They can test an embryo before implantation which means you don't have to abort so it has much less emotional impact.
46 karma · joined March 7, 2021
I imagine this line is annoying people. That you aren't bothered isn't the issue if others are. That you don't see the issue with a delay, or a background check, says more about your one-size-fits-all view than the complexity/simplicity of the problem. Personally I never have menstrual issues so I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
I come from country people, where even today going to the city is an event. And it's almost a holiday to go to "the big city". So a purchase you might be able to go to walk to the store to start a waiting period for might be between two months-apart trips for my family and much more inconvenient.
You also sound like you live in the city so your needs for protection are a lot different than in the country. In the city a pistol with frangible ammo, or a shotgun at home, are the max you'd need. In the country my driveway was 1.5km so different solutions are needed. What's a scary black gun in the city, when in the country, is a way to both keep coyotes from livestock at great distance and defend yourself from people if needed. Being 500m+ from a problem means you need more bullets (larger magazine) than being at 3' from the bad guy in the city, etc.
They're different worlds with different problems.
Look at Canada where the issue recently become polarized but not across party lines. Some nutcase in a surplus police car with a replica uniform drove around a small community gunning people down while the police holed up in the city for safety. He preyed on country people many kilometers from anyone else, with a rifle he'd smuggled up from the USA. Now the city people want to ban scary guns despite that a ban wouldn't have interfered with this shooter, but people from the country want to buy exactly the same gun he used because it's the best-in-class for home defense in those same scenarios.
For life, it's that you aren't your weaknesses but your strengths. Don't worry about filling the skill hole in juggling for instance, put that time into your strengths or hobbies. Be a better you, not a more complete someone else.
For hiring though, if you've assured basic competence you're now more interested in weaknesses than strengths. You don't need the world's best person in the role, you need someone who won't bring down the group - either in their incompetence, malaise, nasty behavior, or whatever.
So when being interviewing for a role don't worry about being the best, shoot for 60% and you're golden - but do your best to avoid showing even a single red flag.
No. We don't care how you get it done, but that you try in a way that would be worth paying you for.
My job isn't a calm safe place, it's the chaotic result of two departments and the proverbial rubber hitting the road in one spot. It's not intentionally bad, mean, hard, or long, and we weed out people who don't cooperate well, but every crazy thing you can imagine has happened.
But even in previous, easier, positions people were still put on the spot by being assigned to work with customer support on some issue way up the stack from their normal job, which required to be on a call with 20+ outsiders, from CEOs to SREs, and representing us and our department properly. The people on HN who talk about giving people calm interviews to see their true selves don't get it, the performance under a small amount of stress is far more interesting. Do you get mean and snappy, get entitled, shut down, or what?
If being asked, kindly, to solve a basic leetcode is too much then there's no way you'd be suitable for anything else we do.
By slowly releasing supply you prevent anyone having to self-regulate (which requires unreasonable deprivation, OR global knowledge) and everyone bases their decisions off of the only global signal, free space.
In this case, if they're trying to hold onto it that means it's not part of daily life. They're adding friction to people's lives and wasting children's learning time on trivia.
Also, let's talk performative political correctness for a moment. Any other message is racism of low expectations. "Natives can and should live in the wild because that's their way." -- TooManyPeople
It's race-focused and thus ridiculous. The best life outcomes (in Canada and everywhere) are in the cities and by-definition, not related to native culture or practices. Poor non-indigenous people know this and move there for opportunity. We shouldn't burden indigenous people with this ahistorical and racist expectation that they'll forego their potential to live in the wood and manage nature, speaking dead languages. Natives are people, not political points.
Is Prince's legal name [Insert Symbol Here], or is it 'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince'?
The goal of recognizing the UN resolution wasn't that anything an indigenous person wants has to be accommodated, but that indigenous traditions must be recognized and allowed. Otherwise a native could learn Lojban and force the government to recognize it.
And this is why nobody outside of the fake-justice bubble cares at all about these issues, they're just social signaling for you people.
That was handy because it didn't actually involve testing on a slow device but mostly showed what we needed to know.
There are tools like https://github.com/schoentoon/slowpokefs which try to make your fast storage act like a HDD which could be better for black-box testing.
Gamers aren't a coherent group or right wing in general (think of the ages...) but "their side" (the side trampling on them) is anti-left, so the gamers were lumped together and drawn on the right. The 'Autism Spectrum' is the most "centrist" I've ever seen, but because the left uses them to launch its attacks from they're drawn as 'left territory'.
Specifically, the Neuro-divergent group isn't an active group, kind of by its nature. ND people on the map are more of a victim pool who just get picked on because they're easy to maneuver into mistakes. Like the whole Damore incident was Google saying "Does our HR policy look fat" and only James was tricked into engaging. He was more a convenient scapegoat to hurt to consolidate their power than he was an ideological enemy.
Certain groups have all-or-nothing ideological traps laying around everywhere and I think it's that these groups, like armies using landmines in areas with children, are especially harmful to societal non-combatants.
Generally, but I could plan to have that contractor back for each repair as long as they do a good job.
> The state has allowed NTTA to have a lifetime contract of earning tolls on the roads even past the cost of building those roads
Presumably they're responsible for maintaining the roads. We've simply decided to call them for repairs as long as they do a good job.
> The contractor does not keep sending you bills after the fees have been paid
If I defer up-front costs in trade for maintenance costs then they do. This is really handy some times.
No, that's the general procedure for handling adding and removing board members. It's the same procedure you'd follow if someone was arrested in the middle of the meeting.
A code of conduct is about the specific conduct. Picking your teeth, insulting tall people, etc.
> I don't think it's easy to game a code of conduct. Could you explain
If there is a written code it has to declare where the lack of gender recognition offense is compared to screaming at someone, for instance. If the code lists your pet offense above screaming, which they all do, then you can scream at people about your pet issue all day with zero risk.
