frubar

This is what a lot of people want to believe but orientation seems to depend more on culture than genes (e.g. Ancient Greece, US Prisons, etc.).

>Very true. Well, except maybe for that one time when Germany became an open-air rape camp under the noses of police who did nothing for fear of being accused of racism.

What an awful example and has nothing, what so ever to do with the laws against being a Nazi. Do you honestly believe the US has never avoided reporting something for fear of being labeled? Really?

The other example you gave was covered by others in the thread. Spoiler: it's a lie.

>So I decided to go at it on my own and charge a rate I felt I was worth. Best career decision I've made so far.

I think this, above all else, is the key to the frustration and ever decreasing salaries we're seeing. The market has spoken: employees just aren't worth that much. If you want to capture more of the value you create you'll need to go into business for yourself. It's risky, but sitting a desk in a huge office watching rates go down and down will probably turn out to be more risky in the end if you can't retire before it gets too bad.

Having said all that, would you mind expanding on exactly what you did?

If you spend a lot of money you're not guaranteed to get the best. But if you go cheap you are nearly guaranteed to get a bad developer/product/whatever.

Well, this is all new to me as well but the way I've seen it presented (from multiple sources) it seems to be person-specific. If there is a way to increase you "cup size" either I haven't yet seen it (wouldn't be surprising) or it isn't yet known.

> there will be transforms back for 10->9, 9->8, 8->7... all the way back to 2. It works well enough.

We did something like this in the on a message bus: the channels had the version in the name and and older version service always asked for the same data on the next version channel (the only other version it knew about), and then transformed it before sending it on. This meant you never had to maintain anything accept your newest version. It also meant you could never completely remove data because versions going obsolete needed a way to find or derive it to create their older version.

>They're defining a bunch of custom media types, which in of itself is pretty weird,

No it isn't. If you're doing REST and your resources are not completely trivial (arguably, even if they are) you should be defining a custom media type for them (think HTML5).

>but then they're not actually using those media types as the Content-Type of the response.

Ok, that is very weird.

> if so, are they so dense in not understanding how normal people running red lights is less of an issue here than a machine running that red light?

I disagree. A machine might be able to completely verify that it's safe to ignore the light. I wouldn't trust a person to do that.

That could just as easily be interpreted that he's stuck with this spelling mistake (as he said in the other quote) and now asks us to play along ("that's, uh, just how they talked!").

I'd like to work where you work. My experience with management has been "barely hanging on" to "actively damaging the company" with a few "adequate" and 1 or 2 "inspiring" thrown in the mix.

I'm not saying those women aren't "smart", I don't know them personally. I'm saying it doesn't matter if they are or not.

Actually the GP is incorrect. It's pretty well understood [1] these days that your body is like a "cup" that can only take a certain amount of stress before it starts getting counter productive. Mental stress and center-nervous-system stress (what weight training does) both contribute so if you already have a lot of one you're forced to have less than the other or everything suffers.

[1] I'm not in a position to hunt links but lookup "Alan Thrall stress" on youtube.

I think you mean you'll project it everywhere. I say this to my kids as well, not to signal anything but to engage their creativity. A lot of kids these days can't figure anything to do if they don't have a device in their hands. I had to routinely ride in a car for 8+ hours as a kid and mobile devices either didn't exist or were so expensive as to may as well not exist. A lot of my creativity today stems from techniques I developed in those times.

>This is a fair point, but in many cases you need to be rich, hard working, and smart.

Like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardasian, etc.? No, rich is still the only requirement. Those other things just give you more options.

>But sometimes the laws of physics leave you no choice, in which case accepting that fact can save you a lot of heartache and frustration.

Different views of the world, I guess. If the laws of physics "leave me no choice" I'm personally going to still consider that my responsibility and look for ways to prevent that situation in future, if possible. Sometimes there really is nothing you could have done (e.g. fired by a scumbag boss who didn't reveal their nature until it was too late to do anything about it) but there is nearly always something you can do to respond.

>And why should I ignore that? It seems like a pretty salient fact in the context of this conversation.

I was half joking with the comment, but the non-joking part was more to say that just because this guy wasn't able to take his own advice and contain his "horrible master" doesn't mean everything he said is invalid. It's still something to strive for.

>In many languages: arr[idx] = nevalue

The thing you have to keep in mind is that this kind of naked mutation is probably the main source of bugs in programming today. One of the main advantages of OO was that it demarcated which functions could modify a "global" variable. But if I get a weird value in one of my fields, I still can't trivially tell how it got there, I can only narrow down to methods of the class (and possibly the inheritance tree, depending on variable visibility).

Due to that, there is more ceremony in modifying things in Haskell. The language works best if you write most of your code in a way that doesn't mutate anything and then limit mutation to a small area using the advanced techniques developed in the language. But doing all this requires a pretty substantial investment so you probably need something to convince you that the end will be worth it before you start. I don't know what you tell you, what got me interested was something like:

> fibs = 1 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)

and

> max = head . sort

but I understand that's not going to motivate most people to completely change how they approach programming as a discipline.

