Aspie is usually not considered derogatory... more casual and friendly. Some may not like the word but it doesn't have any sort of sinister connotation. I see pretty much every synonym for Autism or Aspergers being used derogatorily online.
1,061 karma · joined January 11, 2019
Generally I find I learn faster from reading regardless but I can listen to podcasts in situations where I can't read. E.G. doing a mindless repetitive task.
PowerShell ISE is pretty sluggish and honestly not very good and gets included on every machine though.
Ultimately though yes people who give to others are altruistic. Some people you will give money to will keep every penny, some will give away every cent they can. The former are selfish the latter altruistic and there is no need to overcomplicate things.
I've only become more self-sufficient over time and today am a net "giver". Did I just become less selfish over time? No I've actually started valuing selfishness MORE over time because it became more appealing as I became stronger. Focusing on results confuses things because people in bad situations CAN'T be as giving as somebody in a good one. Somebody in a good situation can be generous enough to change people's lives without any meaningful personal sacrifice.
A person who is a taker and has no desire to stop being one is not truly altruistic though. Selfishly taking from others and being performatively charitable is selfishness in the veil of altruism. The desire to be seen as the "real giver" is also selfish.
He definitely shared surveillance but it's not as if everybody and their mom didn't know the US had these capabilities.
If an honest discussion cannot take place that yes women are discriminated against, but that yes men and women DO in fact differ, then affirmative action will inevitably stop being about stopping sexism and start being about forcing equity as time goes on. You would have to apply a LOT of oppressive systemic sexism and force a whole lot of people male and female into jobs they're bad at and unhappy with to fix inequity in tech. Currently the reaction to people pointing out the looming problem is to fire that autistic employee for sexism and for the CEO to make a public apology.
Damore was just ahead of his time. Affirmative action hasn't distorted tech enough to destroy itself yet.
No It's business not personal. It's literally just saying that I informed you about whatever issue. I do this to inform my team that you've already been informed about an issue and you don't need to be bothered again, to trace back to where something went wrong if an incident occurs, and to protect myself by proving that I did my job.
Sure you can use "per our discussion" maliciously but it's not always like this.
You either minimise the burdens you create for others and maximize your strengths or you live a lonely unemployed life dependant on others. Just solving even one communication issue can earn you goodwill with every single person you interact with.
I do think that going back a decade with an algorithm and getting people to clean up tweets that likely match a regex filter is whitewashing and it does make twitter a less valuable historical resource. It's a totally different argument from the normal you should be able to say what you want - because I would support censorship of such tweets in the present.
Don't underestimate a King like Intel that's backed into a corner. Lots of dirty tricks to play and lots of time to come back.
From what I've seen people who work in open offices try to find ways to work somewhere quieter when possible.
If open offices are worth it entirely depends on if saving on rent or having more productive employees is more worth it. Generally I see a trend towards open office + shared semiprivate spaces. Like meeting rooms or phone booth like cubicles with doors.
Oh no... Apple is providing better value. Let's be mad at them for good reasons like having a poor keyboard on a device designed around typing.
There's little problems with communication like having the emotional intelligence to tell when your co-workers are having a hard time and when to back off and treat them differently. I lack that which puts extra stress on them. I tend to say too much and make my team lose face and cause us political problems. So I try to compensate by doing such a good job my co-workers won't be under as much pressure to work hard and my team will be doing such a good job we won't get in shit.
I'm finding myself meeting a lot of "10x" descriptors. I'm not doing 10x the work but I'm definitely doing the work of the next two highest performing colleagues put together.
I also see myself putting burdens on my team. My communication, teamwork, and managerial skills are poor and always will be. Yet I always seem to do things technically that makes people look at me like I discovered fire. For me to say I didn't outperform my colleagues would be effectively to say I had no value as an employee since there would be nothing to compensate for my shortcomings. There have been meetings about me where everybody except me was in the room and I was talked about and the only reasons the team decided not to fire me was my performance and work ethic.