If none of this is mentioned then it all falls back to the law. This is better because more skilled people have done more work on it, and because it's outside of the group's mandate so they can let members deal with it outside of the group. I can't follow you through a 7-11 yelling at you so you can apply the same rules to our official interactions and call the police if I act unruly in a meeting, no vote required.
Also, how does voting work when not only the level of offense, but the standard of offense itself is subjective. Does an accused director get to vote on whether the claimed offense falls into a listed class, but then have to recuse themselves for the vote on the seriousness of the specific claim? Or are they expected to recuse themselves from everything? How many directors do you need to accuse at once before quorum is you alone?
Generally nobody sees why you can't tell people about the specific anti-fraud rules until they work in a fraud-rife industry and watch the arms race. If you haven't been involved with multiple non-profits you might not have experienced this yet.
> I said that he should be replaced because he wasn't doing a satisfactory job.
But the thing he wasn't satisfying you by doing was enacting a code of conduct?
> I think that some of these problems could have been avoided if he made a stronger distinction between the GNU project and the FSF
Good point. I think everyone running things should try not to co-mingle their jobs. But this isn't a code of conduct issue, it's more appropriate as one of the basic requirements for a director. No conflicts of interest.
> Not wanting a code of conduct is [...] just bad policy for large projects
No, a code of conduct is a kiss of death. It adds nothing that honest members of the group need but gives trolls and ideologues a field day.
A group should never have rules about things outside of its core tasks, unless it wants 90% of its time to be spent arguing about things outside of its core tasks.
Harsh truth, but an easy rule for NDs to follow. Anything you say in public will be judged for its potential. If someone can get points for making it sound bad, they will.
> I think it's clear that the GNU project needs a code of conduct
Why? It seems from your quote that people can be removed without a code and, as the FAANGs show us, a written criteria just gets gamed. A code of conduct is redundant and problematic. It victimizes the trustworthy.
> if the leader is opposed to the idea as much as Stallman is, then it's correct to replace him
The ultimate crime - even above anything in a code of conduct - is not wanting a code of conduct? Is anything else an absolute?
In a society where life is cheap and legal advancement is painful and opportunities are rare, you'll have the situation you mention. If the law is always fatal but rarely applied, why consider it at all?
In a comfortable society that has free food for everyone, a wider range of punishments actually does tend to control crime. In my country Murder can get you (effective) life, and selling marijuana on the street can't. You can buy joints easily but hitmen remain scarce.
The city simply made an analysis of the number of roads they'd build over the years and the cost of being a capable engineering organization versus the premium of getting existing experts to build it. They probably don't generate their own electricity either, for the same reasons.
Just think about it a bit - if a cop asking you to commit a crime tainted the investigation then bad-guys could prove they weren't police by telling you to commit a crime. "Hey, buy some drugs from me." "Well, he must be legit, there's no way a cop could say that!"
Also, "this sneaky entrapment is a very American thing and won't be accepted by most courts." You're both lacking for world perspective, and an understanding of the purpose of law. If Country X made this illegal, I as a resident of Country X would be upset, not happy, because it would make my legal system worthless. So even if the law were this silly, somewhere, it would change right away by overwhelming citizen demand.
You know, we the people elect those who write the laws. The laws aren't something done to us, they're our tool for making the world work.
In reality Mom A is a nurse, and cares for 20+ people in a day, and Mom B is a school administrator, both provide more than one-day-of-mothering value per day worked, so it's actually in everyone best interest that they leave their kids at daycare, consuming 1/6th of a less-talented person's day, enabling their professional output. Even the daycare worker multiplies their output by watching multiple children.
Because otherwise ... yeah? Private toll roads can be a good solution.
Yes, actually investment banking is kinda critical because every day that paper languishes a bunch of capital is going underutilized and people are idle and unpaid. In order to not waste the life work of so many, yeah the paper pushers should get in gear.
But also, it's rude and silly to ask this. Because I could just as cleverly ask if what you enjoy is critical and we both know that it, when viewed reductively, is not.
No. The justifications come in around making employees also work a 9-5 shift. If they just hired night-quants it would be fine.
It's simply a fact that some work needs to be done by the next morning like stocking shelves. Or 24/7 like tech support.
I remember seeing my first solar panel leaning against an old blue and white school bus at a music festival somewhere on the west coast, decades ago. They had a bunch of old auto batteries for storage.
Despite you using the word 'funny' I don't think you were laughing while posting that whereas the GP was.
> I don't think so.
You don't think lady in 'mail-lady' refers to woman?
> why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"?
Rude. I never would. But if I did it would be redundant after calling her a woman. What do you mean?
But maybe I'm trying to help my brother find a partner so I do want to point out available women, and that does imply people with vaginas. Again, so, and what do you think would be a more efficient way to do this?
So his question is more like "Do you just look away when you see a valid business transaction" but couched in rage terms.
The reputational difference, I think, is in their self-representation. Microsoft played price-fixing games, let malware be included in the install, manipulated the market, etc, while presenting themselves as honest competitors.
Whereas Apple is pretty straight-forward about the lockdown.
And that's sort of why we buy them for our non-tech people - because they can't be screwed up in all the user-based ways. We don't particularly want to force Apple to open up until the security/privacy problems of Android and Microsoft have some plausible solution.
I hope that once strong U2F tokens are normal and in-use by the average person that we'll have the infrastructure to really allow people to unlock their device without just enabling evil-maid attacks.
The point isn't that they wanted scam apps, it's that they were so readily approving apps in the space that they even approved scams.
This suggests that they did so little review as to miss a scam, and therefore that any argument of "his app wasn't ready" isn't right.