edejong

Personally I was hoping the cat-picture-meme would be a passing thing. I am allergic to the little critters and am not particularly fond of them. They carry parasites and bacteria which can be permanently harmful for us.

So, although I respect people wanting to have their own pets and take care of them, I (and many others) think it is tasteless to project this affinity to others in a professional setting.

It was not my intent to convert anyone to Buddhism (in any of it’s hundreds of mostly peaceful substreams). I am merely pointing out that mindfulness requires a wider context.

Enlightenment.

The ego: indestructible, why fight?

Well, the problem is rather simple. If you decide to only engage in mindfulness, you'll have a great time discovering things about yourself and your environment. You will feel better about yourself. That will work for a while and it might set you on a larger, longer path with more peril.

In (Mahayana) Buddhism you train more. Like the opposite: concentration. Think about the same topic for one hour, repeatedly. Who am I? Who do I think I am? What thoughts am I suppressing?

Fundamentally, it teaches you that all these things are like sliders on a big mixing console. Pushing one slider will bring the others down. Pushing mindfulness might reduce equanimity and concentration.

In the end, it is the art of letting go. If you want to hold on to something, you should be able to let it go.

Accepting her change is accepting ourselves.

The problem with the mindfulness approach is that it only leads you knee-deep. Enough to enjoy the waves and the joy of water, but too little to start swimming.

For example, I can still see you are not accepting your past self for what it is ("I thought I was insightful and deep before") or how the world is ("would be a FAR better place").

You are on a path towards awakening. Some of us have come to understand that there are seven factors [1] to master, not one.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Awakening

It all depends on interpretation of the law, lobbying, stalling and the amount of bad press an actor can handle. Microsoft is a much older company and is likely to have stronger ties to the established government.

Github owned by Github. But this is something different. It is Github owned by Microsoft. Acquisitions, in general, do not end well for the established user-base.

Suggestion: move you repositories! Host your own repositories! Use something different, like Gerrit, to spice up your development! Take matters in your own hand! Own your data, own your compute!

I used the power of Google, but to no avail...

When I saw the politicians atrocious response to the Grenfell Tower disaster I was worried what that would do with the commoners behavior.

I guess I have my answer.

It's a long piece, so she's probably afraid she'll forget a passage later on.

I find it intriguing how people keep making these mistakes. Something is not 'public' because it is shared by many people and used as if it is public. It is a wolf in sheep's clothes and it isn't even lying about it.

Github, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Sourceforge, HN, Slashdot... These free services are not public. You might treat them as such, but you are foolish believing they are.

If you cannot see the difference, I suggest to read the excellent Wikipedia article. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service

The classical example of expecting another piece is when Maria Joao Pires performed in Amsterdam and only during the orchestra introduction figured out her mistake. See her reaction on Youtube [1]. As opposed to the article above, she hadn't performed this piece in over a year.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS64pb0XnbI

Thanks for that link, I didn't know about that video. I read his "The Art of the Meta-Object Protocol", which provided me fundamental insights. Wrote just some weeks ago about that [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20233215

You're right: coding standards have improved. Still, I wonder if we might be biased. From my perspective I see a lot of well engineered code (Scala, Rust), but the majority of the code produced is probably not that clean.

The move to mobile has really opened up new opportunities and it seems this discussion is less relevant. Then again, loads of apps are web-apps underneath.

Well, I think (and many of my fellow engineers as well), that we were making good progress in UI design and abstractions until AJAX and the modern web came about. I've said this before and I will say it again: the web has brought modern software development practices back in time by at least 20 years. Everything had to be reinvented: usability, interaction patterns, accessibility, quality control, component-based GUI design, supportability and so much more.

And in many ways we have gone backwards. Interaction patterns vary wildly from site to site. Most don't have undo/redo functionality. A failure of one component often means a failure of the whole. Accessibility on the web is terribly poor for the vision impaired. Interaction response time has gone up, not down even though our machines have many orders of magnitude more power than the 90's. Most websites cannot be properly maintained due to lack of coding standards and abidance of best-practices.

Ok, just an old fart rant. Don't get me wrong: I think we have made leaps of progress when it comes to distributed computing, machine learning and mobile application development. The web, however, has turned into a huge dumpster fire.

More like 70's best practices [1]. Reusable GUI components were first (? citation needed) used on the Alto machine developed in 1974. The developments of the Xerox PARC team were a huge inspiration to Steve Jobs, who later would create Objective-C and the NeXT system (with NeXTSTEP as the component based GUI) in the late 80s.

> Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. To covet truth is a very distinguished passion. -- George Santayana

[1] https://www.classic-computing.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/...

I really second that set of articles. Great introduction.

Yes, that’s exactly the skew popular media will give this (already way too sensational) reporting. And we shouldn’t do this, unless we want to lose the scientific moral grounds.

There is definitely a difference in outcome in the programmers community. The question is whether there is a difference in opportunity.

Don't you think that by emphasizing the differences by forcefully changing our accepted speech, you are making it harder for women to enter the sphere?

To be able to fight, but refraining from fighting, is what makes us human. It allows us to show mutual respect and to form true connections.

"They" as generic third person singular goes back at least five centuries. I am (obviously) referring to address a known individual using "They" / "Their".

It is common in colloquial English to use "they"/"their" as a generic third person singular.

For example: "Could the person who left their umbrella please pick it up?"

However, here it is used in a rather new setting for a specific and known individual. This is a rather new phenomenon pushed by the transgender and genderqueer community.

I am specifically addressing the latter usage of the form 'they' in the third person singular. Do you agree this form is new? If not, could you give references to earlier usage than, say 1990?

To me and many others it feels as a forced, immature (almost childlike), aloof desire for change. You use words like ‘rebalance’ as if there is an objective, universally shared belief our culture is out of balance. Thank God we have you as our savior.

Things will get out of balance the more it is forced, because with every politically correct motion, there is an equal opposite motion. All that is achieved is further polarization and misunderstanding.

To say the articles’ use of ‘they’ is normal in the UK feel duplicitous. I’ve read my fair share of British literature, newspapers and articles. The text feels completely alien to British writing.

In LISP-like languages a compiler/interpeter is a simple example.

That’s a simplification. The events leading up to a crash are important. The spatial understanding of the situation on the road, the behavior of other drivers and other factors all play a role in the seconds before a crash.

LISP is a notable exception. Btw, I do believe a compiler should be one of the examples of a new language.

I only just read this comment. It is golden. Now we should just bookmark this comment and use the term teflon tech as often as possible to make it stick (euhm...)

The first workaround also crossed my mind, but it had a couple of drawbacks. First, it required contractual work with a CA and they can easily say: it's not our problem, it is the browser. The amount of time required to set this up would be around a year, maybe more. Also, like you said, it is fragile.

The second workaround I didn't think about. Do you mean we'd change the resolver to resolve 'local.yourcompany.com' to 127.0.0.1 on the local machine? That would work, but would introduce quite some extra latency and add some fragility.

With regards to the toxicity, I was referring to the Intercept [1] article which appeared last year. It's a long read and details the manufacturing process. Nevertheless, where there is smoke...

[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p...