>You use quotes to show that I said something but I did no such thing.

No, I explicitly stated that I was grouping your posts in with others that seem similar to me (and acknowledged that I could be in error on that).

>But regardless, at least they don't stoop to putting words in my mouth that I never used in that particular order and with that particular goal.

You're a software developer, right? So think a bit more abstract. I suspect my point fits to things you've written in this thread.

>Let's hope not, it would be painful for all involved.

Why? Thinking stupid things is part of growing up. The much more important bit is eventually correcting as many of those things as possible.

>But the present day Nazis and their sympathizers have no such excuse.

Here we're in agreement. If someone identifies as a Nazi then the game changes. But I just see a lot of e.g. Trump supporters right now that I can't shake the feeling that they're not being evil they're just ignorant on a lot of things the rest of us aren't.

>It's not going to be a large change but speaking out about this stuff is the least that we can do.

Please don't take my replies as trying to shut you down. My point is entirely about tone. Nothing else.

What I would be afraid of, here, is that if there are signs that big data can uncover that peel out some catastrophic disease from your workout data that would mean your insurance company knows you're very ill long before you do... It would extremely tempting not to do something about that knowledge that helps the company even if it hurts a soon-to-be-dead-anyway person.

>What if you were mugged?

In general, any time you point to others and say "they did this to me" you remove your own power to change the situation. You may have to be creative, but personally I never want to give others that power.

> but I don't think you can (or should) take responsibility for what you feel because you don't have control over that.

I disagree with this. I consider the mind a muscle like any other. It can be trained and taught more productive ways of thinking [1].

[1] https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWKenyonAddress2005.pdf (please ignore that the author of this speech later shot himself in the head)

I don't mean physical aggression, I mean verbal bullying. And I may be projecting other "similar feeling" posts to yours too much.

But the kind of behavior I'm seeing now is a bit saddening. I remember when HN guidelines said something to the effect of "Instead of saying 'C++ was created after C, idiot' you can shorten it to 'C++ was created after C'". But I see posts in the tone of yours which say something like "The left has isolated incidents of violence by deranged people, blasted by leaders on the left while the right has much more dangerous and common events which seem to be supported by the leadership. To put these two together is disingenuous and could only be done by a fascist.", where that last sentence could just be left off.

The issue is assuming the absolute worst of everyone you talk to online that doesn't hold your opinion. Maybe the poster just has ignorant friends/family and really doesn't know any better. Maybe they have opinions right now that they're going to be really embarrassed about in 10-20 years. But if you immediately group them together with people like Hitler (didn't this used to kill the thread?) then you give up any hope of educating them (or, more importantly, other people on the fence who are reading the exchange). So I have to wonder what is even the utility of such posts except to signal to others which camp you're in.

>Damore and this article made a few points based on reason and science and logical arguments and such

No he didn't [1]. I strongly dislike SJWs, but this guy is no ally. He's, at best, shockingly ignorant (what do I keep hearing about how google only gets the best?) at worst a fascist or fascist apologist.

[1] https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

>To toss that all onto the same heap is disingenuous at best.

I feel like what people who behave as you are miss is that it could just be ignorance. Ignorance can be cured but not with aggression. Did you see the story where a black man befriended a bunch of KKK and they all ended up leaving the organization at the end? He didn't get that result with righteous indignation even if he had every right to be righteously indignant.

I think it's you, I've seen nearly nothing about perl anywhere for quite a while.

Where on earth did you go to school? Was it a public school? I moved around a lot as a kid and no where did I learn any of the things you mentioned.

Isn't it more of a game theory situation? If your competitors exploit their workers and you don't then you will be too expensive?

Sure, the problem is always the idea. I don't know how many more times someone can make another bingo card maker or time scheduling system and have it still work.

Only in software development are we expected to go out of our way to support people who don't know what they're doing. Imagine a medical student complaining the professor that the scalpel doesn't cut on the dull end or a would-be airline pilot upside down in their seat complaining he can't reach the controls.

And your comment about never breaking existing userbase code is as ridiculous as it is unreasonable. This would only be a reasonable expectation if only correct code were possible to run. Since it's possible to run broken code (as this anecdote demonstrates) then it must be possible to fix the system even if that breaks some poorly written, but popular systems.

Does anyone want a world of e.g. Windows where decades old bugs have to be replicated because we can't dare break programs so old all the authors are retired or dead? I don't. Backwards compatibility has a cost and I'm not willing to pay it unconditionally.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why hackernews is still always talking about AWS. Every single time I've tried to look at it for a use case of mine it's the most expensive possible option. Cloud? Sure, I see the benefit and plan to go on the cloud (probably Azure, IBM or so). AWS? I don't get it.

Which also doesn't exist. What does exist is a qualified worker shortage at low salaries.

Most communication that occurs is already not monitored. If I go to a restaurant or a coffee shop, no one is monitoring what I say.

Just because it is technically feasible to do something doesn't mean there is some obligation to do it. We should treat external parties intercepting our traffic the same way we would treat those third parties trying to install microphones in our houses to listen to us.