Headphones are a piss-poor substitute for walls.
Headphones are a piss-poor substitute for walls.
So the guy's a pervert: does that mean his code quit working? Is he trying to fuck other contributors? Has he done anything to anyone without their consent?
I've worked with plenty of people in my time who are into things that I don't approve of, from voting for socialists to trying to be Heinlein characters, but if they don't bring it to the office, it's none of my business. That goes double for an open-source project where they're donating their work.
Enough with the goddamned neo-puritans. There's work to be done, for fuck's sake.
Unless your house is floating in the atlantic, this won't be an issue.
2014 called -
Forget Makerbot - did you warn them about the Paris attacks? The Ankara bombings? The Metrojet bombing? Did you tell them to have Robin Williams visit a psychiatrist? Did you tell them to have Carrie Fisher visit a cardiologist? Did you have them warn Ukraine not to underestimate Russia in Donbass? Did you tell Germanwings to up their game on psych evals? Did you tell them to teach Podesta basic email security? Did you tell about Brexit? Did you warn them about Trump? Did you have anyone tell Clinton that she'll be best known for email servers and a conspiracy theory about a pizza parlor's occult child pornography dungeon? Did you warn Bowling Green about the horrific terror attack, and the cruel irony that people will forget about it?
Is it really that expensive? I know some people who had run a small startup automaker that raised 30-something million. They were about 3 months out from first commercial deliveries (having made a couple dozen prototypes to various degrees, ranging from empty shells to full builds), with about $10m still left in the bank - when the board decided to bring on a guy from Detroit (Paul Wilbur, the guy responsible for the Chevy SSR, and a bunch of other train-wrecks-in-car-form), who then proceeded to run the company into the ground.
Are aircraft that much more expensive than cars, that you can't even build a demonstrator for that kind of money? To be fair, the automaker's vehicle was technically classified as a motorcycle, so their regulations weren't as onerous as for most cars (but they still did full crash and crush tests anyway, voluntarily). But, I mean, they just churned out prototypes one after the next.
Documents 6 bankruptcies, and 13 businesses that closed up shop - at the very least suggests he doesn't know what he's doing.
Business has something in common with war and engineering:
1 You try a bunch of stuff that looks like it might work.
2 Some of it works, some of it doesn't.
3a. You stop doing (and wasting resources on) what doesn't work
3b, and continue doing more of what does (transferring any remaining resources from the abandoned paths.)
In business, step 3a is called "a large business environment, major projects are done in separate subsidiary corporations. This uses the "corporate veil" as a firewall, to keep the failed attempts from reaching back and sucking up more resources from what's succeeding. Dropping a failed experiment in step 3a (when it's failed so badly that there's nothing left to salvage in a different attempt's 3b) is called "bankruptcy". It lets you stop throwing good money after bad and move on.
So bankruptcy is NOT necessarily a sign of weakness, stupidity, or lack of business acumen. On the contrary: It shows the decision-maker was smart enough to spend a bit extra to erect the firewall between the bulk of his holdings and the iffy project.
So a successful large-business-empire-operator who is also innovative will usually have a number of bankruptcies in his history. It's no big deal, anyone in business at or near that level knows it, and took it into account if they risked some of their resources in someone else's experiment that failed in the hope of profit if it succeeded.
Also: Someone starting out may have to few resources to run many experiments simultaneously. (Or even a big guy may be reduced to a little guy by too many failures - not necessarily his fault.) So he has to try serially, doing only one or a few at a time. This may mean total bankruptcy, even multiple times, before coming up with something that does work. Lots of successful businessmen went through total bankruptcy, sometimes several times, before hitting it big.
Also, regarding your
We seem to have made it through 240-something years as a nation without bathroom laws, I don't think the world is going to end now. Nobody seems to be beating anybody up in bathrooms for being trannies and no trannies seem to be bothering other people in the bathrooms. Let people sort it out on their own...just go to the room that causes the least fuss and nobody will notice or care. Just don't fuck with people when they're shitting. It is an issue for people to work out on their own, in their own communities, and does not require national debate or the intervention of the federal government.
Oh dear, you're a condescending twit, aren't you?
pissed off some of their largest customers.
Did it, though? I mean, do you really think some ad weenie at AT&T happened upon one of their ads played over a racist video and said "Oh no, this terrible, I must alert the management so they can take a moral stance on this issue!" No, of course not. This is political faction A trying to hurt political faction B by attacking their funding.
I blame whoever popularized "white privilege." At that point the left dropped all pretense of "helping black people" and switched straight to "hurt white people."
What they care about is not being associated in the public mind with such socially unacceptable content
Except nobody knows or cares about it without these stories. Unless you're watching socially unacceptable content, you don't know what products are being advertised during the socially unacceptable content. And if you're watching socially unacceptable content, you probably like it, and aren't bothered by an advertiser "supporting" the socially unacceptable content. And if you've got two brain cells to rub together, you understand that in YouTube's advertising model the advertiser is not choosing specifically who they're supporting and not supporting, so the association is incidental.
It really has nothing to do with the advertiser or their image, and is just a pretense for political faction A to harm political faction B by attacking their funding.
America also seems to have an obsession with toilet habits, particularly those of transgender people.
You need to stop watching American news media and think it is at all indicative of the opinions or concerns of the American people. The vast majority of regular people do not give a shit one way or the other about tranny bathrooms.
who don't want to be in an environment where they are constantly affronted by the depravities of deranged fools.
Are they though? If you don't want to see racist videos, don't watch racist videos. I could see the problem if ads for racist/offensive/terrorist things were popping up during the playback of non-offensive content, but who exactly is getting offended here? Somebody watching a video game review or cat videos isn't getting ads for Nazi Youth Camp or ISIS recruiting. And if ads for AT&T are showing up during "12 Reasons Hitler Did Nothing Wrong (#6 will shock Jews)" so what? Nazis need cell phones too. And unless you're watching those videos, you have no idea any of this is going on.
No one is being "constantly affronted by the depravities of deranged fools." What we have is one political faction trying to silence another by declaring it "offensive" and attacking its source of funding by going after advertisers. Now the censors at Google can go wild banning their political opponents under the guise of fiscal responsibility.
NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater