TheOperator

Sure they are but significantly more people deficient in vitamin D are dying as well for reasons that have little to do with Poverty. Complete racial equity is likely impossible.

Believe me. I have to live with the fact that I tolerated this behavior and enabled a ton of harassment for way too long when I had the ability to stop it. Making a post like this in hackernews I guess is my way of trying to make things right.

So many people told me I had it wrong and I didn't listen.

I modded a humble mid-sized subreddit, which was not an LGBT sub, but one where LGBT people occasionally asked LGBT-specific questions. My view of the situation initially was that conservative-minded peolle didn't really hate trans people and they were mostly frustrated by being forced to swallow an idea and being censored if they so much as asked an innocent question and that this is what was making them so upset. So I took a soft line.

It was a mistake out of touch with reality. The first thing I found is yes a fair amount of users really did just dislike transgender people. Second, a pattern I consistently saw was trans people making earnest honest sincere posts about real questions and EVERY thread somebody derailed the thread and made it into some culture wars BS. Upon getting their posts removed for derailing threads and starting shit they would proceed to start abusing the mods. Whereas the LGBT users would get upset over the former being tolerated yet were consistently polite, respectful, and their main way of protest was leaving the sub.

As time went on I realised that a lot of sentiment about "SJW bullies" was projection and that many anti-trans users were pathological in their harassment. That people don't really see how bad the problem is because the worst harassment gets removed and hidden from the regular userbase. The LGBT users were a minority largely trying to politely persuade the mods to make the sub better for people they cared about. Whereas the anti-trans users were entitled, attention-seeking, and self-victimizising. Sure there were some users with conservative views which were not like that. These people could be reasoned with if you simply explained the need for anti-harassment rules. Whereas taking a soft line ALWAYS meant people doing nothing wrong getting harassed for the benefit of mostly bad faith users.

>It breaks my heart that the first reaction by our community isn't to integrate her lived experience, but to question it.

Everybody has a "lived experience" and we don't integrate the "lived experience" of others without scepticism because that would make us easy to con.

>It is to question her being and (implicitly) her right to be in these spaces.

I'll question her right explicitly to be in those spaces. Nothing she has made impresses me and I wouldn't give her money in the VC's shoes.

>There's a lot of work to be done in the industry. And I hope that this is a moment of personal growth and reflection for most involved. There will be a day when these replies will be looked as antiquated. I look forward with hope to that day.

Your blind belief in peoples lived experiences led you to seemingly get hoodwinked by somebody who develops mediocre products backed by seemingly fraudulent reviews. You're so caught up in your own superiority that you fail to reflect on the ideological blind spot that makes you easy to con.

If each individual actor or firm is not being racist than no racism, systemic or not, exists in the aggregate.

However you didn't claim that no actor was being racist regardless, you claimed that the redliners were being racist, which is true. So go after them and their children, not Google.

Concrete evidence of discriminatory activities, concrete evidence of policies which systemically exclude people who happen to be black for no bona-fide reason (Think "We're looking for a culture fit" more than "We want an employee from a prestigious school"). Combined with a sufficient quantity or data, and especially with some sort of trend that implies black underrepresentation.

I've certainly seen intellectually rigorous studies of discrimination against Black people, mostly involving sending out resumes where there is no notable difference other than the implied ethnicity of the applicant. This post on the other hand claiming that discrimination in the mortgage industry in the 90s means that google must be practising racial discrimination today IS willful blindness in the place of intellectual rigor.

I've done some moderation in the past. Of the posts actually written by humans maybe 1% got removed for not following the stated rules. Does removing 1% of posts that somebody else makes, make me a "publisher"? Seems a bit rediculous to me.

>On Monday, Reddit — a site that for years was considered one of the internet’s dirtiest sludge pits

How sheltered is the NYT tech columnist if he thinks Reddit is one of the internet's dirtiest sludge pits? Daily Stormer? Gab? Voat? Various Chans?

