JediWing

Want to make sure I understand: you think white males are disadvantaged at FAANG?

What is the basis for thinking this, and have you weighed any difficulties for white males against the difficulties of other groups?

The launch of this phone was utterly botched.

There's a hilarious dissonance between the talk of SoC design, AI, computational photography and ambient computing and the inability to handle a website with a relatively simple purchase flow for a phone that, let's be real, probably has about 1/10 th of the interest and web traffic of the iPhone.

From the moment the store website went live with these phones there were all sorts of errors, and I ended up forgoing purchasing from the google store after trying to for an hour!

Once Best Buy went live with their stock, I instantly was able to pre-order with little issue. I'll be picking it up on release day there.

Fix the store, Google!

I appreciate what you're saying -- that the end result of a Democratic majority Congress, in addition to a Democratic President -- is the same. However, I do think it's unfair not to acknowledge 2 points:

  - The executive isn't all-powerful
  - The Senate has the slimmest possible majority, with 2 caucusing members hesitant to do anything without the other party purely because of optics

Add to that:

  - Progressive wings of the Democratic party have come up with comprehensive climate plans
  - Democrats do tend to set emissions reductions goals, while Republican tend to undo those emission goals.

I think it's unfair to say that both sides are the same on this issue, basically because two members of the Senate Democratic caucus are indifferent on the issue, even though darn near 100% of the Republican party is opposed to any action on climate change.

As someone on SSRI's as well, I think it's a bit of a mixed bag. I've definitely experienced CBT where my therapist and I worked to tear down some overly harsh views of myself (unrealistic).

The flipside is my struggle with weight.

I (ill-advisedly and not entirely purposefully) was off of my SSRIs for about a week while I was already mildly depressed about my weight gain.

I was much more depressed about it in that week, and I definitely feel like this was because I was forced to deal with the reality of the situation, whereas on my SSRIs I was more easily able to push it out of my mind. There are times when your depression is driven by tough reality (for me, that diet, exercise and un-ending hard work are needed for weight loss), and the only way to become happy in spite of this is either commit to the work or choose to ignore it.

> It is not ok to be introverted nor socially anxious.

Social anxiety is a clinical diagnosis that needs to be handled and treated, I agree there.

However, I strongly disagree that it's "not ok" to be an introvert, and in fact am mildly offended that you would suggest such. Some of the rest of your comment leads me to believe you don't actually know what introversion means.

> ... I in fact think that it is not healthy. For me it is a red flag to lack the basic social skills such as sitting together in front of the computer and demonstrating part of your programming skills in a live manner.

Introvert != "lack [...] basic social skills". Introverts are perfectly capable of pair programming, it's just a draining and over the long haul less productive way for them to work.

> I used to be the biggest introvert & socially anxious person.

And you changed from getting energy from time alone to getting energy from other people? I suppose this is possible, but in the same way that it's possible to tie a left-handed person's hand behind their back and force them to be right handed.

> As a general rule of thumb the more extrovert a person is the higher possibility of their success in life because humans are social animals. This is known.

Because society is structured as such, and we should try to question whether that's wise rather than encourage people to completely change a fundamental personality type because it's "the way it is".

Introverts and introverted ways of doing business are valuable, but since they aren't the ones talking over others they often get left in the dust. This is something that efforts towards diversity focus on. They aren't all about race or gender, they are also about our ways of thinking and acting, and how all of these types should be welcome.

> No process can ever have the bandwidth of face to face communication

Even if I were to agree with this (not completely sure I do), they can certainly have a better signal/noise ratio.

> I don't want to work with that kind of people

In fairness, from what you've said, they probably do not want to work with you, so maybe this method of mutual self-selection is in everbody's best interest.

and some people's brains just don't "work" like that. when someone else is talking, i try to listen, and i'll often lose my own thoughts. i also take time to put my thoughts into words, which the chattier end of people tend to take as an opportunity to speak into the void with filler, further distracting me and forcing me to try to listen, losing my thought.

some people's brains don't work in a way that "thinking out loud together" is an effective strategy.

  > If you still feel uncomfortable having another person next to you while you write code, it might be because you aren’t particularly happy with your own code, or the process that you follow in order to achieve some result.

Or the process of constant all-day interaction with another person is just personally draining for you because you're introverted / have social anxiety, or because you have to juggle multiple responsibilities inside & outside of work and don't want the scheduling or social overhead to manage the back-and-forth, or for any of a plethora of reasons besides "something about your process is flawed".

This sounds a lot like "if you have nothing to hide you don't need privacy" argument. Some people just hate pairing because it doesn't jibe with their personality or work style.

Draft PRs + a culture of continuous reviews accomplishes much of this without taxing people who hate pairing.

As a fan of Star Wars, this has been the text that made me learn the most about this structure:

http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/

Troz!

Or because brain rhymes with insane...

Haha, absolutely, it's a terrible example with terrible design that I pulled out of thin air, but it was just to illustrate the point of how even seemingly innocuous changes can have major consequences.

The problem is the subset of devs who don't know what they don't know.

