>It's not clear that he's being treated differently than other people would be in the same situation.
Empathy and benefit of the doubt for billionaires who vacation in Fiji and whose kids get a medevac flight to a major city when something goes wrong would look a bit more sane if those were commonly afforded to normal people as well. Which they aren't.
You're confused by the fact that people are fed up with various elites pushing for restrictive policies, then routinely bypassing and ignoring those policies when it comes to their personal lives? What is so confusing here?
This is silly. I for one is fully ready to return to the office. Sacrificing two hours of my life to commute five days a week is a small price for making my boss feel more in control. And what's a bit of traffic congestion and burnt gasoline when it's offset by AMAZING culture of our open office? We will fix global warming in some other way. I am at my peal performance when I work in a bazaar-like environment with people walking and talking around my tiny desk. I miss the corporate propaganda on the walls and free snacks full of sugar and preservatives. I miss the germs and viruses that made me stronger. Even if I get Delta variant and suffer serious health damage to sit in the office, it's a perfectly reasonable tradeoff. The pointless shitcode I write at home is just not the same as the pointless shitcode I write at the office. I can't put my finger at what's missing, but something definitely does.
Gaslighers gonna gaslight. You don't need a Ph.D. to see this "research" was guided by motivated reasoning rather than genuine desire to figure out what is going on.
More like "I'm tired of anticipating the inevitable, while being relentlessly gaslit about its probability". Whether or not edX is sold to a third party, the underlying problems are already in the system. It's the effect, not the cause.
This is an excellent question/framing. The security model used in the industry right now is insane and doomed to fail, and yet it is relentlessly pushed forth and defended.
Good. Less cognitive dissonance for me. I can now more confidently and accurately say that the higher ed in US is dead and produces little more than fake credentials and political propaganda.
ECS (which I have not used) sounds a lot like Traits. The name and core concepts for Traits were defined in 2003 in an ECOOP paper [1]. I think traits were first implemented by Squeak Smalltalk in 2005.
1983 Smlltalk-80: The Language and Its Implementation by Adele Goldberg and David Robson had pretty good example with none of this animal/mammal/dog crap. Not sure when the trend for giving awful examples like this really started, but I don't think it was "from the very beginning".
>In all my experience with OOP, it's always been inheritance that is the root of all evil.
It's not, though, and the fact that people keep repeating this meme shows that most developers don't even bother thinking about issues they face beyond superficial blamesplaining.
The reason inheritance causes so many issues in languages like Java is because they are statically typed and also use classes as types[1]. Classes must be somewhere in the inheritance tree, hence you are forced into some place of that tree. To make things worse, Java has many keywords that restrict what inheritor of a class can do (private, final, etc).
Inheritance is much less troublesome in, say, Smalltalk, since the language is dynamically typed. If someone expects you to implement Foo, you can (almost always) just implement its relevant methods without explicitly extending the class. Thus, a whole host of annoying scenarios simply does not occur.
--
[1] BTW, this breaks one of the fundamental commandments of classic OOP: you should not depend on implementation details of an object, only on its message protocol. Obviously, it's impossible to be independent of implementation details if some library forces you to use a particular class.
Alan Kay spent the last 40 years educating people on OOP and system design. His talks and research papers are now widely available on the internet. There are free, modern and easy-to-use versions of Smalltalk. Anyone who still remains ignorant about fundamental ideas behind classic OOP and the paradigm's history is willfully ignorant.
After seeing how Twitter nuked Unity 2020 campaign[1] using "authenticity" as an excuse, and how that garnered zero attention from either tech or political media, I am hyper-skeptical of all claims regarding "authenticity". If you can't objectively demonstrate that something is inauthentic and just make claims based on authority/trust, how can anyone know that you're not simply trying to achieve a political goal of your own by spreading FUD?
Why does every article on mis- and dis-information I see on HN these days starts with some primer that encourages the audience to assume that it's predominantly the product of the political right? In this case the primer takes the following form:
> The utterance emerged in February 2019 from Fox & Friends presenter Pete Hegseth
This is in the first paragraph. Before the subject is properly introduced and defined, before the reader even begins processing what the article says about it, the author encourages the audience to think about how barbarous and primitive Fox News is, which is guaranteed to tint everything that follows.
This is a propaganda technique and it's becoming ubiquitous in modern writing.
This is a horseshit reply that tries to counter an observation about how something actually works with a contrived hypothetical about how something else could work in theory. It ignores the impact of how a medium is organized on the messaging that goes through that medium.
You are smugly describing your personal benefits from the system that is also used to spread massive amounts of propaganda, organize campaigns to socially ruin people and to coordinate political violence.
MDN should be a separate company. Personally, I'm no longer interested in supporting Mozilla in any capacity. Their management behaves in a way that's consistent with the idea that it's barely more than controlled opposition to Google's Chrome team.
That's assuming that those companies want outside developers to be knowledgeable. That's a questionable assumption. If anyone here remembers how old Microsoft used to operate and why people went to get MS-something certificates you know what I mean.
"Free" documentation is often designed to give you barely enough info to start using their products, but not much more. And we're kind of used to this by now. MDN, FreeBSD hanbook or the original set of Smalltalk books stand as exceptions and reminders what things could look like if motivations were different.
>Nostalgia for the simplicity of the past ends up having ugly cultural implications. It's easy to say "let's go back to the time when things were simple"; it's a lot harder to say "folks in (e.g.) Israel shouldn't be able to type in their native language".
This is a ridiculous mischaracterization of what Jonathan Blow was talking about.
Here is the full presentation. Very much worth watching in its entirety and thinking about:
More often than not a problem that looks simple and has insane complexity once you dig a bit deeper is based on some faulty assumptions. Assumptions that either changed over time or never made sense to begin with. The wast majority of software systems out there are significantly simplifiable. However, not all developers are willing to analyze and question fundamental assumptions about systems they deal with. Most, in fact, are far more comfortable learning to jump through arbitrary hoops. They then brag about their "expertise" in the "domain" (which often doesn't even exist outside of software).
Empathy and benefit of the doubt for billionaires who vacation in Fiji and whose kids get a medevac flight to a major city when something goes wrong would look a bit more sane if those were commonly afforded to normal people as well. Which they aren't.