you to consent to new changes to run it. This is as banal as including an extra npm package that takes slightly more work to execute.