arcwhite

A bunch of us in the rest of the world are making great strides in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions without it tanking our economies. Australia is, per-capita, one of the worst offenders and we're on track to reach net zero by 2050.

I think your position is based on very cynical premises. There is no reason to assume with high confidence that humans will obliterate each other in that next 50 years (especially if we do something about one of the major stressors causing conflict)

There is also no reason to believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions over 15-20 years will cause "more" damage than the worst impacts of climate change? Can you cite sources on this claim?

It is still possible to mitigate the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change.

YT's skateboard introduces the telescopic contact smartwheels pretty early on as a Courier essential.

I don't recall Hiro's motorcycle being much a part of the story, it might also have had the smartwheels but isn't discussed until later...

I would love mailing lists to be a thing again, but the experience of using email is just so bad for me. The sheer amount of unsubscribing I have to do to make it usable - not even taking spam into account - makes email a place I don't want to spend any time.

I tried to order - looks like you're not shipping to Australia? Any plans there?

To some extent? But then we have lobby groups, PACs, regulatory capture and astroturf campaigns that have proven to be quite successful techniques to subvert the political process.

I'd argue that those techniques put us back at the mechanistic system being elevated above other values.

I think "assume good faith" has to be taken as something of a Prisoner's Dilemma proposition.

You don't want to be a dove, and keep assuming good faith when it hurts.

Assume good faith initially because it least has a chance of being productive, but the moment bad faith is detected, either withdraw or "punish" (and propagate social signals that bad faith arguing has been detected so others know not to engage)

Where are you getting this theory that there was an impact event that.killed off both the megafauna and the Clovis people's off?

Everything (credible) I'm able to find suggests/theorises that the Clovis differentiated into different groups of Native American populations, and that gradual climate change did most of the megafauna in.

The perception of the possibility of the perception of industrial espionage is usually enough to get a lawyer choked up in cases like this - I wasn't saying there WAS industrial espionage, just that there might have been the possibility of painful allegations thereof...

> CFAA isn't going away

There's some pretty concerted efforts in play to at least have it updated and tempered, which could have legs. I don't hold much hope it'll go away but I do think some of these efforts to have it replaced could have legs.

> No. Just don’t.

Yeah, fair, I mean I'm all too aware of the consequences myself, but within this setting telling a bunch of people "thou shalt not" seems almost more harmful (IMO it's akin to saying "never roll your own crypto" which someone inevitably ends up taking as a challenge)

Lots of people suggesting that either company was out of line here, but like, CFAA is still a thing (assuming OP is in the USA) and it's still got gnarly teeth. Let alone the possibility of industrial espionage allegations...

If you're going to go hack on a company, make sure you have some legal protection first. Check disclose.io or the company's website (look for a security.txt!) to make sure there's some sort of safe harbor provision, or a pre-existing vulnerability disclosure program or bug bounty program that allows you to do this kind of testing.

If you're not going to do that, then disclose the vulnerability anonymously and cover your ass while you're testing, or just don't.

Meanwhile if you're an American please write your local representative and express your displeasure with the antiquated, overly-simplistic CFAA and ask them to support initiatives to have it replaced or removed.

Yeah, lick that boot!

> Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people go to prison each year in the US and don't feel the need to kill themselves

Plenty do, and plenty die while they're in prison. This is not a rational justification for what happened to Schwartz (and looks to me like victim-blaming)

> Would we blame that person's ex?

I mean if the ex had maintained years of abuse and was threatening the person's life - yes? Yes we would?

Blaming mental illness is an utterly weak response here. Many, many people struggle with mental health and don't commit suicide; the assumption that mental health issues == suicide is reductive and harmful.

Bugcrowd | Multiple Roles | Hybrid Remote (Australia, US) | Full-Time | https://www.bugcrowd.com

Bugcrowd crowdsources hackers and applies them to cybersecurity work to find and fix critical vulnerabilities faster. We facilitate bug bounty programs, vulnerability disclosure processes, penetration testing and we're looking to enable more hackers to do more types of work (and, importantly, get them paid for their efforts) to keep our customers safe on the internet.

