I found a typo:
>A startup founder is alway selling.
(edit: has been fixed)
1 karma · joined February 6, 2025
>A startup founder is alway selling.
(edit: has been fixed)
> There is absolutely zero reason why HR/recruiting people should have final say on a candidate. None.
Now you're saying:
> Well there are obviously certain areas where they should have final say
Talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4whL7Ll7ww
Slides: https://speakerdeck.com/barunio/atomic-commits
Well-written notes: http://barunsingh.com/2012/12/13/anarchy_in_software.html
I can't imagine many scenarios when it is actually necessary.
I just found a good article about how doing Male/Female/Other is problematic, called 'The Gender Ternary: Understanding Transmisogyny' [1]
Diaspora solved this by making gender a text field [2]. Seems like the most inclusive.
[1] https://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/genderternary-t...
(highlighted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ex8EEv-WPs)
I'd be interesting in the (computational) detection for that. Of course, if you just encode/decode it, Yahoo could do the same.
If you encrypt the data, they could just check to see how high the entropy is. If it's higher than what's plausible for a real photograph, they'd delete it. (using ent [1])
Else, you could use good ole stenography. In researching this response I came across the term Steganalysis[2]. Pretty interesting!
For example, Instagram couldn't have just sold to facebook for $1B then turn around and make the same thing again. Obviously they no longer have rights to the code, but re-creating it wouldn't be that hard if you already did it once. It could be like forking an open source project, except you make a bunch of money.
Is that that in the Dodgeball/Foursquare example, the non-compete was apparently incredibly specific, and this allowed them to make a different location-aware social network?
You should just add another option and ignore the haters.
(edit: thanks)
Sure, I'd trust a farmer on the most "effective" way to artificially inseminate a cow, but I don't need to study farming to say the instrument known as the "rape rack" is immoral.
I argue they're standing too close to see the big picture.
You could honor a 'content="nopin"'. It's be interesting if that became a standard (similar to nofollow or robots.txt).
[1] https://help.pinterest.com/entries/21063792-How-to-prevent-p...
Both 'View the code' and 'Download' are bigger. People could ostensibly want to view the code before seeing it but I can't imagine many would want to download without demoing first.
This article seems to be talking exclusively of 'high art'.
Art isn't just found in galleries, and isn't necessarily for sale for a lot of money.
Obviously the NYTimes is focused on this type, but it's an important distinction.
The author should remember this is craigslist. This seems like run-of-the-mill spam (likely sent to EVERY new job posting)
My intuitive, immediate response is that it has something to do with (most?) privilege being an unfair, oppressive institution: one that is self replicating unless it's actively fought. I'm not sure this actually addresses the question you asked though.
There's a quote I remember from somewhere about this that was something along the lines of "When you give someone two bad options, don't be surprised when they take one."
It's the upper-middle class straight white cisgendered male's fault if he doesn't take the time to learn about his privilege. He has the resources, but chooses to ignore it.
(Note: I'm not saying the person from the article necessarily fits this description; I'm speaking more generally)
I've got just about zero tolerance left for people who don't acknowledge their privilege.
I'll definitely be checking this out.
[1] http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/04/introducing-stackov...