Dev 1: "I'm just going to reword this error message because I think it sounds awkward. Harmless, I'll ship it"

Dev 2: "Actually you've removed a keyword that our error messaging framework uses to highlight the error in neon red. We've seen in a/b testing that this bright color prevents error blindness 65% of the time, and saves users from having to fix mistakes that cost them on average 1 hour of confusion"

Right, but it removes the opportunity for a second dev to see subtle but catchable issues that are the most likely to get missed in isolated testing by dev/first level QA. Race conditions, improper use of lifecycle hooks, scaling issues, etc.

And good luck getting a SOX auditor to give this process an OK!

Yeah the quote you pulled is a really unhealthy take. Requiring reviews is not lacking trust in the dev team, it's acknowledging that we are human, fallible, and that these systems are full of complexity that one person seldom understands on their own.

If you view a code review as the reviewer seeing you as untrustworthy, you are likely some combination of sensitive and arrogant.

In theory yes. In practice, your test suites are not all-encompassing perfect oracles.

What are the reporting requirements? Will they lead to taxation? Overhead computing resource per block/transaction validated?

Is this reporting only, or will it result in additional taxes?

This seems light on details, and I really don't know what opinion to have on this without understanding what the requirements are. Nothing I've read succinctly explains this.

Fair enough I guess, but parent was still to my eye misunderstanding what `x privelege` means.

s/white/male/g and the point largely still stands with mildly adjusted examples.

I'd argue overall it is on the whole easier to be a man in society than a woman for similar reasons (i.e. men have been in charge of power structures for longer and entrenched assumptions abound).

I hadn't thought about the perspective that men are more often killed by police than by women, and probably for similar reasons (i.e. subconsciously viewing men as more dangerous than women), but by and large as a man I don't fear getting shot by police on a traffic stop.

It could definitely be harder to break into a traditionally female field, as an example, though for sure.

Overall I feel the "male privilege" would be more pronounced than any "female privilege", though.

This is actually what intersectionality describes: we each have our own unique sets of advantages and disadvantages through the lenses of our race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

In the vast majority of cases a straight white male is going to have the fewest disadvantages and most advantages in western society, because it's been designed for centuries around the straight white male as the power-wielder.

This right here is a demonstration that language around "white privilege" is too opaque, loaded, academic and at times outright hostile. It's failing at it's job of helping people to understand the problem.

Privilege is a word loaded with connotations about being born with a silver spoon in your mouth.

White privilege isn't about being upper class because you're white. It's about the advantages a white person has over non-white people of the same station.

A white person in a poor neighborhood is on the whole more likely to be able to pull "themselves" out of poverty, because, the systems and power structures in place have white people in power, or have systems that are fair on their face, but still lead to higher white hire rates or social mobility.

Nobody is disputing that some white people have it bad, they're simply pointing out that all else about your social status being equal, being white provides tremendous advantage over being non-white.

The low hanging fruit answer: taking up the defense of the KKK could free up resources for the organization to actively infringe on the rights of others, either through direct violence and intimidation, spread of hate speech materials, or allowing political spending on issues with further its white supremacist agenda.

Average consumers don't care about codecs. Google runs a video streaming service. Paying codec royalties is a cost of doing business unfortunately.

If we could snap our fingers and make it go away, then great but holding consumers hostage on some impractical FOSS crusade is ridiculous.

It's not backwards compatibility support, it's warranty. Google is running Youtube. It's very profitable. They can afford the maintenance burden of running these apps for the supported lifetime of Roku devices. It's really no different than running Youtube to an old computer.

But if the app is working, why shouldn't it be on the store?

Yes, exactly what I meant. If they want to be on the device, write within the bounds of the device and support it throughout it's lifetime. Don't hold your massive customer base as leverage after having supported multiple apps on the platform since forever.

This is all so ridiculous and anti-consumer. There are working apps. Right now! The status quo should be that existing apps stick around.

As far as codecs, or anything of the sort, Roku has a device that they sell to customers. Google must write an app that works on that device.

I think it's time we have legislation that working apps cannot be removed from platforms over stupid corporate spats.

I would assume the guidelines for aspirating would be the same across all of these vaccines, though? If so the original point still stands regardless of adenovirus vs. mRNA

7 people in a fairly specific demographic (women 18-38, I believe), when there are 2 other alternative vaccinations available.

Do we have any data on the total number of women 18-38 who received this vaccine? It may actually be fairly low given we may have selection bias to give these vaccines to an older population.

The outcome may simply be to recommend that members in this demographic avoid this particular vaccine until further analysis is done.

If this were the case it would be odd that this is happening a.) in a consistent subset of women 18-38 b.) that it would emerge in a 1-shot regimen rather than a 2-shot regimen, because it would seem more likely that any one individual would experience this more frequently with 2 chances for human error rather than 1

...Because not wanting to expose kids to COVID at the height of the pandemic is so very uncaring of children?

What I never see discussed with national sales tax proponents: a huge portion of the tax collected would now be on credit cards. As an layman to economics, this seems like it could be potentially disastrous.

I sort of disagree, and here's why:

In your assessment of the situation, the equation is:

     value brought to company without overtime + value brought to company by doing overtime = salary

but the overtime is paid, so:

     value brought to company without overtime + value brought to company by working overtime = salary + overtime pay

presumably, what's negotiated annually is salary. if overtime is compensated separately, then it really should not figure into salary discussions outside of maybe some small consideration for their not having to staff a separate on-call team.