It makes me feel really bad reading all the response to high performers that aren't well rounded like they are inherently arrogant toxic drags on a team. There's nothing wrong with having an employee with a lopsided skillset in a team that can support somebody like that. I think seeing such employees as inherently toxic, or seeing them as a holy grail. They're like artillery; only effective with support.
ARM on mobile is the real story.
What Intel needs to be careful about is while they fend off AMDs attacks in desktop/server also need to keep an eye on ARM coming after them on mobile. How long until Linux based Chromebooks come with Qualcomm CPUs like 7cx become standard? The chips are better than Intels low TDP offerings so long as they don't have to emulate x86_64. They could spend all their money on a phyrric victory crushing AMD only to lose a different market.
It's a tough job being king with upstarts always after your neck.
When I hear people justify affirmative action policies and racial and gender quotas some of the most frequent stats I heard bring up is relative income levels, relative employment levels, relative everything. Essentially the argument is based around the idea that "majorities' succeeding must have come at the expense of other groups. Even in say... a field like computing in America which is an economic juggernaut that popped up from nowhere which funnels money into the country... the very fact that more White/Asian/Indian men have gotten more jobs than other groups is framed as a crime against those other groups when this is not obvious. Specific needless discrimination and bias is brought up to bring home an argument that majority groups have been playing a nepotistic zero-sum game to their benefit and others and the greater good of societies detriment by keeping talented people with diverse perspectives down. Which isn't an obviously wrong argument yet the solutions on how to fight against this issue like affirmative action are fundamentally couched in zero-sum thinking. People who oppose it do not have zero-sum bias although they are arguably bias towards selfishness. Those are not the same thing.
I don't believe the author made his argument very well. He's confusing zero-sum bias with other types of bias. Singling out white men in all his examples also makes him come off as acting as if it's one group which has the problem which is unlikely to persuade anybody that it's personally wrong for them to engage in zero-sum bias.
P.S. Is zero-sum thinking truly irrational with the future repercussions of population growth and global warming? Time will tell.
I find the western disinterest in raising their own children (and having them) fascinating. There seems to be a widespread ideal of trying to leave a legacy through deeds rather than through your own children. Much of the right wing is agitated at the whole thing because this is gradually reducing the population of an ethnic group they're quite fond of.
Just because they ship a laptop with 4 USB-C TB ports and nothing else doesn't mean they're driving USB-C adoption nearly as much as say Samsung or Huawei. If anything because they literally don't use the same port across different types of devices unlike other phone/laptop sellers... They're discouraging USB-C adoption and making dongles more appealing since you will still need dongles if you're using all Apple even if you have USB-C native stuff.
Apple aren't pushing people towards expensive new standards they're just making consumer unfriendly decisions. Making it so you can't use USB-A does not mean you're making it easy to adopt USB-C... They make adopting USB-C unnessecarily painful.
Mind you Apple seems to be missing one of the main practical advantage of USB-C by slapping a lightning port on their phones thus ensuring donglegeddon. This drives me insane. Apple for all the puffery about giving consumers what they don't know they wanted is instead giving consumers an inferior choice that ensures lock-in and keeps vendors happy.
The Mac Pro and Apples new display don't look terrible to me but the cheese grater aesthetics aren't amazing either and it's a bit of a rehash of the Powermac G5. There was also that charger they cancelled.
Maybe apple should consider going back to their playful aesthetic? Aluminum and glass is just so... Yawn
New York Times as society's moral arbiter will never happen again. I'm not sad either. For all this high minded talk about protecting people from extremism I'll never forget how much blood they have on their hands from back when they reported fake news that helped sell the Iraq war. That has killed way more people than the rise of extremism has. Their FUD about how we have to break up the NYTs competition doesn't sway me.
The NYT also loves extremism so long as it's the kind they approve of. Neo-victorian social media lynching of men accused of sexual indiscretions? Well they're on board with that because it advances women's rights and the collateral damage is exaggerated anyways.