TheOperator

A third of the websites in the world use wordpress which can certainly be configured using "no-code" and yet it's being sold as something brand new. Excel is everywhere and allows for "no-code" automation. No-code has been around forever and for some reason incremental improvements to something utterly pervasive is a revolution that will be embraced by the next generation.

All I can think of is how Windows used to be administered almost entirely through the GUI but eventually PowerShell was invented and its popularity grows year over year. How is that even possible when the "no-code" way to administer Windows must clearly be better and more accessible and user friendly and coding is old fashioned and borderline obsolete? Every company with their heads on straight would fire anybody who uses PowerShell and replace all their admins with unskilled high school graduates. There is not enough room in town for both no-code and code solutions, so I expect Microsoft to remove PowerShell in it's next update.

His open condemnation of the word "Islamophobia" in response to a non-binding motion and posing with a guy wearing a "I'm a Proud Islamophobe" t-shirt inbetween the somebody shooting up a Canadian Mosque and the Christchurch shootings to me is a sign he was getting too mired down in politics and missing the forest for the trees. In both cases there was evidence the shooters were wrapped up in "Intellectual dark web", alt-lite, and alt-right circles and it seems like he missed the danger that others saw because he was blinded by the perception of progressive overreach.

He also has a bit of a reputation for twitter toxicity and he later ended up with anxiety issues and consequently an addiction. It's hard for me to not see him as a cautionary tale of why to avoid getting wrapped up in politics and the culture wars.

I can buy the argument that they could require special treatment but I'm much more sceptical that social media specifically resembles a public utility.

If I decide Facebook and all it's products are trash I can pretty trivially not use any of them. If I dislike all social media I can choose not to engage with it at all. I would have a much harder time going without electricity or water.

Social media feels somewhere between a public commons and print media, and it's acting more and more like print media all the time. I'm seeing this election the banning of certain sources like the New York Post and the editorialization of what people say with friendly links to approved "non-partisan fact checkers" who are essentially opinion columnists that cite more sources.

Netflix is about as close to a public utility as the local movie theatre, which is to say, nowhere close.

He's a reasonably successful psychologist and his opinions on psychology are often well founded. He's more controversial when he's speaking well outside of his domain which he does all the time.

He got into politics because U of T was ready to fire professors for not engaging in compelled speech (E.G. Not using somebodies preferred pronoun "Xir" or "Ze" even if you use their preferred/legal name "Betty" and avoid misgendering) based on a misinterpretation of Canadian law supplied by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (later quietly corrected). The initial dispute quickly spiralled into self-parody in one debate where fellow professor A.W. Peet admitted to forgetting WHICH gender-neutral pronoun their friends use and suggested programming peoples pronouns into your contacts https://youtu.be/SiijS_9hPkM?t=356. The Canadian government later introduced a 3 gender system for IDs and the American Psychological Association recommended the usage of singular "They".

Yet Petersons amateur input only added to public confusion over the law, the controversy prompted him to only say more controversial things about gender, and he became this alt-right symbol whose fanbase holds far more extreme anti-trans views than he ever did. If he just stuck to psychology and ripping off Joseph Campbell he would be a lot less controversial and a lot less famous.

Looks like a lot of work to dust.

I do see the trigger as being relevant because psychadelics cause connections to happen in your brain that wouldn't normally happen - which is why the drugs are particularly dangerous. I recommend them to the person with nothing to lose. Not nessecarily the entire world needs to be on.

A few things that aren't obvious come up. Like how stoicism can get you more help. So what you do is you say you're feeling great. Spend time with others talking about nonsense. Then you ask for help only when it really counts.

This seems selfless but it quite shrewd really, most people actively enjoy helping somebody occasionally but loathe becoming an actual martyr for somebody. When you're vulnerable you can't really let your health depend on somebodies honor and grace under pressure.

The help you receive is a limited resource. If you piss people off or stress them out until they're sick themselves you're gonna be vulnerable when that tank is on empty. You can't evaluate if it's worth to take a day off sick or ask for help without considering the impact it will likely have on others. You have to ration and time things correctly using stoicism. It may seem a bit lonely and fake but it's what's best for everybody.

Eich headed the company for like a week and people pronounce his firing as the sole mistake that took the company down. If Eich is such a god of leadership why aren't we all using Brave? Sure in hindsight maybe it would be nice if there was as much outrage over the CEO driving Mozilla into the ground as there was over Eich's donations.

What I saw was Mozilla getting beat when it comes to marketing, product quality, and ecosystem level for years and deciding to stick with a bad CEO for years.

Giving money to a private school that excludes gay people is far more of a choice than being a gay person. In this case by tolerating the intolerant you end up creating an inescapably intolerant society for gay people the sake of avoiding creating an escapable intolerant society for Christians. Nothing in the Bible says Thou must not let gay kids go to private school.

Pay should be relative to your value to the company and the CEO is not providing said value. You are allowed to run a company that gasp drives down average CEO pay instead of herding your pay brackets.

Problem is that the CEO isn't worth the discount rate never mind being worth the raise.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a good number of commercial VPN services are monitored by the US of A.

There are more workers than software developers. Specialised version of Word and Excel are literally provided in the CPA exam. The general concept of having an integrated "suite" of office software compatible with eachother, G-suite or o365, is also very appealing.

>I would've hoped that an expert who was lecturing about language and culture would've anticipated the problem, and been more sensitive to it.

If you're speaking Mandarin you are going to hear this homophone with even less context than the professor is giving. Should professors slow down their lectures (which he did explaining the context) or compromise their education by simply not covering the topic to protect the sensibilities of adults?

>One reason I would suspect it's a problem (which I heard in a TV show, in which a character explains how an anti-gay slur is hurtful to them), is that they grew up hearing that slur hurled in the context of other injustices, from childhood. I can also imagine that insensitivity to how hurtful a slur is could feel like a signal that someone doesn't understand or care about the associated injustices.

Trigger warnings are not meaningfully helpful or harmful https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/216770261982701...

I've at least experienced hearing slurs in negative contexts, and people discussing them brashly without "contextualizing" it. Sometimes it's pretty jarring, sometimes it feels bad. I still have absolutely no patience for not even engaging in, but enforcing under threat to somebodies career that they engage in the practice of trigger warnings. That is just using peoples suffering to push a personal agenda which nominally will help other people but which evidence shows will not help other people.

Sure

Competitive markets combined with regulation are the way we allocate resources in virtually every country. Unchecked competition can lead to exploitative races to the bottom, concentration of capital in the hands of people who cannot use it efficiently, and wanton externalising of costs (pollution, insurance, congestion). Ridesharing did create a competitive market and now its negative aspects should be curtailed.

I'm not in favour of a return to the 40 hour workweek which seems arbitrary and archaic and smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would prefer an equivalent to the 40 hour workweek for contractors, we have price controls for farm workers, but for some reason act as though it's normal for Uber drivers to work for effectively well under minimum wage. We need to ensure the drivers are getting a bigger share of the proceeds at the time the profits are being generated, not afterwards after labour has lost all of its negotiating leverage and granted a massive warchest of money to capital. States like California should be competitive and fight for a share of profits, not passively roll over.

If he was born into some other family he wouldn't be bill gates but he would still be a very successful if far less notable businessman. To become world famous does take a degree of luck not just merit. People who only have merit are boring.

He has broad experiencing in tackling infectious diseases through methods like vaccination & propaganda and he also has doubtless expertise in computers. He has long before COVID frequently been the target of conspiracy theories of him vaccinating people for nefarious purposes.

Thus questions regarding a contemporary infectious disease potentially treated by a disease causing odd politicized conspiratorial behavior on social media is right up his wheelhouse and he's a well known public speaker. There are many epidemiologists you could hear from, and most people have heard from them repeatedly, but Gates offers a fresh perspective due to his fairly unique experience and perspective.

>He has done no work you could point to

His work in eradicating Polio. Choosing which projects to finance is a skill in itself, something he's likely more capable of than a traditionally credentialed expert. I can't help but think that you have an arbitrarily narrow definition of expertise.

Buying the albums mostly supports the music industry when you do the accounting and does little to support the actual band directly. The middlemen mostly exist to build a machine to allow people to profit from music... Which is an arguable indirect benefit to the content producers. Yet it does lead to the counterintuitive situation where a merchandise buying pirate is actually directly contributing to a bands coffers more than a law abiding citizen may be.

Equally presenting heterodox theories with less evidence to casual news readers doesn't drive science forward so much as it gives people a confused sense of what conclusion most scientists and experts in the trenches believe is most plausible. Which is then used as a lever to promote agendas which very much fly in the face of what evidence suggests that we should do.

I wouldn't call it dishonest but it is important context. "Study says same thing as consensus" doesn't garner clicks. I think the broader issue is how much the news is tilted towards focusing on contrarian viewpoints.

Plenty of comedic and satirical shows have been censored for racism. Plenty of violent forms of entertainment have been censored. This campaign is also calling for the censorship of anti-vaccination and climate denialist views.

I've done a bit of volunteer work as a censor (moderator) and I'm not opposed to censorship. A flippant/morally self-righteous attitude towards censorship is a red flag though.

The campaign espouses it's "American Values", they specifically talk about US electoral interference, they specifically want to remove exemptions for politicians from censorship rules, and they also want to ban groups of anti-vaccers and "climate denialists" however those are defined from their platform.

You're badly representing what's actually going on here in an effort to sound pithy.

People within IT have a bias towards overestimating the importance of it. For a LOT of companies mediocre IT services and products are literally good enough. Hell for some companies crappy minimally viable software is practically a feature if it's used to manage cancellations and warranty support and such.

Tech debt is bad and all but so is real debt and paying a lot of money upfront won't mean no tech debt.

I've heard non-technical folks with their heads in the clouds expecting to run millions of dollars in transactions through an IT system, but cringed at my suggestion that they're likely to dump more than a couple hundred grand one-time into the scheme. Yet the same person doesn't blink at paying significantly more than that yearly maintaining existing low-tech systems, and has already spent millions on ERP projects.

I think a lot of this effect is caused by wishful thinking from people embarking on business plans which they would realise are non-viable if they did the accounting properly. People are buying a fantasy instead of an IT system.

So the native population simply is not of the same caliber as the immigrant population?

This depends on what you mean by success. If your aim is to end up steamrolling hard enemies with a broken deck and getting a large high score than synergies are worth going for. If your goal is to eek by with a win as often as possible there is too much variance in betting the farm on being offered certain cards in the future.

I would argue aiming for synergies is fundamentally wrong headed unless you're trying to moonshot with a lucky deck. There's way too much varience in expecting to get offered certain cards. That being said some synergies like silent poison probably worth gunning for... But that's mostly because poison cards are disperportionately strong.

>Fundamentally having more cards is bad, because it increases variance in what you can draw.

StS has a number of enemies that shuffle bad cards into your deck, so this dillution works both ways. On higher difficulties more of these cards get shuffled into your deck. Trying a "thin" strategy with no countermeasures in such a fight (high damage output to end the fight fast?) can get you railroaded. You also start out with 10 starters that you want to dillute because virtually any card is better than them. Cards with "draw" and "exhaust" written on them also let you workaround the problem of drawing starter or negative effect cards. Picking up one or two versatile 2-cost cards early (attack or block card) can give you a good way to use your energy even if you draw mostly starters or negative effect cards while avoiding excessive deck dillution later on.

StS does offer you worse cards at the beginning of the game, and limited ways to remove or upgrade these cards, so picking up too many cards can burden you later on.

Really to be good at StS deckbuilding mostly requires you to know which enemies will come up when and building your deck sufficiently to survive them without shooting yourself in the foot long term too much. Jorbs is usually focused on building his deck to beat the hardest fight in the game while absorbing the minimum deadweight to survive until that point. Watching a stream can give you a rough idea of what a good "pace" for adding new cards into your deck is.