I don't agree. "Diversity" has a commonly accepted meaning which in the US at least, means everything except white men. Female or non-white are "diversity." A great example are the statements and articles from 2020 when Biden announced the most diverse ever White House Communications Team which was 100% female. Biden talked about how critical diversity was and bragged about this 100% female communications team. All the articles I read about it had things like "most diverse White House Communications Team in history" to describe it. At least from a gender perspective, I don't see how they could make it more clear that diversity == women
Thanks, that's an interesting idea. We have developers in the US, Europe, and South America. I have no idea what the median incomes are (or how the salary bands were calculated) but I'll check and see if there are enough consistencies to give a meaninful number.
For those of us pain patients who had their opioid-based medication taken "because of the opioid epidemic" (even though we did nothing wrong and had been stable for many years or even decades) and were just told to "use cannabis" by all the non-pain patients on the internet, and when we said "cannabis doesn't work for me" and you called us liars or said we are using it wrong, this study is not a big surprise.
Meanwhile people I know have been driven to suicide as their only (legal) option to escape the pain, or spending their food money for illegal opioids that might do nothing for you at best or kill you at worst (fentanyl), instead of having reasonable lives and getting safe and known medication from a pharmacy. And these are people who did nothing wrong and hurt nobody. I suspect history is not going to look back kindly on the people who have mismanaged this in such a grotesque and inhumane way (such as politicians and bureaucrats who waved a magic wand and decided that all doctors should scale some percentage of patients down or face legal threats from the DEA or FDA and possibly loss of license), under the guise of trying to help.
Wow, I'm really disappointed by that in Next.js. I love the product, and I'm sure they're being ethical about what they collect and how they track it, but I deploy this on my production servers. The idea of them doing stuff on my production instances that I'm not aware of and don't approve of is not pleasant. Not to say it's fine if it's on personal machines, because I don't think that is either, but yeah.
What's the scene like for music piracy nowadays? It seems like it was mostly gone. I've looked in a few different places and finding music released in the last 10 years is somewhat difficult. Do you just have to know where to look or is music piracy just dead/dying?
I've made this argument to many progressive friends, and nearly all of them replied with a variant of "you're 'bothsides'ing this" which apparently is supposed to mean your argument is invalid. That then leads to me pointing out that world isn't a clear binary and "both (major) sides" can be wrong or have problems. For some reason though, that seems to be the end of the conversation and no progress toward reaching agreement is made.
In this particular case I agree with you. But how would you write this into a law that citizens and police can reference to determine whether a particular action is ok or not?
I'm a social ignoramus so wondering: is the cyclist in this case being a "Karen"?
I have little sympathy for the driver, but it does seem like the cyclist should have reported the driver to the police rather than taking the law into their own hands.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. If you haven't tried it, Alprazolam (Xanax) has been a miracle for panic attacks, although these days it's pretty difficult to get from doctors. Modern American society seems to have decided that any medication that can possibly be abused is evil and must not be used even if somebody could really benefit from it. If you get some though, do NOT take it all the time and build a physical dependence. Withdrawing from Benzos is worse than opioids. If you only take it occasionally though you won't have any issues.
If you are willing to take anti-depressants, definitely go.
low testosterone though, is something many men (including me) have, but practically no doctor is willing to treat. They have one enormous range of "normal" that is calculated including 80 year old men and 20 year old men in the same pool (even though testosterone levels plummet as you age), and if you aren't in the 90 year old man levels (even as a 30 year old) insanely low category they'll just tell you "you're normal" and won't do anything.
After 5 years of getting worse and worse I read something online about that, and even though my levels was right around 300 (I'm in my low 30s) the doc dismissed it. I found a doc who would treat it tho. I'm on a small dose of testosterone replacement therapy, and I am already feeling so much better I can't even believe it. It honestly fills me with rage the way the medical establishment failed me and continues to fail men in this.
It sounds stupid, but seriously dairy causes a lot of issues for people. I hit rock bottom several years ago and did an elimination diet and found a few things I need to avoid, but the biggest one is dairy.
If I accidentally eat some dairy, starting about 2 days later and lasting for a few days, I'll feel really terrible about myself and like there is no hope. Often times there's some suicidal thoughts in there too. Absolutely not worth it.
Oh interesting, no I don't have a source for that. Just something I've read a bunch of times. Probably falls into the "if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes true" (although I don't know that there was nefarious motives behind it, could be honest mistakes like mine)
What do people use as an alternative to SQS? I've had Kafka mentioned a few times but that's way heavier/more complicated than I need. Just a simple queue is perfect, and SQS' API is gloriously simple.
Interesting, I don't think I've noticed the same criticism for Brave. But many times when it has come up in discussions at work, people will say they don't want to use it and don't trust it because Brendan Eich is behind it. He donated money to Prop 8 in California many years ago (which at the time, was very popular. More than half the people in California supported it), and he was fired/cancelled for it (long before the term "cancel culture" was a thing). Unfortunately for Eich, the culture shifted radically during that time, and he became a target (see OkCupid[1]). IIRC it was like 7 or 8 or so years after Prop 8 that the news leaked, and like most Americans Eich had changed his mind on it. But it didn't/doesn't matter, he has been branded and is forever tainted.
Oh absolutely. The reason the Boston Tea Party is celebrated is because their side won the war. Had the British won, it would have been one of the many wicked/evil "rebellions" against the King that got crushed.
But I'm not really seeing the connection here or why it invalidates the Unabomber example.
I don't think it's cynical at all, I think it's just accepting reality. Our advanced consciousness is just a very thin layer of abstraction on top of the same brain/mind that powers many other animals. Some of the best minds who study this, question if there's even any such thing as "free will" at all.
I don't think recognizing that is conflicting at all with a positive outlook, or the choice to be optimistic, or a humanist, etc. You can choose to believe it or choose not to believe it, and still value human life and try to progress humanity forward.
Also don't underestimate the value/incentive of following your conscience, acting out your beliefs etc. Cognitive dissonance (which results from not doing so) is deeply uncomfortable and a good motivator for being "altruistic."
> If you have the power to do something and you don't, that's taking a side. You either oppose something or you enable it. At least own that. If you're saying you're neutral, you either agree with the unpopular side and are scared to admit it, or you can't form an opinion because you're uninformed and thus uncivil, or you feel unaffected by what's happening and thus discompassionate. Either way, that's pretty much the definition of "acting like a kid".
I think this is an interesting argument, and I think it translates to a real world example quite well. For example, if my older kid hits younger kid I have to either:
1. Punish the older kid, taking the "side" of the younger kid
2. Not punish the older kid, thus taking the "side" of the older kid
however I think there's more nuance here than just that, because either of the kids could be lying. I wasn't' there, I have no video footage or proof, so I can only investigate and interrogate, and at some point I have to make a decision. Often times it comes down to the question of which is worse? Punishing an innocent kid, or letting a crime go unpunished?
The answer to that is far from clear to me. As an authority and neutral arbiter, I have a duty to administer justice, and I don't think taking a view that punishing an innocence can be worse than not punishing a guilty (obviously individual circumstances really matter here).
I also have a full time job, and I can't arbitrate between my kids all day long. I have limited time/attention. Given that there are dozens of issues every day that come up, and I don't have enough bandwidth to handle them, some packets will by necessity have to drop.
How do you know which position on which issue is the "right" one to default too when you don't have enough information? Given your argument, you must default to one of them. What criteria do you use when you have limited info?