Eleopteryx

Strange comment. I have to imagine that the part you find "good" is the lowered viewership? Or what is the "good" part to which you're referring?

Feeling somewhat validated in my choice to upgrade to a discounted phone from 2019 rather than spring for a newer phone with 5G support. I just had a feeling 5G was going to be something I would certainly eventually want to have, but wouldn't make a huge practical difference in the short-term (the next couple of years).

Your reading of the situation seems predicated on a conveniently pedantic definition of "automatic" from my perspective. I watched the entirety proceedings as they transpired and don't recall witnessing much hesitation from Republicans, but it's definitely possible that by not "following conservative media" I overlooked the actually agonizing deliberation that transpired behind the scenes. I would love to educate myself more on this topic, can you link to any examples of what you're talking about?

"Numerous examples" is fantastic but what he said was a generalization and as a generalization it holds up. What % of congressional Republicans would you estimate "did not automatically spring to his defense"?

It actually doesn't depend on when it was said. It was wrong. But, for the record, he said it in October 2016.

His argument that Donald Trump would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton because the former would be easier to remove from office than the latter, arguing specifically that "congressional Republicans would [not] automatically spring to his defense, if he overstepped the line". Doesn't seem like a great example of keen political judgment in hindsight.

I've tried a strategy like that in various contexts. e.g. not uploading a photo of myself on a Slack workspace. How differently might people read what I'm saying if they assume that I'm white versus knowing that I'm black?

I thought it wise to try this strategy when looking for employment, but I think it actually works against me in that case. If the employer knows I'm black then they can filter me out from the get-go and save both of us time rather than be dragged through a pointless interview process. It's hard to really quantify the exact degree to which my race is a detriment to how I'm perceived, but I sense it often enough to know that it's there in some capacity.

I'm almost certain that's what op meant to get across.

Funny how quickly this Bloomberg article manages to segue into "Bernie Sanders doesn't want poor people to have electricity"

>My DNA is not just mine, but it's really shared property.

But you didn't get a cut of the $300m.

>Yes, they're incompetent.

So you feel confident in asserting that, at the time that the person made that tweet, the quality of the Python code that they shipped was poor, or it took an inordinate amount of time to produce? All because they had to look up len()?

>It sounds like the poster has been rejected from a job interview for missing a semicolon or writing “length” instead of “len”.

These kinds of anecdotes make me often wonder if candidates are "disqualified" for far more superficial reasons, and if interviewers hone in on pedantry like this to legitimize their reasoning perhaps even unconsciously. I have trouble believing most candidates wouldn't make at least one trivial mistake of that sort and I am equally reluctant to believe the same interviewers would disqualify any given candidate for a mistake so trivial.

>Twitter isn’t a phone call, but it also isn’t a message board.

Well, Twitter is Twitter. But Twitter is probably closer to a message board than it is to a phone call.

It seems like the reason why the publisher dropped the book is to cover their ass in terms of legal repercussions. This actually presents a compelling question: "does Britain have free speech?" if you can get zapped for being racist or being perceived as racist in a book. The author asks this outright... but from there really just segues into telling how great and not-racist the book really is if-you-only-knew.

The aforementioned question is the only point I should really care about. If a book is harmful to a publisher's brand because of social/PR/profit ramifications, then it makes sense for them to drop it. That's not a free speech issue. If the barrier to publishing the book is legal, that's worth discussing. But beating me over the head with "but my books's not even racist tho!" isn't really getting to the core of the issue at hand.

To me it seems like there are features of the site or certain subs that essentially shitlist you until your account is of a certain age or upvote quota. You're not wrong that posts by brand new accounts seem to be invisible sometimes.

>yes hello site's creator here

I like your way of greeting

I've witnessed unconscious prejudices in myself e.g. toward female coworkers. I remember being livid because a female coworker corrected me in the presence of others. If she had done it in private I would have had no feelings about it. But I felt like it was a particular harm to my reputation on account of her gender.

If asked, I would strongly deny being even remotely sexist. Ironically, if I were in a position to hire or promote a female candidate or employee, I might be unreasonably biased toward the notion on account of wanting to have a diverse team. But in the aforementioned scenario I was caught inside of my own projections of an invisible pecking order.

The prospect that there are people who might have a similar reaction to my asserting myself while being a black man frightened me. I ruminated over past interactions, framing them in a completely different context.

Trying to make it in this industry has created a certain amount of anxiety and resentment, and it's compounded by the fact that I don't know which parts of it are my imagination or reality. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to argue that everyone is prejudiced toward me, but rather my own constant uncertainty of how I'm perceived is both alienating and discouraging.

