This reminds me of my intro to Computer Science class. My professor started us off with the Peanut Butter & Jelly Algorithm exercise [1]. I loved it. Nothing destroys your confidence quite like seeing a grown woman smash a peanut butter jar as hard as possible into an unopened loaf of bread.
This is not a judgment on you, or what you did, but I don't know if I'd define that as "reading." I did essentially the same thing you did, but I have always called it "skimming." With articles like this, I tend to skim first, to see if it's worth a deeper reading. to answer your parent comment, I could not have deeply read this post in only 3 mins. It likely would have taken 5 or more.
Different Red Hat employee here, that said, this opinion is my own and I have no real authority to say anything beyond my experience. I, in my job, have a lot of contact with IBM folks now for obvious reasons, but I think it's a slow Red washing rather than the other way around. The independence of Red Hat is fiercely defended and is largely respected, even by IBM. I think we all want this to work as it is, rather than make huge changes, especially culturally.
This is an interesting project for sure, and I see some great potential. I tried out a few phrases, including the one below that include commonly used words in "toxic" comments, but are not actually insulting anyone. This still had a high score (0.74).
> Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of the science about climate change. This is not because they are stupid but rather because they do not have all the data, or the data they have is unreliable.
I'm in no way saying this is the best way to communicate that message, and this could prompt a writer to re-phrase, but I don't know if I'd claim that this is toxic. I think that this could be a good tool, but it's clearly highly dependent on "common" understandings of words rather than actual definitions. Maybe that's the correct trade off though.
I fully agree. Even on topics I feel I know well, she's 1) shown me something I didn't know, and 2) shown me how a "newbie" could see the topic, making it easier for me to help teach/mentor someone else.
I can't recommend this book enough. As a long-time Vim user, I still learned a few things after reading this book. Drew Neil is a pretty awesome person too.
This is not an original opinion, but I love her style of writing. I can feel the pure unadulterated joy at learning these things. Sometimes I learn along with her, sometimes I am seeing an old subject through new eyes. Always, it's worth the read.
> It's too bad that current feminism/SJW movement has so corrupted the feminism "brand"
I've started to think of the SJ movement as analogous to the GNU/GPL movement. From a high level, it's easy to see it as extreme and difficult to identify with, but if you give it some time and thought, you start to see the merits of the argument.
Note, one does not always have to agree to think there are merits. Once I saw SJ advocates in this light, it also became much easier to see that much like the software license debates, there are a spectrum of beliefs; Not all GNU advocates are alike, just like not all SJWs are alike.
> The definition given doesn't match what currently feminism is about.
I have not seen evidence that this has changed. I have, however, seen opinions that I don't agree with, but ultimately stem from that working premise.
What I got from this article: "`curl|bash` can be secure if you add signing, file integrity checking, and trust the source."
The whole time I kept thinking, these are assurances you can get from traditional mature package management.
I can't say much about stations in general, but the Macedonia station is on the far end of large parking lot full of big box stores. Hobby Lobby, Lowes, etc. I would feel safe, if also bored, hanging out there.
It doesn't help that criticism of crappy behavior and abuse is met with cries of "Free Speech" and accusations of being too sensitive. We as a community/industry need to start calling out abusive behavior for what it is.
That's fair. I re-read the article and see your point. I would still agree with other comments here that a WoT would be difficult to implement in a user friendly way that wouldn't also be exploited.
"Why not use public-key encryption for everything?
At face value, it seems that the existence of public-key encryption algorithms obsoletes all our previous secret-key encryption algorithms. We could just use public key encryption for everything, avoiding all the added complexity of having to do key agreement for our symmetric algorithms. By far the most important reason for this is performance. Compared to our speedy stream ciphers (native or otherwise), public-key encryption mechanisms are extremely slow. A single 2048-bit RSA encryption takes 0.29 megacycles, decryption takes a whopping 11.12 megacycles. To put this into comparison, symmetric key algorithms work in order of magnitude 10 or so cycles per byte in either direction. In order to encrypt or decrypt 2048 bytes, that means approximately 20 kilocycles."