298 karma · joined February 20, 2018
I live in Detroit. It’s a city that has been pushed to the edge of oblivion... and then into oblivion for several decades. It's fantastic that thers investment, but at the same time, stuff like this feels so incredibly patronizing. "It's nicer than San Francisco!" Yes, there are, in fact, nice buildings outside of San Francisco, even in Detroit.
Midwestern cities don't exist solely to make money, and I'm rather disturbed that they're seen more and more as nothing but investment vehicles. Detroit is 80% black. We didn’t even have working street lights until a few years ago (shout out to the Public Lighting Authority). I just look at San Francisco and the entire Bay Area, and I think to myself: "we don't want that here". Detroit isn't just cheap rent and exposed brick. It's grit and soul and pain and culture and 300+ years of history. I'm sure these investors got a lovely tour. Did they talk about the 1967 riots? Did they show them northwest Detroit, where entire city blocks are basically becoming urban prairie? Did they talk to the regular folks living and working in the city for generations? They’re lovely people, and they live here too. They're as much a part of Detroit as the Madison Building or New Center or Dan Gilbert or the rotting houses or the rich history.
You could buy roughly 667 acres of land here in Lower Michigan for that much money, which provides plenty of room for wine and chickens. ;)
But either way, this isn’t particularly germane to the conversation, and you could even argue that it wasn’t done intentionally considering that Medium used to be readable.
Anyway, Medium is annoyingly hard to read now, and I’m glad someone’s done something to fix it.
Anyway, now when I see that companies want "passionate" people, I interpret it to mean "convince us you're enthusiastic enough during the interview". It's all a game of how much you can bullshit. I like to believe that most managers, and especially most developers, realize that most code isn't "sexy", because most software isn't "sexy" and most developers are working on most software.
Caveat: I work in the Midwest. Maybe things are different in Silicon Valley, where every startup seems to fancy itself as changing the world.
> The speed of light is not a speed limit on effective travel, but on observation.
Which is absolutely factually false.
> In 1663, John Twynn, was tried and executed in England for printing material that suggested that perhaps the monarchy should be beholden to the people.
Grandparent was arguing that people can't handle free speech and that:
> Speech needs to be protected, but when it starts to encroach on my pursuit of happiness it's a problem. Facebook, Twitter, etc don't need to become chan sites.
I hear this a lot, particularly from the left (although the right does it too), on the grounds of protecting people from "harmful" speech. I disagree with that, which is why I responded, because I don't think enough people know about the modern interpretation of free speech and the long, storied history it has (not just in the US but everywhere). I certainly had no idea before I started reading.
> I'm also wondering why the great examples of free speech that people reach for are always racism.
It's not that they're examples, it's that the landmark Supreme Court cases that established our modern understanding of free speech typically involved the KKK and nazis (c.f. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). In other words, people with horrible beliefs are the only reason why you can stand on a street corner and preach about socialism, communism, anarchy, etc (which might be "horrible beliefs" too, depending on the individual). 100 years ago, someone distributed a gentle poem by a socialist and was put in jail, and it was legal. Do you want to go back to that? Because it is absolutely possible.
For most of modern history, speech has been censored in some form or another by governments. Naturally so, as any kind of divergent thinking can be dangerous to power structures (this hasn't gone away). In 1663, John Twynn, was tried and executed in England for printing material that suggested that perhaps the monarchy should be beholden to the people. The Sedition Act of 1798 was passed by the American Congress and signed into law by President John Adams. Namely, it prescribed fines and imprisonment for those who "write, print, utter, or publish... any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. This was used to jail several members of Congress, among others.
Modern free speech jurisprudent didn't start to develop until as late as 1917. The Espionage Act of 1917 was enacted at the start of World War I to prevent actions that were seen as unfavorable to the war. The Supreme Court upheld the law as not violating freedom of speech in Schenck v. United States. I believe there was a subsequent 1917 or 1918 case that began to turn the tide (the reference escapes me at the moment and I'm at work), but it wasn't until 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the Supreme Court ruled that inflammatory speech is protected as long as it satisfies a two-prong test:
1. The speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," AND 2. The speech is "likely to incite or produce such action."
The case concerned an Ohio Ku Klux Klan member who was recorded saying particularly horrid and denigrating things about African Americans, but, notably, nothing specifically threatening. The Supreme Court upheld your right to say things like "I think we should kill all Jews" because, although a terrible thing to say, statements like that aren't imminently encouraging lawless action and not likely to do so.
Past that point, the Supreme Court has regularly upheld this interpretation of the first amendment. The best argument against a more European, say, interpretation of the first amendment is that, simply: governments only ever censor speech that they don't like. That's why the Espionage Act was used to incarcerate the likes of Emma Goldman and not, say, the people who were helping organize lynchings. If you were to enact hate speech legislation, and history bears this out, the people most affected are the minorities: black people, Jews, Muslims, LGBTQ people, pacifists, communists, anarchists, socialists, etc. Think about all of the police that shoot unarmed black men. Can you seriously imagine police forces across America protecting the speech of someone that calls for the abolition of the institution that person belongs to?
So that's a brief history and law lesson (caveat: I am neither a lawyer nor a historian). This is certainly a larger discussion to have, and I very much enjoy debating things like hate speech legislation and speech restriction in general, but I'll leave you with this for now.
I know a lot of people (typically young, like me) for whom this kind of discourse is normal. Shouting people down is normal. Shunning them if they in any way disagree if normal. Especially online, it's impossible to hold even a slightly different point of view than someone without being considered an immediate mortal enemy.
I've been reading books more, including reading things I disagree with. It's difficult for me, but it's getting easier to look at things calmly and rationally. I'm working through a book now by someone who has a different (but valid!) view than I do, and instead of getting upset, I'm taking notes and trying to faithfully represent their argument, as well as trying to take the arguments apart and evaluate them. I think I'll still end up disagreeing with them at the end, but it's helpful to know the counterarguments to something you support and to be able not only to faithfully represent them, but rationally argue them.
To be fair, if they didn't, you might not be here to talk about it, so there's definitely some survivorship bias there. The people who waited and died obviously can't say anything because they're dead.
In short, you can't go faster than light in any reference frame, relative to any other observer.
Here's another source: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75501/lorentz-an...
> Avoiding women in workplace is essentially sexist. And for non-sexists there is no reason to do so.
So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Given how easy it is for public opinion to shift, I certainly wouldn't want to take that chance. Who would want to interact with people like that in a professional setting? I wouldn't, and I try not to.
It is absolutely a limit on effective travel (if we ignore things like wormholes for a second). Conventional motion through space is bounded by c for several reasons, not the least of which being that the closer you get to c, the more energy it takes to make smaller and smaller changes in velocity (the object acts as though it's gaining mass the faster it goes). In fact, it's asymptotic. Accelerating a particle to c would require an infinite amount of energy.