I wish the real world generally valued employees as people instead of numbers on a spreadsheet. These individuals can get jobs with dementia but I can't seem to get a job with ADHD. I guess "our employees can't regulate their attention, just go with it" isn't a compelling hook for the vast majority of businesses.

It doesn't guarantee a job at google, but I don't think that was the point. If he feels that the reasons for his disqualification are absurd, how should he voice that frustration while not being perceived as entitled? Are hiring practices beyond critique?

You've repeated the same argument except this time with examples.

But the nature of 8chan's user base isn't being dictated by its design. It's still an overwhelmingly right-wing site that gained its prominence from the Gamergate controversy. As a frequent user of reddit I would openly declare that overall it's an observably left-wing site. People across the political spectrum certainly use it, but it's still a left-wing site. Neither site was designed to cater to a certain types of users. But it seems dishonest to say certain ideologies, sentiments, patterns of speech, etc. don't take prominence on either platform simply because that prominence isn't an intrinsic aspect of the software that these communities use.

>Just maybe the democratization of film

I've been thinking about this for a while. The "despecialized" versions of the Star Wars films prove that audiences can dictate the nature of a creative work in lieu of (or in spite of) its creator(s). It became apparent that eventually fan-edits of films, and fan-remakes of films, might eventually supplant the official material in certain cases.

But beyond the concept of "superior" or more popular versions of flawed films, there would be branching iterations that eventually are so distinct from their source material that they'd essentially be different things all together. Which is exciting to me.

Can Safari play webm files in the browser? Never works for me.

That begs the question, what distinguishes actual technical debt from short-lived assets?

This is painful for me as a Rails dev because the real technical debt is always a lack of test coverage. Cleaning up cruft is great, except without tests I'm just going to break my application in the process (and probably not know it.) Without first defining the behavior of the application, there's a reduced incentive to refactor anything. In this way, there's effectively two layers to the technical debt.

This becomes a compounding problem, where the technical debt gets so great that it becomes more appealing to just keep pushing out features and dealing with the fallout. Everywhere I've worked, the code has ended up exactly this yucky. And yes I've contributed to it too. I just don't think that the idea of paying for someone to go back and make the code nicer with no tangible changes to the application's external behavior doesn't seem to resonate with my CTOs. Maybe I just need to find better places to work.

I was well aware of that before I commented. It's still a non sequitur and a remarkable logical leap.

If he or she had left it at the church having the capacity to alleviate loneliness, I could go along with that. "Church maintains a healthy society" is a big assertion that is more multifaceted and complex than "church volunteer therefore good", not only within the topic of church but the topic of loneliness as well. Also without even beginning to define what constitutes "a healthy society". Furthermore the assertion is deeply lacking in historical context; what is the historical prevalence of loneliness? How long have we even been paying attention to the topic of loneliness as a public health concern to even keep track of this?

The article makes a very straightforward point: if you're lonely, volunteering could probably make you feel less lonely. But jumping from that to "therefore church is unequivocally and obviously a net positive on the fabric of society (than some people say)" is making all sorts of implications and doing absolutely no work to piece that thesis together.

It's a tenuous assertion, on multiple levels.

>You didn't see a connection between people suffering from a lack of meaning and purpose and the decline of an institution that basically specializes in that?

There's nothing concrete there. The fact that an institution that specializes in giving life meaning and purpose is seeing a steady decline in membership could be interpreted as that institution actually having a poor capacity to provide those things. The only connection is the one you made up.

After having read the article your comment comes off as a non sequitur. The article doesn't even mention churches or relate volunteering to churches or churchgoers... You didn't even make an effort to correlate churchgoing with the topic of volunteering or the topic of loneliness. Even from a tangential perspective I have no idea where you're coming from. The article mentions widows alleviating loneliness through volunteering for two hours a week. "Church plays a larger role in maintaining a healthy society" without really qualifying how, why, or in what way it pertains to the article, seems like a massive logical leap. What about for the widow? What about the man waiting for a chess opponent? Are you saying that "church" is a function solution to their loneliness? Could you maybe elaborate on that?

You stated something impertinent, explained nothing, and somehow got a slew of upvotes. I don't even know where I am right now.

You are correct, after re-reading the comment I can see that I misinterpreted the comment as meaning something along the lines of "ADHD people are really just lazy and want special accommodations", which was hasty and cynical on my part.

Invoking goalposts in the context of this discussion seems overly combative.

The article deals in pessimism/optimism which is a matter of perception. If one perceives that George W. Bush's success in 2004 was precipitated by extenuating circumstances like 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq, or if they perceive Bush's re-election as an extension of a presidency that never should have been, I would argue that still matters in terms of their outlook. I don't sense that the fact that Bush won the popular vote in 2004 will elevate or depress anyone's perception of the political climate of that decade or right now.