Buying enough 16tb drives for an efficient raid array is an expensive way to save money.

Something that's easy to overlook with larger drives is that their rebuild times are worse.

"Shucking" drives throws the economics way off even if it means having to do some hacks and losing warranty... Usually the drives that come in enclosures are smaller.

>you can just... Use the internet

I don't get why you made this argument and then immediately rebutted it in the next paragraph. If people with enough power dislike a group of people enough, in this case white nationalists, they can be marginalized to the point they're making TOR websites.

The idea that censoring free speech isn't a problem because people can just start their own website is about as naive as free speech absolutism is. It trivializes censorship. If a major platform banned all lgbt discussion on the pretense it was no big deal because peoole could start their own website nobody would have any of it despite the fact that the only thing that had changed is the target.

Realistically censorship haalways been part of the internet and human society more broadly, it's an inevitability. The broad issues I'm concerned with is concentration of power over speech and increasing echo chambers in online communities. Reddit has shifted more and more towards central control including implicit threats for moderators/communities who step out of line.

I use an over the top amount of monitors to... monitor. The purpose is to be able to look at dynamically updating information without touching my mouse or keyboard. i have found myself making an omelette while looking at a large amount of displays in the distance ready to panic-leap into action.

When I code I notice a few things about the multimonitor setup. My cursor can travel 10 physical feet of screen space and it's literally inefficient to point. The ergonomics are terrible. The entire setup basically feeds inattention and an ever-sprawling amount of crap being opened. More than that I think having multiple large rectangles shooting light into your eyeballs kind of screws with your circadian rhythms.

When I code I use a laptop and enjoy how briefly my hands leave the keyboard before returning because what little pointing i'm doing can be done extremely quickly because of the small size of my workflow. Bigger is better is oversold - a workspace should match the work - too small is just more common than too big.

One advantage to ultrawides that I think goes understated is their ability to display large amounts of tabular data easily.

I rarely hear opponents of affirmative action deny institutional racism as much as its proponents. It's proponents would rather eat their own hat than admit that systemic efforts to favor specific racism groups for employment (for the noble ends of countervailing other forms of systemic discrimination) are in themselves a form of institutional racism. This denialism has run so deep hacks in sociology have gone to the extreme of outright redefining the word racism to allow for the concept of "non-racist" racial biases in hiring. This is what I would characterize as "extreme defensiveness".

I don't actually think proponents of affirmative action are without a point I'm just tired of seeing a group of people in such deep denial of their own systemic racism seeing everybody else as the deniers and acting above it all when they're not even as non-racist as the average moderate.

I have seen large amounts of intolerant people latch onto this philosophy always seeing it as a justifying their own intolerance. Never, ever do people see themselves as those who are so intolerant that they need to stop being tolerated for the greater good of society. So I've found this philosophy to be a bit self-mastrubatory way for the intolerant to fancy themselves as simply "bombing for peace".

I do find poppers actual philosophy to be interesting though. I'm just amazed how often the "paradox of tolerance" is used to justify gratuitous suppression and violence.

It causes me way more stress to see bad admins fuck up so badly it causes an impact to other employees yourself included in the department while you sit passively by, than it is to put your hand on the wheel.

The admin panel also has more buttons and buttons are cool.

It's a petty form of power.

Reading that study cynicism was essentially defined as "low trust in others" and competence was ability in a handful of cognitively intensive tasks.

Modern phones use heavy post-processing to compensate for sensor size. Works okay.

These days it's in the class interests of Whites and Asians to be against racial discrimination in all forms which in effect means not being able to be racist officially but not being an effective barrier to unofficial racism. Which is very much in Whites and Asians interests.

Still affirmative action just looks more arbitrary and nonsensical every year. I don't see how anybody can see what's happening to Asians as anything but racially discriminatory and arbitrarily penalizing.

> If you find a partner who fetishises you just for your height you really haven't gained anything, it's still just as hard to find actual love.

Truly... it's similar to how a dashingly handsome hollywood heartthrob has no real advantages over somebody who looks like Quasimodo with smallpox.

The former has to wonder if their beautiful successful wife decided to have the family he always wanted with him because she loves them or if they only did it because he's a sexual object.

Whereas the latter may face personal and professional consequences for making the exact same advances the former would be rewarded for and thus is prone to self-isolation for fear of societal reprimand. He gets to live in a wonderful world of woke cynicism.

I'm not sure how much I want to replace the pseudo-IQtest system with the system where we hire based on classism offset with racism.

Blumenthal's position is that creating backdoors doesn't have anything to do with weakening encryption. Considering he's tone deaf enough to actually tweet this it seems more and more plausible that he actually BELIEVES his own vapid bullshit and really is that stupid and ignorant.

>I find it difficult to blame the governor of a state with a $26 billion budget deficit in 2011 for cutting this.

Guess we should just give up on any emergency preparedness if a recession makes cutting these programs blameless.

I don't see any reason you can't have an open source project which enforces a strong code of conduct, creates a "safe space" for members sensitive to various things, which doesn't tolerate rudeness, jerks, bullies, etc. Or one with a "show me the code, stick and stones" ethos.

I also don't think that has to be every open source project. Put another way Tumblr and 4chan can exist on the same internet and we can complain about both.

I think what perturbs me is this sense that the people who actually contribute to f/oss are less and less in control and I think this is largely what Raymond was talking about. "Code of conducts" inherently drive power away from the contributors to some sort of moderator enforcing the CoC. More and more I see this almost stereotypical situation of somebody who doesn't contribute to a project demanding adherence to some progressive shibboleth, saying that the project and themselves and people they know have been victimised by violence due to said lack of adherence. Which comes off as mutinous.

I don't see how you could remove JS from twitch without gutting a huge chunk of the functionality.

>But the pop-up won’t let us pass without clicking “agree”. Opting out is an illusion.

I mean this is a weird way to phrase it but you definitely cannot participate in modern society without hindering yourself in various meaningful ways if you do not "opt-in" to giving up your privacy. "Opt-in" requirements have consequently struck me as "privacy theatre" which mostly irritates.

I don't see any solution for the current privacy situation other than regulation and enough liability attached to data breaches to make hoarding customer data a good way to go bankrupt.

>The organization needs to make this clear

Why? What is the business value of having severity as essentially a protest field logged by people who don't understand business impact? You are basically in all your points explaining the business value of priority which nobody ever disagreed with and then going "and that's why we need two fields".

Priority is useful for... Prioritization. One can autoassign a priority for an enum classification.

I've never seen impact/urgency/severity as being anything other than different ways to say priority or overcomplicated ways to derive priority. Then again I've never wrangled an absolutely massive bug/ticket queue.

Millenials aren't fresh out of college.

I have a bit of a different take but reach a similar conclusion. I think the population of people trying these experimental treatments has already been though long periods of ineffectual therapy and self-help attempts. I believe being in such a state puts you in a prime position to benefit from the drug as I roughly see it as a sort of accelerant for the mind. It can make a lot of those lessons click. Which is part of why I'm very skeptical of the idea psychadelic are a drug for the mentally healthy... I suspect the outcomes might actually be worse on average and question the common wisdom.

I'm unconvinced a therapists supervision is the "secret sauce". Yet there are many many reports even before recent studies that having a "sitter" or "shaman" type was essential and the presence of a therapist just seems like a medicalization of that principle.

>Before this current phase, the universally accepted advice for psychedelic experimenters was to never use psychedelics if you had underlying mental health issues

That advice was an overly broad crock and some of the most promising applications of psychadelics are for treating things like treatment resistant depression.

In regards to always having a sitter I do think there is a ton of temptation to forgo this step yet I think the drug is simultaneously less effective and more dangerous if you forgo this step. Still I rarely hear anybody fail to stress the importance of a sitter.