..or the social justice crowd set its sights on IT in the last few years and the left-friendly media is painting him as such..
... the leaders of the community are prioritising the "need" for people to express themselves aggressively over other people's potential need for respectful and sensitive communication.
Yup, that's right. It's their communication style and it has worked well for them for years. If people with 'sensitive needs' want to participate, they should have to toughen up, or fork the code and show those mean bastards the superiority of 'sensitive' interaction styles. Sharp has no right to impose her expectations on them. They've made it clear they don't respect whiners who can't handle harsh criticism for mistakes, and what does she do? Whine. What a joke.
It's all very well to say that people need to learn not to take things personally, but the fact is that you can't possibly know - especially not over a mailing list - just what emotional or personal issues a person might be going through. Do you really a want a situation where curious and potentially talented developers are put off contributing to an important project because of a toxic culture?
It doesn't matter how talented the person is if those emotional problems prevent rational acceptance of criticism, especially if the person is now in a critical role. Linus gets a lot of flack for his bluntness, but he really only lets loose when someone in such a role fucks up big time. One individual's (or group's) toxic culture is another's productive environment. The only way to change the culture is to compete and outpace it with superior productivity. In the case of the kernel, she should fork it and start her own team to show linus and friends how it's done.
No they don't. Feminism presents it as a battle between male space or a female space. It's a false dichotomy. The hypocrisy is that feminists expect men to take the 'chivalrous' route and modify their interaction styles for women, yet asking women to reciprocate with some toughness and objectivity is 'oppressive' or 'misogynistic.' The net result is that men are driven out of areas where women have gotten their PC 'safe spaces' for their interaction and thinking styles because men do not do well there. Just ask a male nurse. Fighting discrimination with discrimination is not a solution.
I'm a fan of what works for a given environment and given group of people. The individuals making up the bulk of the effort are the ones who decide the culture simply because they are the most productive. Anything else would drive these productive individuals out and weaken the result. Linus and his lieutenants are far more productive than sarah sharp is, and she is not happy with the interaction style they set, so she goes. No big loss. She's welcome to either adapt to that or work on a different project. If her viewpoint is truly superior and her politics in line with reality, it should be a no brainer to fork the kernel and demonstrate this. The best contributors would flock to her and, in time, her branch would be the technically superior one. She should be showing us 'misogynists' how it's done instead of whining and stirring up shitstorms.
Feminism (and the social justice crowd in general) hate the idea of judging on merit and performance.
Some random quick google searches. Note how they contort the language and definitions..
This has also infected academia. It's no surprise a lot of people with sarah sharp's attitudes have come out of the university system.
Apparently, we also live in a world where people like to imply distinctions where none exist. Words have definitions for a reason.
You know, it's corporates AND governments, too. At this level, the whole right/left battlefield is just a circus put on for the rest of us.
I don't buy that. Any place 'don't be evil' fits, 'do the right thing' fits as well, and both are subjective, dangerously so.
Honesty would be refreshing in today's age of political correctness and doublespeak. As far as kindness goes, sure, as long as it's not mandated. Once it's mandated, it becomes shallow and meaningless.
They're only evil towards copyright because it resists their business model of information aggregation, and they are evil towards ibm because ibm competes with them. None of this has to do with giving a damn about doing the right thing (whatever that is).
The more they control, the more they get to control.
Plenty. The issue is overeating.
What you describe has more to do with being grotesquely overweight than drinking soda.
Both are based on subjectivity. What is evil to some is good to others, what is right to some is wrong to others, etc. Google's behavior to date vs the criticisms it has received is evidence of this.
Its not helping them. The entire market needs to integrate and using incompatible tech that isn't employed much elsewhere... and doesn't especially offer any benefits is not a fantastic idea.
At the very least, sprint should transition to 100 percent hybrid phones and networks.
I'm not touching any carrier that I can't just use a sim card for at this point. I'm also done with contracts etc.
I'm happy to sign up to pay X per month every month. However, I'm not agreeing to be bound for X years into that contract. Its month to month or no deal.
Every government agency pleads poverty when they fail... even when the argument is laughable.
Take education... they spend more on it every year and the test scores drop year after year. You can also point at schools that get much less money that do much better while looking at schools that get lots of money that do very poorly. There's no correlation between funding and success in public education.
And you can find similar patterns in a lot of other government services. Simply throwing money at something is not a reliable means to get quality service. And by the same token, cutting a budget does not mean you get poor service either.
In the case of the EPA, I think we can think of a lot of ways for the EPA to have done a better job here without actually having to spend a dime.
Claiming poverty is merely a dodge. If they had received all the money they wanted... they still could have f'ed it up. Look at the ACA scandal where they spent absolutely absurd amounts of money building a website... and it still failed.
Giant piles of money =/= success or competence.
And there are operations around the US and the world that do all sorts of amazing work on a shoe string.
The US needs to get away from this notion that budgets can be infinite. Belts need to be tightened and institutions that can't cope with that need to have the fat trimmed.
In my experience working with government agencies, there are a LOT of people working for the agency that do almost literally nothing. I mean... in some cases they literally are spending their days using the office internet to search for pornography and then jerking off in their offices. Literally all day every day. What makes this even somewhat work is that you have a small cadre of really dedicated hard working people that carry the water for the whole agency. THOSE people deserve to be paid. The people jerking off in their offices do not.
Saying the EPA couldn't error check some f' up at VW for 10 years because of budget problems is an insult to our intelligence and a condemnation of anyone's intelligence that buys that line of crap.
The EPA f'ed up. Period. No buck passing. No finger pointing. Just accept it.
A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle