devilshaircut

> Malcolm Pollack 14 Apr 2014 at 2:33 pm > “Not white”? “Not male”? > How about “No Irish need apply”? > Imagine if you announced that you were looking to fill job openings, but didn’t want any women or blacks. > That this can be done so openly, so blithely — and that it is considered not an act of unconscionable bigotry and race war, but rather as a badge of honor — is very ominous indeed.

> Ralph Thayer 14 Apr 2014 at 3:27 pm > “Not white. Not male.” > Noted.

> BubbaMustafa 14 Apr 2014 at 5:56 pm > So you hate whites and males? That’s a blatant discriminatory statement. You have shown your true colors. Way to go!

> LitThom 14 Apr 2014 at 6:04 pm > “Not white. Not male.” > That is just wrong. I mean we all get you, and I agree with a strong approach to diversity, but that is just wrong.

> Will Cate 14 Apr 2014 at 8:02 pm > re “Not white. Not male.” > Thanks for letting us know that this is not an operation to be taken seriously.

> JOC 14 Apr 2014 at 8:35 pm > It’s so hip to discourage employment of white males, especially if you are one (and already have a newsroom full of them.) #johncook’swhiteguilt

> JOC 14 Apr 2014 at 8:49 pm > It’s so hip to discourage employment of white males, especially if you are one (and have a newsroom full of them).#johncookswhiteguilt speaks in terse, serious language.

As a minority, I understand how these people feel; as a minority, it does however also bother me that these people react in such a reflexive manner. It is such a small percentage of times where people like that experience any sort of discrimination. Frankly, if I reacted in this reflexive manner every time I faced some mode of discrimination, the people I surround myself with would find me to be an insufferable, whiney brat.

Strong language, perhaps, but I can think of no other way to characterize how I would be perceived in analogous circumstances.

All I am saying is that those 3 points you listed here really do little to paint a lifetime of 70 years. I am certain you'd have little trouble imagining legitimate scenarios where someone could lose their fortune (hence why I don't buy the "no excuse" statement). #3 isn't irrational; the article indicated that the man worked in Palo Alto for a good portion of his life, where significant life events, such as his family-making, career, and death of his wife all occurred. It is not irrational to want to stay at a place you are emotionally attached to. It would be reasonable to conjecture that he has a social network there, vs. any other random place in the US.

Also, on point #2, his stepson and he are estranged, communicating only through Facebook on occasion so I am not certain that it is as relevant as you believe it to be.

I ask you would 3 facts about your life sufficiently portray the person you believe yourself to be? Would it explain in any detail why you are the person you are today?

The reason I am focusing on this point is because I believe the bias we all (myself included) have against other people in different circumstances including (but not limited to) homelessness, comes from this perspective of assuming we know far too much about the individual in question.

I agree with this point that you said. The rest I think is pretty unfair; we know very little about this guys' life and how he spent his money (or the reasons he spent his money the way he did - "no excuse" I think is a false statement). The fact is, there are people who aren't making anywhere near $150,000 annual and these people will inevitably run into the same problems this man is facing (outside of Palo Alto - wherever you prefer). Ultimately, he did move out of his $2,150/mo rental, anyhow.

I broke my game by reassigning the getWidth method to return an invalid value:

map.getWidth = function() { return 1; }

The approach worked with a valid value: ( map.getWidth = function() { return 6; } ) and I beat the level, but I had to replay the previous 3 levels.

Some suggestions (Again, we loved the game!) - Provide some interface to conveniently index all the solution Gists. - Provide some way to quickly skip to last level played.

Other thoughts: - Enjoyed the look, feel, and user interaction. - The music was great. - I will keep playing this game. :)

http://i.imgur.com/W8VJp.gif

Fun for kids, also, when they are learning about it.

The DoI does not say "everyone deserves a puppy". Give me a break and please take your straw man argument elsewhere.

Do you understand that he is CEO of a large company? Do you understand that LGBT individuals and their allies work for this company? Including its board of directors. Do you understand that they have already publicly spoken about the real consequences his appointment to CEO has on them?

Would I like it if people petitioned for me to quit? No. I can't imagine Eich is too pleased with this backlash. But that doesn't make LGBT individuals wrong in speaking out against promoting bigoted legislation. If you think "hurt feelings" is a good defense for Eich, how do you think his LGBT constituency feels? He materially invested in anti-gay legislation. These people spoke out against it.

I am just so floored by this type of reasoning you promote.

And "trying to sabotage someone's career" is like Dan Brown getting a bad book review. Like Brown, Eich has already made a successful career out of technology; nothing they say is going to limit his success in the field. It is an absolute fact that there are those of his constituency who feel specifically discriminated against. How is it not within their right (or other peoples' rights) to speak out publicly about this?

How is this even close to thought crime? It is a matter of private citizens/organizations; he contributed materially to anti-gay legislation (not simple thoughts); there is no governing body capable of actually punishing him.

Again, I am floored by the reasoning being promoted here.

> "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government connotation."

If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party.

It is an inherent double standard.

Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual?

If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.

To disagree with someone makes me the "thought police"? I just don't see how this applies at all.

EDIT: I am adding this as an afterthought but honestly to totally disregard the Orwellian connotation of the term "thought police" I think is a very liberal application of the term.

As I indicated before, I find it so appalling that you see such views espoused by the 'liberal' party of the US.

Here is a very interesting example of this.

Anyhow - signing up for this. Excited to see what could come of it.

Doesn't do anything too complex with the API, mostly just using the custom YT player. I checked out your user profile and your company. Great to see people doing stuff with YT analytics. It's something I've worked a lot with myself.

The commenter called it "The LGBT Russia thing" and if that does not aptly sum up how trivial s/he perceives the topic to be, I don't know what does. "That human rights violation thing". Sorry, it doesn't fly with me.

I am not saying Russian laws are not a part of the topic. What I am saying is that characterizing the topic as being "overblown" by citing that paper is absolutely ludicrous.

EDIT: Wanted to add in this: How do you have 'rational discourse' when one side of the discussion is demonstrably pursuing nothing less than a human rights violation? It is like saying the Catholic church's sex scandal was 'overblown', or slavery, or any other human rights topic you can imagine. Where is the rational discourse there? How can "human rights violations" ever be an "overblown" topic?

I've come to the point where I think the acronym is silly. I think right now we are up to "LGBTQIAPK". I may be a little out of date on that.

The fact is, some of the issues between the groups in the acronym are shared and some aren't. At one point in time, banding together for them was probably useful if not necessary. Today I think each group would be better going it alone, as they all have very unique concerns.

I find it also horrific that you make a false parallel to text editors which also have demonstrable 'political' (as you've employed the term) positions.

I hope it is not too arrogant of me to assume that you are straight because I cannot fathom a gay person arriving at the conclusions you have arrived at.

Working under this assumption, would you say then, that any relationship you had with a member of the opposite sex was inherently sexual in nature?

Again, give me a break.

You can love someone and want to be with them for the rest of your life and not want to have sex with them. It really isn't a stretch of the imagination.

The moment something is merely mentioned in a law, it is henceforth to be considered under the header of "political topic"? Why? Because some political strategist (or worse, lobbyist) told you it was worth legislating for or against?

Your position can be summed up as "It is okay for Google to make Google Doodles about person X until whatever person X worked on became politicized".

Why was it okay for them to make a doodle about Simone de Beauvoir but not about your fellow LGBT human beings? This is the straw that broke the camel's back for you? Really?