Tech stack: React, Typescript, Ruby on Rails, Kotlin, Kafka, Redis, PostgreSQL, Terraform, Docker

We're looking for:

- Mid and Senior Software Engineers (all timezones)

- Product Designer (Australia)

- Front-end Design System Engineer (Australia)

Infosec is a challenging design space, and so are double-sided marketplaces! Come help us design and implement the service-oriented platform that facilitates interactions between hackers and corporate security.

The team is looking to expand significantly in the coming year, so you'll get to have meaningful impact on product and engineering decisions and there is huge room for career advancement (including active mentoring from talented staff engineers, senior designers and senior product managers).

We're committed to hybrid remote - we won't force you back into the office, but we'll make it an option if you want to. Pay, perks and options are competitive, and we're strong proponents of conditions better than merely 'work/life balance'.

Check out our careers page: http://bugcrowd.com/careers or email me: andy@bugcrowd.com

In my experience automated tools are generally fairly rubbish for this kind of work... which is not to say it's impossible, just that you'd want some real smarts in said tool

Allegedly. I see plenty of people speaking their minds, on either side of the issue, and many of them are reasonable. I'm left to wonder how one can be so certain that 'the most reasonable people' (by what metric? In whose judgement?) are 'afraid to speak their mind'.

I totally agree with you that there are many problems here. I have also seen the research on male literacy and numeracy rates, and agree with you that there's a problem there that needs to be tackled.

That does not invalidate this problem.

And back to my original point: even if the problem of women in tech were solved, I still don't see the beef with having events held for particular subgroups of people. There's no cost here. Nobody is disadvantaged if we have a Geek Girls night, or a Gay Coder Hackathon, or the Left Handed Sysadmin Support Group.

Equality of opportunity is one thing, forcing everybody into the same cookie-cutter mould and insisting we all do the same things with the same people? Ick.

All the examples you cite are relevant to an individual; they do not stop the gender as a whole exerting their voice in halls of power.

(You also end up mixing a lot of other weird demographic data in there that could be caused by existing entrenched gender roles, e.g. women on the whole tend to live longer because most militaries in the world don't have women soldiers!)

Women, as a gender, don't get as much of a say in how things are run as men. That's something that we all suffer for.

I have never once seen this happen at any place I've worked. I counter your anecdotal evidence with my own anecdotal evidence and we all have to go away and get some real data!

Young coined that term 'meritocracy' in satire; I feel it remains a ridiculous concept.

Who judges what is meritorious? The entrenched majority? Won't they tend to think along similar lines and discount dissenting opinions as lacking merit?

I suggest that there is no meritocracy in existence to begin with.

"Instead of actually choosing the best candidates based on their best abilities, we now resort to purposely choosing people based on their sex or race."

I call bulltwang. Please provide evidence of this supposed systematic selection of 'minority' candidates, because I'm sure as heck not seeing it where I am.

You assert that the wage gap is myth. Please also provide evidence for this statement, because everything I've read suggests that it remains a problem across the board - and for the record we're talking about IT specifically here, and we're not talking about the wage gap, we're talking about the abysmally low rates of entry into this sector by half the population as defined by gender identification.

It's all well and good to say "NO ENOUGH IS ENOUGH MERITOCRACY NAO PLZ", but who decides what is meritorious? The entrenched majority? This is why that term was coined in derision.

I say, enough will be enough when there's no longer a problem (c.f. uptake of science/engineering/tech by women). Until then, we have a problem, and we need to do things to fix that problem.

To those saying that "this is discrimination is it is morally wrong" (and I don't think this event constitutes discrimination, but here goes):

1. Should we then do away with gender segregated sports teams? 2. Should other minorities (e.g. LBGTQ groups) no longer have support groups that focus on issues relevant to them?

Having groups that cater to certain minorities feels to me both necessary and useful. We are not all identical. You probably don't want to live in a world without exceptional and different people in it; it would be boring.

That means there are times when some of those people who are like-minded want to get together and support each other. In some cases, that means other groups need to be discouraged (because that minority would otherwise be overwhelmed, drowned out in a sea of majority voices).

Why are so many voices in our industry constantly fighting events like this?

It's real simple. Sexual harassment is not okay. Tolerating that behaviour in others is not okay. Inviting a known problem-person to conferences is not okay.

We can prevaricate about the "truth" of her story (and this particular incident) all we want, but the core message here is that these things do happen, women do get sexually harassed by people who are invited to tech conference, and that is not okay.

And I should probably link to the project ahem: http://pygg.co

I work for Pollenizer (@pollenizer on twitter) - I'm engineering lead on Pygg. I do a lot of stuff out of work hours too, would be more than happy to chat.

I'm @arcwhite on Twitter

Mmm. Thinking about it, I can't think of a positive connotation of the word "hipster", or even a neutral one, so given that; you're right - it's become a slur, and probably worth abandoning as a term.

I realise what I'm describing sounds like a caricature. I wish I was simply being snarky, but spend 10 minutes at a bar on Brunswick Street in Fitzroy, Melbourne and you'd definitely witness what I describe. There are quite a significant proportion of people in that area who do indeed dress as described (for whatever reason) and who will hold conversations - at length - about the invalidity of any artistic endeavour that gives itself over to financial motivation.

I neither agree nor disagree with them on that point, but I feel I certainly have more productive things to talk about!

I think the usage of the word has probably varied within Australia from its usage in the US. Certainly when I read articles in Wired about 'hipster' culture, I'm left scratching my head (behaviours or purchasing patterns they describe therein tend to amount to the local use of the word 'trendy', which is rarely construed as an insult).

There's probably a PhD in sociological studies to be gained from the comparative usage of that word in Australia vs. the US. :P

Well, by that logic, we should abandon all labels altogether. Down with identification of groups of people! Cast off the oppressive shackles of classification!

Down here in Australia, "Hipsters" are an easily recognizable and quite specific cultural subgroup: Thick-rim glasses, no actual vision impediment to justify them, Impractically skinny jeans, Borderline offensively cliched facial hair (ie. Hercule Poirot-esque moustaches) and - most importantly - Irrational dislike of anything "mainstream" or "commercial" (with little/no other justification)

It's no longer meaningful counter-culture, it's become a very specific subculture in and of itself (at least down here) - a culture I would describe not as counter-culture, but anti-culture. It's ceased to be productive and meaningful, and simply become (like Monty Python's Argument Clinic) the automatic gainsay of anything "mainstream".

I've no tolerance for it, because (in my opinion, at least) it's highly pretentious and offers very little in the way of positive change. I find that subculture to be, in general, very negative (often for very little reason).

When I talk about Hipsters, I'm generally referring not to the dress, but to the attitude. Maybe you're right, and I should be referring to those specific attitudes as what I take issue with - but sometimes convenient (if inaccurate) labels make communication faster.

We'd almost done that - had a brilliant marketing plan drawn up and everything; then burnout hit myself and my business partner (hard). The coup de grace was delivered by the GFC

(Even here in Australia, small businesses were hit - and all our clients were small businesses or primary industry and simply stopped paying invoices or returning calls.)

Seconded. It's not a done deal until the money is in your bank account. If someone offers something, you write a Memorandum of Understanding at least to clarify the details.

Also, never trust anyone who asks for a little bit of work at a discounted rate in return for the promise of more work later. Even if they're a government department. They may mean well, but they're almost certainly not in a position to back that promise up.

Trying to run a service-based dev business to support creation of products. That consulting grew to consume 100% of our usable time and resulted in a period of pretty intense burnout, personally.

Travel is probably the best thing to spend money on. Get out. See the world. It's big and it's weird and you come back a better person for having reveled in it.

(I did 2 months last year - 1 month in Thailand/Laos, 1 month in Europe & Egypt. No regrets, at all, save the mad case of food poisoning in Egypt, but I'll spare you the gory details ;)