killface

why would a pro-hillary group flag a story on here that says she's not guilty of crimes (or at least that charges won't be pursued due to the actions not warranting criminal prosecution)?

I'm literally in disbelief about how people think it's Hillary trying to hide these discussions. Liberal media, indeed...

Because the people who demand respectful discourse are the ones who rarely participate in it themselves.

Yep. Conservatives and their ilk are so thoroughly convinced of her guilt (and if not this, list off the 100 other witch hunts the republicans in congress have led against her).

They'd rather flag and stifle discussion than let people know that her actions didn't rise to the level of criminal charges. It is sad. It's also exactly what I've come to expect. People scream about the liberal media, and yet here we are watching a pro-liberal (in theory... i guess... maybe just not anti-liberal) story get censored as fast as they get posted.

except there's a contingent of people (like the person you replied to) who won't accept anything short of jail time.

they've already made up their minds. she's guilty, 100-point-zero percent confidence, and anything that doesn't line up with that narrative is obviously crooked politics or whatever.

congress is the attack dog that the republicans have used for the better part of the last 2 decades to make anything stick to the clintons.

don't believe the lies about "where there's smoke, there's fire" here. they invented all the smoke, hoping you'll believe there's a fire.

so you volunteer your salary to all your coworkers without demanding the same of them?

my first world anarchy is always voting 'no' for if a review helped if it's a vine voice or indicated that they got the product for free.

But sometimes there may not be a single concrete example. Some people just have that unfriendly vibe. Getting an example of "this one time Chad didn't want to talk to you because you were scowling the whole standup" probably won't mean much to you, but if it's a persistent theme, it's still a vaguely toxic behaviour that may warrant dismissal.

I can tell just from reading your replies in this thread that you're "that guy" -- the guy who always complains, who thinks he's better than every one else he works with, whose life motto is "the skill of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who do not possess it. "

I know, because I was (am?) that guy also.

Every company has a culture, and bad or good, they'll fight to maintain it. Each organization within a company has a culture, and they'll fight to maintain it. Managers will fire perfectly good people because they won't go along with the culture. Even if that culture is toxic.

How do you fix yourself? I'll offer a few things I've tried/done/been told to do:

* Don't make personal attacks. Just say that you're blocked. Don't say "that lazy ass IT department was just playing pingpong all day long, and not fixing my ticket. So I can't do a damn thing today" Just say that your ticket still isn't resolved. Let your manager/pm/whatever escalate. Let the chain of command happen. If you're the one who is supposed to escalate, still don't play that game. Just say you're still blocked, and work on it in private.

* Don't be passive aggressive. That is, if you ever feel like "they think they know what they want and they deserve to get it good and hard" is applicable, step away and grab some coffee.... decaf.

* Don't assume you know better than other people. I struggle with this a lot, because I genuinely do believe that I know more than most other people in my role. I've been told this directly by my managers and peers. If you feel like this is true, use your knowledge to teach instead of demean/humiliate/punch-down your coworkers. If you're the friendly guy who is always willing to chat about design patterns or architecture decisions, and you can help people do their work better, you're going to be everyone's best friend.

* Praise in public, punish in private. If you have an issue with someone or some group, bring it up in a 1-on-1 meeting with someone -- even just a hallway conversation. If you have praise, do it publicly. Make sure everyone hears it. This goes for everyone. If you wanted to shit all over the IT department for not getting you your server, then someone else is like, "the IT department totally handled our server farm blackout, and got production back online in less than an hour. props to them" -- you might rethink your "lazy" assessment.

* Realize that most people have little-to-zero passion for their job. They're just there to collect a paycheck. While you can piss and moan all you want about these people, they will invariably make up a majority of any company you go to. I go between hyper-passionate and aggressively indifferent, depending on the project, the client, the phase of a project, or even how much sleep I got last night.

Lastly, I've seen engage in toxic discussion too much" before. I've given that advice. It was to a person who was actually very good at what they do, and a great person to work with. The problem is, they were buddy-buddy with the absolute worst person in the office. The guy everyone else goes out of their way to avoid. The guy who tries to make himself the gatekeeper of everything or anything. It's often an IT guy, but sometimes just a middle manager. And if you're hanging out with them, bitching about anyone and anything all day long, you're going to be seen as a lost cause at some point, even if your work is good. As to why they won't just fire that actual toxic person? Companies fight to maintain their status quo over taking risks.

he's a creationist. i don't trust anything science-based he has to say.

Failing is also how you succeed. You learn all the ways to fail, then try to avoid that. You can't fail unless you try. You won't be willing to try if you are terrified of failure.

The key thing is stop treating failure like some sort of personal fault (or to stop teaching kids or women to internalize it as a fault). It's why stuff like telling kids you're proud of how hard they worked is generally better than telling them how smart they are. Reward the work, the risk taking, even the failing. It's how you get stronger.

Lol, if we switch the tech industry to text-only interviews, get ready for the full-day programming problems to come back.

You get so much from speech cues, filler words, etc. To try to completely eliminate that and still make rational hiring decisions is a fool's errand.

It's because we all know the 70c number is a lie when you actually compare experience, education, job role, and more stuff like that. I mean, don't try to bring it up with an SJW, but we all know the flaws of the study. the 70/77c number only compares all men to all women -- this includes part-time workers, moms who work easier jobs for more time flexibility (with accompanying pay decrease/stagnation), etc. Given the societal norm of women staying at home with kids, and being the ones to sacrifice for family life, this shouldn't be surprising.

If we want to fix that number, we need to give Dads more leeway, more flexibility, and importantly, no gruff, about taking care of their families. This will likely result in a net productivity drop of men as a whole across all industries. But it'll probably fix the perceived pay gap.

If women were universally paid 20-30% less than men for the exact same job, and possess exactly the same qualifications, quality of work, time put in, education, experience, etc., there would literally be swaths of companies only hiring women. It's a no-brainer decision. The fact that we don't see these companies is proof that the gap is a myth.

Accurately and consistently measuring performance of professionals has been all but impossible for the better part of the last century.

I don't know why we keep trying. This is what peer reviews are for.

Not just culture fit. I hire for a high-end (boutique) software consulting firm. We specialize in scale problems and engineering practice at a level few other firms can claim.

Communication is an absolute, 100% must for senior roles. If you can't competently and thoroughly talk about a technical issue, to non-technical people, and do it with a smile and while making eye contact, we're not going to hire you.

So in a sense, we're filtering out neuro-atypical people for senior roles. But they fit well in engineering roles.

Dehumanizing the interview process will literally make it impossible for us to gauge this skill.

If you're tracking the interviewer gender guess, that's a legal liability to the interviewer. I'd refuse to answer, or always put "unsure" even if I was 100% sure of the gender.

And that also means that at some point (ideally in the very near future), we're just going to have to be OK with the idea that not all women want to be STEM majors. This necessarily and explicitly means that the ratio will never be 50/50.

We're all ok with the idea that men don't really want to be early childhood educators (Pre-k through grade 2). It's a big deal when a guy applies for those jobs, according to teachers I know. Then, of course, come the endless jokes about the pedophile trying to get a job with kids, how he is going to need a female escort when dealing with the kids, etc.

No. If you're a white male, that's bad. Anything else is diversity.

They'll come up with some bullshit like "since women aren't the majority of hiring managers, this doesn't count as discrimination" or something. Like they have with racism (where black people in America literally can't be racist).

But implicit in that "gender bias-free" hiring is the assumption that current hiring is gender biased to the point of needing technical solutions that simply remove the human element.

If you have a manager who thinks women can't code, and you institute a blind hiring process, you're just going to put that newly-hired woman under a manager who thinks women can't code? What then?

It really feels like the end solution to this is going to be "(white) men are not allowed to be hiring managers because they can't be trusted to follow our agenda"

I am with you 100%. We keep trying to invent ways to skew the hiring towards women. Let's just stop trying to candy-coat it. You want gender ratios, so just hire based on gender ratios and deal with the fallout.

This narrative that women are somehow grossly discriminated against in tech doesn't hold water anywhere I see. Every tech company is desperate to hire more women engineers to increase their diversity quotient. The trouble is that most applicants, by a 95%-to-5% margin, are men. It only makes sense that 95% of the hires are men. If we want more women engineering talent in the office, we simply need more women applicants. Focusing on the interview stage is the wrong part of the pipeline to start at.

Lol, now these assholes also own the streets and traffic patterns around their houses. Good to know.

Blech. I have to use Gerrit at one of my current clients, and I fucking hate it.

Github's workflow is easy. You have a repo, you can fork it or create a feature branch, you can add multiple commits, and then open a PR. That makes sense. And the interface is pretty.

In Gerrit, I still do commit-as-you-go, because that's the entire fucking point of Git. If I wanted SVN semantics in my repo, I'd use SVN. Then, we have to squash all the commits (I'm very anti-history-revision, but I know that's an opinion) and push up to a different origin. And god forbid if you want to work from that code point in a new branch while you wait for a review. Oh, and if you want to fix some issues found in review? Yeah, let's edit the history again... Oh, and there's a change id created that causes all kinds of other headaches.

I have tools to manage and make sense of my git history. I absolutely hate things that force me to modify history. It might as well be voodoo magic when stuff goes wrong. It's often easier to blow it all away and start over.

I do like the things it can help you enforce -- a good build and +1/+2 code review etc. But that's not enough to deal with all the little annoyances in gerrit. Especially since it's available in a much better tool -- gitlab.

Gitlab is what comes after github has run its course for your team. It's got the same predictable and useful feel, it integrates great with CI tools, and it allows a similar GHPR-style way of merging. There's also BitBucket Server and other stuff.. but Gitlab has my vote in the strongest way possible.

This way is the only way we've found to do it, even on a smaller scale. Once you get above 20-25 jobs, or create a self service way for teams to create projects+github+jira+cloudformation+jenkins etc, you have to aggressively standardize. Often this means standardizing on the lowest common denominator (shell script).

thanks for sharing.

I still don't understand why people trust Oracle consultants. Their list of failures is ten miles long. I guess nobody gets fired for hiring Oracle.

I've mostly avoided IPv6 because AWS uses IPv4 and it works fine.

but yeah, whenever I see an ipv6 format address, it takes way too long to parse it out. unless you were a network engineer at some point, it's not going to become second nature any time soon.

Kind of like switching an addressing format?

I mean, look at their byline... "Original. Student Reported. Your Daily Dose of Right-Minded News and Commentary From Across the Nation"

They emphasize "Right" which basically means it's just another conservative rag. And then this article fits there quite nicely.

i think they're hitting their hockey stick of adoption. it's been a necessary component for continuous delivery at high scale for a while, but it hasn't always been this easy.

Yep. This has solidified my opinion. I'm moving all my code off Github.

Sorry, as a white male, I don't have to take this kind of blatant racism, abuse, and shaming when it comes to hosting my code. BitBucket does a good job without the uppity diversity attitude.

> I'm surprised of the negativity towards this action

I'm not. This site is filled with grey-hat folks who would do anything to make a buck on the web. I mean, it's a forum hosted by/affiliated with a VC firm, and look at the comments here. A bunch of people angry that google would dare do this, because they might/will be targeted. People were also pissed when Google stopped using meta keywords, and when they stopped reading text that was made invisible in CSS, and really any grey- or black-hat way to get more visitors/ad impressions.

google is not a government agency. you can't claim first amendment when dealing with private parties. that's like me suing the NFL for not letting me post racist rants on their homepage because of the first amendment.

edit: i dun read gud. leaving comment as an homage to lack of literacy