"This is the first indicator that the plane has crashed,” said Jonathan Skinner, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College, who reviewed the study and co-authored a commentary that appears with it. “I don’t know what’s going on, but the plane has definitely crashed."
This basically sums up my fears. Whatever is going on, economics is at the root of it.
That seems like a very sheltered perspective. It is clear that Mr. Torvald used the language he did to express and support his thesis. This was not a personal attack, a lashing out, or any other sort of fit. There was a clear message: stop writing shit code. He began by explaining his definition of 'shit code' with an example. Then, he explained why we don't want it. Finally, he presented a solution. He did all of this while still conveying his conviction. Sure, we could sit around crying about the f word, or we could accept the fact that sometimes when we do shitty things to people it pisses them off. Mr. Torvald was clearly pissed off from people doing shitty things to him. In this case, trying to taint a project he's spent the last decade working on. Should he have hidden this frustration just to appeal to your PC upbringing? Absolutely not. It was refreshing to read something sincere. Toxic? That code was toxic. That code would have had real world consequences that affect millions of people. A few harsh words mean nothing in comparison.
"00:12drmjgoh no. #1 we can but as you know is not like we go and delete each account instantly as 80% of users who requests account deletion come back after two weeks to requests their account back and are mad we deleted it
00:12drmjg#2 people who requested account deletion in pasts used the accounts for credit card fraud and then re-create new ones"
I believe they are putting forth the case that the kind of developer that doesn't make Unix-like tools, doesn't use Unix-like tools. And that this issue is not a case of everyone doing things shitty (not making things Unix-like), but that it is the god damn creatives making all this bad software. These fucking people don't appreciate the art of programming, and think software is about the destination and not the journey. That's my take anyway.
I really dislike when an article waits til the end to explain why I shouldn't care. First half of the article is all about how we should worry and care about this thing. Second half of the article is, "actually you should just disregard everything we just said."
Even with the subtitle, the comment still holds true. The article makes the bird out to be very rare so that we'll be upset about it when it's killed. And then much later in the article the writer reveals that it's not actually certain how rare this bird is. In fact, apparently it's seen all the time by the locals. So now that we emotionally invested in this bird on false pretenses, we are now supposed to decide whether or not we care that it was murdered.
Expected by who? The "expectation" you think everyone has, everyone does not have. In this discussion we're referring to this expectation as "PC" or "political correctness".
The kind of people who are oversensitive to speech don't care about what's being said; they care about how it's being said. I don't think there should be social consequences for saying something that isn't PC. And I think OP falls into the same category. This is far from something so general as "consequences for speech" which would include things as abstract as judging the level of education of the speaker. I don't make this point lightly either. It is a phenomenon I've observed too many times in my life. There are people that are actually willing to listen to others, that actually try to get the context of who this person is that they're speaking with. But most people are not willing to listen to someone else within the context of who that person is, and are more than willing to run with their early assumptions of that person. Why is it that the people who are oversensitive always fall into the latter category? Being sensitive to political correctness is a way of being ignorant and pretentious to the world, to the billions of people who are not like yourself.
I grew up in the kind of area that specializes in what this article is talking about. I had a lot of friends in high school who were forced into honors and AP classes by their parents. Who were forced to do anything and everything to set themselves up for college. Who would stay up til 1am on a Tuesday just to make sure they got all of their homework done and had studied properly. I can tell you that "helicopter" parenting has not ruined any children and it never will. What it's done is it's pushed children into schools where they don't belong. Meanwhile it's pushed a lot of smart kids out. What this dean has experienced isn't kids becoming less self-sufficient, but instead less self-sufficient kids getting into college because the kids who are pushed by their parents have a higher likelihood of getting in.
"When I asked her how detectives differentiate Traffic Jam's data between trafficked victims and sex workers, she said that they rely on their intuition and knowledge of the community they protect."
It sounds like she's busting low class pimps, and hoping that a few of them are human traffickers.
I wish we had proper data, like the number of problems fixed before the introduction of the app. So that we could see how effective the app actually is.
This is perfect! Thank you for taking the time to make this. It gave me a much better understanding of what sempl is, how to use it, and what it can be used for.
I believe that the lesson to be learned isn't that drug use makes you better or worse. It's that people of all walks of life abuse drugs. Even people who are very successful. Despite the immense power of drugs. It is still the person, not the drug that determiness a person's life. Aaron Sorkin is a crack head. He's starring in that new Steve Jobs film, but has also worked on such successes as West Wing and The Social Network. Does crack make you successful? No.
2. All I've seen in drug users is wreckage and death. Maybe I haven't seen the whole picture.
Drug use is rampant in the United States. It's just hidden or is not considered drug use because a prescription is involved. Remember how out in the open alcoholism used to be? (Think Mad Men. Or talk to a grandparent about how things used to be.) Alcoholism didn't just go away. People just started keeping it to themselves.
3. Is there an upside to drug use? If there was a safe performance pill maybe I would try it.
Amephatimes, Speed, Aderall. All the same drug. All abused across the country by college kids. I really don't know what the long term dangers of amphetamines are. Not only college kids are abusing them, that's just where it's most obvious. People use them as smart pills. They apparently allow you to focus on working and studying for hours.
In closing, I think being smart and talented can also come with sadness and other mental issues. Sometimes drug use is a way for talented people to self-medicate. The talent and potential is still there. It's comes down to the individual whether drug use will inhibit them from their goals.
This basically sums up my fears. Whatever is going on, economics is at the root of it.