Jut claim NSA did it and you've been forbidden to elaborate.
Writing code is a creative process. Obviously creator's attitudes infuse the creations.
Comparison to handwriting is a poor one, if somewhat evocative. It's more like writer's style.
Some creators adopt YAGNI philosophy, writing code that is simple, easy to understand, but doesn't suggest any expansion paths, and can turn to spaghetti if the expansions are managed. Some reinvent every wheel, writing every function themselves, others take the "golden hammer" to the extreme and create a dependency hell, trying to create a small centralized core that does everything using library functions. Some create rigid user interface following optimal use cases (actual or mistakenly imagined), others take customizability to the extreme, making the interface unusable mess until you take half an hour to configure it and remove all the crap you don't need. Some make programs that do only what says on the box and nothing more, others create APIs or operating systems disguised as applications.
Systemd started as a very simple, neat idea:
- create an alternative for initV that parallelizes startup of services;
- to speed up startup more, not to delay startup of services waiting until other services initialized, provide socket management, creating sockets "customer" programs would wait for, then bind them to their standard "providers" once they started up.
- do away with rigid sequence, instead manage startup as a set of dependencies to reach a certain state.
The idea was very sound and nice. Except it didn't end there.
- Some services needed these sockets actually working and not just present. So let's replace the provider and create own replacement as a part of systemd! And screw well established strategy, we're rewriting it our way! Here, take the binary log files!
- Some services didn't really work with the "dependency tree" strategy, since ancient times written as sequences of operations. These couldn't be easily parallelized. So screw your firewall, have ours!
- Some services used alternate communication methods that sockets. Kill them off, replace with systemd functions!
- Some of them would centralize startup of other services as needed. But that's our job! Die, inetd with your easy config!
And even if each "motion" by itself had a valid justification, the replacements offered by systemd are sub-par. Primarily because systemd developers don't believe in simple, straightforward, easy configurations. It's their attitude rubbing off.
A decent system does offer a lot of flexibility, with all kinds of obscure options, but it primarily offers sensible defaults for every obscure option, so you can get your basic work done in 2-3 lines, and if that's not sufficient, you will find what more can and needs to be done, never forcing you to state the obvious. Systemd though doesn't. You need to alliterate every little thing you want it to do, because the defaults just aren't there. And with some of its demands being quite obscure, it's often hard to find *what* the defaults should be. "Why should we make it easy if we can make it hard? If nobody ever has to write all these little details, they'll never know we had to work to implement handling them!"
> Interestingly enough I found myself coding
there, no need to elaborate more, you are a nerd
You think C is late-night?
Add the keyword 'assembly'. It only drops off after midnight, leaves the rest in the dirt in the evening hours and falls way behind the curve during the day.
The right thing is to have competent people perform the hiring, hire a couple competent admins, and treat them well.
They don't go rogue "for teh lulz".
India has a very high income disparity - and enormous population. Taken as average it appears very poor, but if you just look at the sheer number of people with considerable disposable income, you'll spot a market comparable in size to Western Europe.
Spain is a pretty rich country, about on par with France.
But if you're an arrogant millenial idiot, you think "Spain = latin america" and "India = only poor, dirty people."
Asking "why" is dangerous nowadays.
And asking "why" is absolutely unnecessary for writing risk assessment software. Correlation is not causation, but correlation is sufficient to assess the risk.
While correlation is not causation, correlation is sufficient in computer learning systems.
Also, computer learning should be resistant against manipulation through fake input data, and this is achievable by prioritizing inputs that are difficult to falsify.
Determining ethnic background is more immune to tampering and falsification than determining one's socioeconomic situation.
I'm trying to imagine the response if he was white though.
Why what was considered perfectly normal ten years ago causes outrage of offense now?
People didn't become offensive pricks. It's the standard of what is considered offensive that's slipping.
So instead of "Why do you WANT to be an offensive prick?" I'll ask "why do you WANT to be a primadonna who actively seeks out new things to be offended about and rebrands perfectly normal stuff as offensive?"
A good system will be immune to manipulation. It will ask questions people are less likely to lie to, get data that is easily verified, mistrust data that can be falsified. It can't assume all applicants will tell the truth all the time - many will try to game it, to get their way, through guessing what the system expects.
Effect: things like stability of personal income or experience level, job stability, or health are way less verifiable than stuff like race, gender, age, and account balance.
Absolutely not easy. Any attempt to prove it will be met with violent protests, death threats, smear campaign, disciplinary action, lawsuits, and possibly acts of direct violence. Essentially, if your research proves any kind of inequality, either tweak the data until that vanishes, or bury it and make the world forget. Any attempt to publish will be a suicide in the profession.
And don't worry if you falsify your data to remove the inequality. If someone tries to challenge you, all you need is to complain about them on progressive sites and they will be silenced.
It is difficult to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys.