1,665 karma · joined August 6, 2011
There is a very long thread on the Go list of a guy who is a fan of dataflow grumbling about how design decisions made in Go make it a poor fit for dataflow.
Yes, Python is a mess. But, Python has been a horrific mess for years now, on multiple distros. I just ended up giving up on Python. Distro problems, 2/3 split, GIL and various other buggy nonsense slowly just reduced its value versus other languages.
That said, you first point seemed silly. Simplified, partial and building block examples are used in almost all fields to facilitate teaching (including among medical students and surgeons). They are useful because they keep people moving along the process, teaching them terms, skills and concepts they will need to get to the next step in the process.
What is your alternative method for teaching someone unfamiliar with these concepts in a way that won't just put them out to sea without a paddle?
If you are actively trying to ban interracial marriage, we CAN AND WILL run your ass out on a rail so you can't be CEO.
If on the other-hand -- you think two people of different races getting married is fine, yey for you.
This just -- insanely dumb -- fox news style -- belief that every issue has two EQUAL and VALID sides is nonsense. If you are a huge racist, you will be fired. THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE of the freaking racial issue. Just like there is no other side of the gay rights issue.
1. Eich's action had no complexity or other goals. Eich supported something where the SINGULAR purpose was to strip a class of people of a right they had only recently acquired. There was no complexity to it, no shades, it wasn't as part of his duties, it wasn't as part of a team, it wasn't as something he was forced into, it wasn't something he regretted. 2. Mozilla isn't Dropbox 3. CEO isn't Board Member.
Years ago me and some friends just did back of a napkin calculations about the number of human deaths that could be attributed to our consumption of devices and materials -- and it was sobering.
Sadly, not sobering enough for me to do anything about it. I try to minimize my possessions now, but not for a cause -- it is more of a lifestyle thing and I enjoy it.
The problem is so huge and stark and overwhelming it is hard to know where to start in our society governed by large state actors. I do donate to efficient charities, try not to be evil -- but that is about the net of my efforts on the subject.
Do you have any sort of social disorder? On the spectrum, etc?
How would you assess your cost versus value at the company? How much extra money (in savings or profits) do you think you generated for the company?
What did you imagine to the be the best outcome, and what did you imagine to be the worst outcome?
Obviously, you didn't think you would get fired over such behavior... why do you think you were unable to see this as a possible repercussion?
Why did you decide to do this in public, rather than private?
Do you often have issues filtering your thoughts before speaking?
Did you realize that your behavior might create a disincentive for other employees to contribute ideas to the company?
----
I am just very curious when situations like this occur, what the internal thinking is... because from an outside perspective, it seems like you getting fired was the obvious (nearly the only) possible outcome.
He wrote an entire article equivocating them, then he quickly writes a couple sentences pointing out he full well knows it is absolute nonsense. Well played by him, I read the article.
What? If the "belief" was the material support of a law to strip a class of people of rights -- yes, absolutely they should apologize... at the very least.
> Now we are slandering him thru a social media shit storm.
It is only slander if it is untrue, he never repudiated his views. People basically called him someone who is against marriage equality ... because, well, he is someone who is against marriage equality.
> Mozilla failed to back the cofounder that worked tirelessly for them for 16 years.
What really kicked off this thing was lack of internal support, when you have GROUPS of your own employees publicly calling for your resignation, you are in deep shit as a CEO.
> his personal vote did not have any effect on his ability to lead a diverse team
By "personal vote" you mean, material support for a law to strip a group of people of a right? Just double-checking. Additionally, it DID have a massive effect on his ability to lead the Mozilla staff, bunches of them on twitter asked him to step down.
> Hope his next company will appreciate his contributions more.
We will see, I suspect no company will hire him as a CEO. Being homophobic is just not hip these days. I really think he doesn't belong at the helm of a company -- probably make a great CTO somewhere, or just retire and relax.
Western society by and large has decided that certain issues are no longer up for "dialogue". Racism is wrong. Sexism is wrong. 61% of young republican (18-29) leaning voters support marriage equality -- which means this issue is actually settled, just waiting a few generations for old homophobic people to shuffle off this mortal coil.
Until you get on here and vigorously defend holocaust deniers, racists and sexists who materially support such perspectives, I am prone to believe you have another agenda here.
The key to your nonsense idea that wanting to striping an entire class of people of a right (and materially supporting the effort) is simply a "dissenting opinion that offends them". It isn't offensive, that trivializes it. It is a legal attack on class of people.
If he had donated $1000 to a group to reintroduce segregation in public schools, I highly doubt you would defend him under the idea "he just has a dissenting opinion that races shouldn't mix and materially supported the effort" -- or would you?
Don't get me wrong, CouchDB is awesome, but it isn't the answer to everything.
I don't think people unfairly ascribed a perspective to him. He is against marriage equality. He got called out for it, and driven out of town.
61% of young Republican leaning voters support marriage equality, the issue is over, just waiting out those who haven't yet realized this is no longer a debate, like Eich, to catch up.
So I guess we simply disagree on this issue.
In your mind, is being against interracial marriage just an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... or like me, would you say "of course fire the racist asshole".
You see "fair" and I see "unsustainable".
In 1986, only around 30% of Americans "approved" of interracial relationships -- now about that number have a family member IN an interracial relationship. Things move faster now, and in just a few years, the idea of being against same-sex marriage will seem just as insane about being against interracial marriage.
The "pro-interracial-marriage" side is the only side that gets to speak its mind these days, because they are the side that is right. Try coming out as against interracial marriage and you will be run out of your company on a rail, as you should be, rinse and repeat for gay marriage.
Do banks have to maintain the "Comments" by law?
Lots of really horrible racist, sexist things used to just be "opinions" (still are really) -- but now they are just considered by the masses unacceptable.
Eich was a victim of his own stubbornness and honesty. Could have defused the entire situation with a simple lie: "I changed my mind on that issue".
It isn't two groups talking past each other, it is one group trying to get their religious values instituted as government regulations.
Letting a same sex couple get marriage by a judge, in a courthouse doesn't do anything to harm the internal religious definition of marriage... it is the government regulated one.
I am all for banning marriage as a government institution and only having civil unions. Hell don't even call them civil unions, call them flipflapadingdongs if you want, but as long as they are done by government they must be equal, playing name games is BS.