uncle_j

> Kids being picked up from school predominately by woman is a social arrangement, the kind we hopefully at least try to change if we consider there to be better options.

Define "Better". Why should we be trying to change it? Why should we be meddling with other people's lives? People aren't being harmed here.

> But spending effort to keep pre-defined gender roles in check must be somehow bad?

Both men and women at least in the western world enjoy the same rights and discrimination by gender is not only frowned upon but can be brought before a court. I seems to me that they are already kept in check.

> That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure.

If I were a parent I would be trying to mitigate the risk to my child. As I previously stated it is unfair but not unfounded.

It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact.

> An African American is much more likely to be a murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one.

* I don't live in the US, I am from the UK. The term African American doesn't really mean much here.

* If there was a young guy dressed in sports gear and appeared to be somewhat of a lout, no matter what the colour of his skin I would cross the road.

It is unfair. Sure. But when I was a younger man (I am almost 40 now), I used to be followed about and stopped by police and security because I was simple 1) Male 2) Under 25. People are simply mitigating the amount of risk to themselves, business and family.

> You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why.

No it isn't. It is a statement of what I believe to be the truth. All the evidence and arguments around the topic I have seen and heard seem to lead in that direction. If you disagree with that conclusion that is fine.

However it doesn't mean that I believe that things should arranged in such a manner.

> Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing?

I don't know. I wasn't saying anything about that. I was simply disagree that it is sexism. I don't buy into this the notion of "unconscious sexism".

We know they were. But it is irrelevant. Firefox was a better product than Internet Explorer and it clawed market share away from IE mainly because techies at the time were telling everyone to use Firefox instead of IE.

The fact that Microsoft was engaging in Anti-competitive practices actually proves my point. That despite all their meddling they started losing the browser war because Firefox was a better product at the time.

That isn't sexism. There is a far higher likelihood that a sex offender is a man rather than a woman. While unfair it isn't unfounded fear and parents are naturally protective of their children.

> You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology".

Nope. I didn't say that.

> There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly.

I didn't make any statement on how to arrange society. I simply stated that I believe they would all eventually fail.

This was completely irrelevant to the time frame.

People started changing browser 5 years earlier because Firefox was better than IE (in terms of security). People changed from Firefox to Chrome because performance in Firefox 3.6 was horrendous (browser tended to lock up) and Google Chrome was again better at the time.

There is an obvious distinction between people trying to socially arrange society and our biology. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

I don't agree it is sexism. It is the simple fact that our species is sexually dimorphic. This guarantees that there will be asymmetry between the genders regardless of the social engineering that is attempted.

There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly.

> Sexism also harms men.

Yes it does. But this is not one of those circumstances. However that is a completely different conversation.

I do remember exactly what happened back then and what you state couldn't be further from the truth.

> The reason Chrome even exists today is because the US & EU governments forced Microsoft to support other software and companies better.

Chrome came well after Firefox (2008 versus 2002). Many people were fed up with IE due to poor security and performance and were evangelising Firefox online.

> Mozilla has produced its own browser, called Firefox, that is enjoying a surge in popularity as increasing numbers of people and organisations tire of the security problems that plague Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3680942.stm

You could always install your own browser on Windows. There was nothing ever stopping you from downloading another browser and running it on Windows (in fact Opera at the time IIRC was doing well in Germany). Firefox was simply better than IE and people started using it.

It is almost never mentioned but most men won't respect other men who are stay at home parent. So there is also an expectation on the man to be the bread winner.

Also many women tend not to want men who earn less then them:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rich-women-like-rich-men-a...

Yes it is. Internet Explorer had something like 95%+ share on all browsing traffic and then someone brought out a better alternatives (Firefox and at the time Chrome). Internet Explorer is no longer dominate. It is now dead.

This has to be done by the ground up by offering better alternatives rather than trying to tear down these tech companies.

Also don't use their services. It is pretty easy to remove most of Google from your life. I don't think Google search is even that much better than the alternatives anymore (I am using Duck Duck Go and they are about the same these days tbh).

Most employers don't care about your degree (at least in the UK), I doubt many places will care about this.

I am also "Sitecore Certified". Sitecore Certified basically means your company paid for you to sit in a room and complete a training course for a week and do a multiple choice test which can be completed by using the Object Explorer in Visual Studio. Does that make me knowledgeable about Sitecore? Nope not at all.

I'd rather see a website, some scripts on github, talking through a problem rather than a piece of paper saying you completed a course.

The problem with this is that most public places have private places right next to them. So this will be easily circumvented.

I been working full time now about 15 years and I think Martin Fowler's blog and especially articles like this do more harm than good.

Typically I find Pair Programming pretty pointless for most tasks. Where it works is when one developer knows the code base and another knows about the new piece they are trying to implement e.g. something external they are interfacing with.

Much like other subjects on Martin Fowlers blog, it will get picked up by some which will religiously adhere to it and not consider where it will be best suited.

The code sample they have there that is "messy" doesn't look that bad to me. The reality is that almost all the code that runs lots of important things is a complete spagetti.

Some of these optimisations are very similar to what you used to do in JavaScript with slower JS engines. Caching a value in a variable name than constantly accessing a property.

I work in an office with poor reception and it is quite annoying that these apps don't really work unless you are on 3G or better.

There are a lot of smaller open source projects that are using Discord instead of IRC. I am a member of Reshade, C# OpenTK and general programming servers.

There is a massive political community on discord, there are other groups on there such as dooxers, trolls and irl shitposters and other odd groups that are doing naughty things.

> Not necessarily. It can also actually increase adoption because it fixes friction: there might always be a few tools or docker containers or whatnot which are not ported to BSD, and this provides an answer to that.

It tells developers that users will put up with the compatibility layer. Also setting up these compatibility layers has its own set of complications e.g. random things not working, sub-optimal performance etc.

The only people that have pulled it off has been Microsoft with WSL and there has been problems with that. I for a laugh setup basically a Xubuntu desktop and I had lots of odd errors being reported in the console.

I am a OpenBSD / Windows user (all the VMs server I am running are OpenBSD). I haven't used FreeBSD a whole lot.

1) You get an operating system. One of the problems with Linux is the number of distros. If you want to know how to do something you've got to google around and look for a guide. In the BSDs it is just reading the man pages and figuring things out from there.

2) I've found with OpenBSD things either are documented and work or they don't work at all. The system is easy to understand whereas with Linux I tend to get overwhelmed with one distro doing it one way and another distro doing it another way.

3) Things are a bit difficult to setup (lots of reading docs) but it doesn't change once you've got it running which is my major gripe with Windows since Windows 7.

> Improve linuxolator, and run Linux tests on linuxolator as part of FreeBSD CI.

This is the worst thing they could actually do because people will just run the Linux versions and there would be even less demand for anyone to bother with a FreeBSD version.

> except now it has actually been true for years

Sure it is true. It isn't a tech journo writing a quick piece to get some clicks. I am quite cynical these days.

There hasn't been any competition in the Desktop CPU space for years until 2019.

Also clock rates haven't increased since the mid-2000s (there were 5ghz P4 chips). Clock rates being an indication of speed stopped being a thing back then when I could buy a "slower" clocked Athlon XP chip that was comparable to a P4 with a faster clock.

Also more stuff is getting offloaded from the CPU to custom chips (usually the GPU).

> We need developers who understand these new low level details as much now as we needed that kind of developer in the past.

I suspect that there will get better compiler and languages. I work with .NET stuff and the performance increase from a rewrite to .NET core is ridiculous.

Every few years something like this gets written. I remember similar things being written in 2004-2005 before the Core 2 line of processors came out.

There is still improvements being made to the current tech or new takes on the current tech that aren't incorporated yet in the current bunch of consumer processors.

Also I happen to think that what makes a computer fast is the removal of bottlenecks in the hardware. You can take quite an old machine (I have a Core 2 Quad machine under my desk) slap in an SSD and suddenly it doesn't feel much slower than my Ryzen 3 machine.

> You don't need to run AROS on Linux. It's one option among many, including running bare metal on a number of hardware platforms, including on real Amiga hardware.

Yep. I did have AROS running on a real machine (which has died). I have a real Amiga though so I rather use Amiga OS.

> But for someone who wants to just run an AmigaOS-like OS, it's a convenient option as it makes it irrelevant whether AROS supports your underlying hardware as long as Linux does, and so makes it easy to install;

Yes I am aware. I don't like Linux.

> it also makes it easy to run it alongside a regular Linux desktop for someone who doesn't want to just run an AmigaOS-like OS, which frankly still has lots of limitations.

I just don't see the point of running Linux with a Amiga like DE (which is really what you are doing). I am sure it suits many people's needs. It just not something I am interested in.

> MorphOS to me is to divorced from AmigaOS to be particularly interesting, and the fact it isn't open source is another dealbreaker.

Not everything has to be open source.

I use Amiga OS on WinUAE to install it on real hardware.

AROS on top of Linux for me is missing the point as a OS enthusiast. AROS is okay, but MorphOS (which I run on a G4 cube) is much better IMO.

For example:

https://wiki.amigaos.net/wiki/Intuition_Screens

Also it is just a decent desktop OS. One of the problems with Linux (and OpenBSD / FreeBSD etc) is that the OS really isn't a desktop Operating System. It is a Unix operating system with a desktop.

> What we're seeing isn't a breakdown in "rationality" or "care for truth", we're seeing a global breakdown in the trust of authority.

I really used to like the "This Week Tonight" show. I used to watch it all the time.

Then they misrepresented or they didn't research a band I liked. So I thought "If they are this wrong about a band, what else are they wrong about?".

> People like the author are unwilling to see how focusing on the "truth" of trite, inconsequential "facts" like whether Trump's inauguration was the biggest ever is pointless when compared to issues that really affect people.

Also this article and many others like it constantly ignore the fact that Trump almost always uses hyperbole. It is obvious it is hyperbole. However it seems it is expedient for the author to ignore this.