bork1
bork1 on Hacker News
Agreed. In addition to sounding like spitballing, even the linked articles (from what I saw) don't show a clear way in which the former employee came to 70%. Overall this article comes across as fear-mongering but one of the linked sources was an interesting blog post (IMO) about why people should _stop_ providing specific estimations of p(doom).
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EwyviSHWrQcvicsry/stop-talki...
Seems predictable that this announcement would come right after switching to unlimited PTO. I would imagine this reduces the money that the company plans to pay out by quite a bit if they used to pay outgoing employees for unused PTO. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily cynical, though.
I was really excited to see something like this. I really dislike my company's current logging solution (I mostly take issue with how slow querying logs is most of the time). Unfortunately the live demo didn't work. Maybe it was hugged to death? In any case it might be nice to get the demo more stable!
> I remember when Gitlab decidedly said they'll do business with anyone back when people were shaming tech companies for helping and cooperating with ICE a few years ago. That left a bad taste in my mouth.
I could see how this would leave a bad taste in your mouth, but I'm not sure it follows that Github is the lesser evil.
I can't think of specific examples (aside from the EEE philosophy brought up in the post and copilot if you consider that to be a Bad Thing), but Microsoft seems to have done plenty of Bad Stuff in the past. Maybe a comparable amount, if not more, Bad Stuff than GitLab?
> My issue with this movement, is it's amplified the worst of our human nature by having social media (which I recognize I'm consuming right now).
What movement do you mean?
> If you don't want global censoring of opposing ideas we need to have a better way of performing human interactions online.
I absolutely agree with this. My experience with online interactions is that they've been filled with polarized sentiment for a long time (I've heard the sentiment "never read the comments" about news articles on the internet for at least 5 years), not just in the last few months.
males are not females is not a problematic statement. "all lives matter" certainly has a problematic history and "we should not be giving hormone blockers to children" brings up a pretty complex social issue for a lot of folks.
Well, when people argue against BLM/M4BL I often hear calls to statistics. That's a potential bias of my own, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think about what metrics we might be able to use as indicators of whether cancel culture is created by an unsubstantiated bias that some folks have or if it might actually be a phenomenon that has a real impact on the way that the average person communicates.
Basically what I'm saying is that I personally don't feel or notice a lot of "cancel culture" within my own life, and I'm trying to better understand where people feel like it comes from. Data might not be necessary, but it might also make the impacts more clear. I'm just wondering about how to frame the issue in a way that makes sense to me.
Feeling trepidation before posting sentiments that have complex and potentially problematic histories within public discourse does not equate to being targeted by cancel culture.
If I post "the Republic party interfered with Donald Trump's impeachment investigation by not allowing witnesses to testify before Congress" on my social media I'm sure I would get some backlash; that does not mean that I have been cancelled. It means that I've chosen to post decisively about an issue that might not be as black and white as I consider it to be.
I think this framing of the issue is pretty interesting. There are a decent number of articles that talk about how cancel culture affects celebrities, but I do think it would be pretty hard to quantify the effects of cancel culture. It seems hard to define.
Personally, I'm not totally sold by the letter from Harper's. But I don't have data one way or another to support my bias. I don't believe at face value that cancel culture is the root cause (or even a root cause) of the problems folks see with American public discourse. I wonder how to quantify something like this.
as of ~15:45 PDT 5/15 searching saddleback bbq lansing on Google and DDG the links in the advertisements go to the restaurant's website, not GrubHub or DoorDash for me
I'm struggling to figure out how they have a Security and Response team to deal with the fallout of these issues without having enough privacy/security/customer-focused developers/product folks to proactively bring up these concerns. Google _seems_ like the type of company to do at least a little bit of risk modeling before the release of software. If they knew they were going to listen to recordings, how did this concern not get brought up? If it was brought up, did folks just decided it wasn't important enough to protect against?
whoa! This seems like an awesome tool to get around paywalls.
If you press esc quickly after the text has loaded you can stop the pay/privacy wall from loading. It might take a couple of refreshes to get the timing right :)
Oh nice; good to know that there's an easy way to get around that.
One downside is that it basically renders the back button useless. I ran the examples you provided (which were great fun!) and when I tried to get back to hackernews I realized each step in the animation had been added to my browser history