forgottenpass

They don't want people to bring their whole selves to work; nobody actually wants that. Lies like this cast immediate doubt onto everything else they're saying about the workplace environment.

Banning facial recognition wouldn't prevent you from doing it, it would prevent anyone that doesn't run a crime syndicate from using or selling it.

ataturk 7 minutes ago

>That's how I see it. In 2005 I worked at a tech startup that was building out surveillance camera networks for Australia to spy on its rail system. I was aghast and the enormity of the project and how much money was involved and that was 2005. That project ultimately failed, but later ones of course have proceeded.

>Ethically, I don't get how we are doing this to ourselves. The bar has to be raised as far what is acceptable here. Otherwise, why did we fight two world wars? Why did we fight a Cold War against this kind of collectivism? We already know it's rancid. The level of freedom of the average Chinese citizen is horrifying. Do we want that for our children? Or are we going to fight for a better world? Tech has to lead the way and not just go there for profit. We have to be better than that.

>secure hyperscale cloud solutions

It's just VMs and hosted services. I wanna gouge my fucking eyes out.

Agile does not mean "not-waterfall." Using the not-waterfall definition when convenient to the conversation is the reason "Agile" is a plague on our line of work.

No matter how non-shady any secondary market attempts to operate, the systems that would have to exist for them to actually reduce these problems would require business cooperation with the very companies that seek to kill the First Sale Doctrine through technical means.

Is that the case?

Whether or not some rulebreaking will happen on-camera doesn't preclude the possibility that children do change their behavior while being monitored, nor prove that constant monitoring will have no effect on their psyche.

Part of me misses working on easily googleable things.

Also sticking with the current cultural norm, we only acknowledge the above to be a problem when we can find "inequality" to be a contributing factor. Everyone else can just be expected to conform unless their "why" also makes for good headlines.

"Agile" is a lie that before 2001 nobody at all had ever done iterative software development, and all software process ideas that came after 2001 are by definition "agile."

"Agile", as with any other buzzword, is not for people who actually understand the details of the change; it's for someone who needs a handle onto concepts that would fly over their heads without a buzzword. Lets stop litigating the term, and move on.

I tried that once. But I'm sick of having to fight that my usecase is valid, that my laptop isn't too old, and that it isn't broken/misconfigured in some other way. It's 4 years old, and I can't run 2 electron applications and firefox at the same time without swapping so hard I can't get anything done. Fuck me for asking so much from a computer, right?

"The network is unreliable" is a rule of thumb that was drilled into my head in network programming class.

It always has been, it always will be. Doesn't matter if it's the internet or the link between your computer and a device sitting on your desk. And it doesn't matter what the tech is.

Making the internet more resilient only increases the severity of the failure when organizations that don't understand the risk they're taking on experience network outages.

The network is unreliable.

If the government doesn't first fix higher education for people graduating highschool from now into the future, then they're not accomplishing anything. They're just buying votes.

Well, it depends. Do you want to punish the other team, or get back to doing the country's work? Does America really have to take one for team while we go on another boneheaded "well, if we ignore governing and prioritize fucking over our opponents just this one time, it'll mean better governing in the long run" quest?

I'm not saying you are evil; but if you were, you would be the last person to know it.

A near-zero percent of people we would consider "evil" think that their actions are/were not justified.

This is easy to write off as micro-optimizing, but it's no joke. I recently profiled some hard real-time software and was surprised to find that >50% of busy processor time was spent somewhere in the fcvt() family of functions.

It's fine for the use case in the medium term (we're within deadline and not starving for more cycles) so I'm avoiding the serialization format transition headache, but it did send me down the rabbit hole of floating point conversion techniques for half a day.

Government is a lot of incremental progress, not a big bang from zero to perfection. Attempts to bundle too much scope into one unit of work is a frequent compliant towards government.

I'd suggest stripping down whatever distro you already like unless you have an exotic target platform or highly constrained resource (like embedded systems).

The off the shelf distros can typically be customized much smaller than their "minimal" images. That "minimal" usually means "a reasonable base for your headless server" not "the least amount of software needed to boot." You'll be able to stay in a packaging ecosystem and process you already know. Learn how to create a custom deployable image and with any luck you'll still be able to leverage their build systems, testing and repos.

If you are talking more constrained than that or an unusual architecture, Yocto seems to be where most of the embedded Linux folks are these days. That targets highly-configurable custom compiling everything from the ground up, lots of additional software packages are available to be layered in.

The default position for data journalism should be: don't try, you fucking hacks.

I hate this meme and other criticism like it. It belittles work accomplished (asserting that there was nothing done). Ascribes intent from that perceived outcome (that nobody even tried). And ascribes motivation for that intent (hubris).

I haven't found a better way to demoralize people from trying in the future than this sort of quip.

Recaptcha doesn't care. But totally unrelated, it just accidentally worked out to be awfully convenient for Google's other surveillance products embedded on the same sites, which do care quite a bit about how long and how often they can follow me with a single unique identifier.

That's sufficiently weasel-worded to mean nothing.