Thank you for making this a partisan issue about Donald Trump instead of a human health issue. By pointing fingers at a person (who represents a different ideology) you basically guarantee people will be polarized into a "my team vs their team" mentality, instead of focusing on the actual health issues. But hey, at least my ego is satisfied and my worldview that Donald Trump and Republicans are evil is maintained. That's really what's important here.
This kind of pearl clutching nonsense is getting really old. It's really feeling like people think they have to signal that they're good and kind and not at all racist every opportunity they get.
This is a man who authorized the murder of Yemeni civilians with drones, whose DOJ went after journalists who spoke out against him, whose DOJ went after conservative-leaning people via the IRS, whose DOJ sold weapons to Mexico that were involved in murder of Americans, whose state department stored emails on an insecure server that ended up being hacked, and who flip-flopped on marriage equality until it was politically expedient to support it.
This isn't really all that new for a politician. I don't hate him any more than I hate any other asshole who becomes president. What I hate about Obama is the useful idiots who give him a pass on all this and say things like he is a great man with integrity. He's not. He's a politician who knows how to use his celebrity to influence people, probably the best president to do that since FDR.
So while it's extremely difficult to know that you can not, and will not agree with me, I think I'll be able to deal with it.
>babel was hard for me to set up, therefore all applications should be simple enough not to need to be configured
Oh goodie. Another post where the author experiences some small, isolated incident then assumes everyone shares their view and interpretation of it (or indeed shared the experience to begin with) and the entire industry needs to change like... RIGHT NOW.
I was really on board and thought it would be insightful and interesting.
It's just an article aggrandizing the author! It spends most of its time discussing how sensitive and unique the author is and how they're way above joining a group because they haven't found one that is perfectly suited to every little slightly different permutation in their thought that they insists makes them unique from everyone. It's not about being horrified by herd behavior, it's about the author not getting the recognition they think they deserve from the herd.
It's less about the JavaScript and more about complaining and asserting uniqueness. Anytime an article mentions page weight, you can count on a swarm of people trying to casually mention that they don't use JavaScript and people are always asking them about it.
Don't judge people's reasons for donating money. I'm happy to accept people's donations, regardless of their reason for giving it, because who am I to judge what they do with their money?
Telling people who are trying to donate money that their money is no good because their intentions are wrong seems like the most effective way to stop everyone donating money in their tracks immediately.
>at the expense of others.
Maybe we're talking about different things here, but how is it that a net $70MM donation is coming at the expense of taxpayers?
>and everyone should be rewarded or penalized based on the number of issues found post-release.
this sounds absolutely horrible. What a great way to remove all agency and ownership from an organization and incentivize people to pass the buck off to literally anyone but themselves and to work on easy, cupcake features with no risk.
>This keeps the devs incentivized to make sure everything works before the code goes to QA, and it keeps everyone incentivized to eliminate as many bugs as possible before release.
What kind of organization are you working in where you think devs have to be motivated by punishment or reward? Do you not hire the kind of people who are intrinsically motivated and want to produce software that doesn't have bugs? Do you think that if you don't explicitly incentivize developers not to write bugs that they would just fuck around and make shitty, buggy software? I just can't imagine working in an organization so dysfunctional that leadership thinks the default state is being happy with shitty buggy software.
Yeah, I really could not care less that a file takes up 40 more megs when it's one format over the other. Efficiency lost the war to ease of use and throwing cheap resources at a problem. I'm not going to go through the hassle of downloading and configuring the software needed to compress this into the most efficient format when the out of the box solution I don't need to think about works just fine.
>Here's why: I made well over 400K this year at my job. I am not jumping through hoops killing myself to learn new things I may not even need. My time away from work is too precious to me
This is what makes you all talk. You say in other comments that you're a really good programmer and you express concern that people are passing on you. Then you make this post swinging your dick around saying how much you make and how you don't need to learn new things. If that's the case, why are you whining about ageism? Why are you asking why the hiring managers pass on you? You don't want help, you just want to complain.
>I really hate the Internet sometimes.
Love this part. You make a post whining about how senpai doesn't notice you, insult the careers of people you're talking to, try to namedrop someone, brag about your salary, then bellyache like everyone else is the asshole.
>It makes me a little disappointed in the community and thinking that perhaps I should be hanging out somewhere else instead.
Please go. Please go find that perfect place where you can hang out with people who are as smart and thoughtful as you and think exactly like you do, and only upvote the correct things that you agree with. It'll be better for us all.
>Do you all just keep the system because it keeps so many people employed following the pointless bureaucracy of it all?
No, the main reason we keep it around is to give arrogant Europeans and Canadians something to feel superior about. It's not because in a nation with 300 million people in a space as vast as America, it's hard to get people to agree on how we should do things. Nope, it's cause we're idiots and we like inefficient things.
The post you're responding to never said this essay deserved criticism. It said it's good people aren't taking it at face value and are being critical of it. They are not the same thing.
Being critical of the claim to donate 45 billion dollars is pretty natural. First, they didn't say 45 billion, they said a percentage of their worth which right now is 45 billion dollars. You would have a very strong point if they had just delivered the check for 45 billion dollars and people were criticizing it.
But they didn't do that. They wrote a post on the internet saying they're going to give away their money sometime in their lifetime.
What point are you making? Are you saying that's a lot or a little? We all read the 99% number. Adding periods between the words puts emphasis on it sure (great job putting in the extra effort to enhance the discussion by the way) but given the nature of this discussion I can't for the life of me figure out what you're actually trying to say.
Three years is all? It takes at least eighteen to raise a child. Shame on you for being proud of your country that doesn't care about children enough to see them raised properly. I have to laugh at you and your country for not valuing your kids. I'm ashamed for you.
This entire (arrogant) line of reasoning is ridiculous because it's completely based on an arbitrary cutoff point that you decide is good. What a crazy coincidence that the cutoff point happens to be the same amount of time the geographic region you happen to live in sets as their paternity leave.
Just move! Great and completely realistic solution to the problem of what to do about paternity leave within my company when a kid is on the way. Brilliant! I wish I'd thought of that.
>You are trying to rationalize with people who are irrational.
In my opinion, this is the most dangerous statement in this thread. Saying the actions of these people is irrational loses any ability to understand why they're doing what they're doing and how we can stop them. It turns them into a faceless enemy who are doing things because of hate, which is easy and makes my ego feel better, but doesn't really explain their actions or the actions of anyone. Nobody thinks they're the bad guy of their own story.
There is nothing more rational than terrorizing civilians to achieve a goal. It is the logical conclusion of rationality.
Oh my god, that is so interesting and different. You must be a really unique and free thinking person to not own a TV or a phone. I bet you have really interesting opinions!