Any argument for the use of arbitrary power that relies on the integrity of the current users of that power is fundamentally flawed. The secret capacity to spy on large swaths of US citizens inverts the relationship between the people and the government. Every monarchy until the advent of constitutional monarchies was a dictatorship. There are decades when those dictatorships works well and people were relatively happy - good king and court, good country.
The problem with arbitrary power is - bad king or bad court, bad country. And it can happen overnight. The problem with the power of that king being derived from espionage against the many decision-makers who are supposed to be in power is that the king can exercise that power without public knowledge.
How do you know that EVERYONE in the NSA is using that power responsibly? How do you know that someone isn't being secretly exploited? Our intended investments, our contacts, our intimate conversations, our whereabouts.... That's a lot of information and a lot of power.
Linux is great and Linus deserves a ton of praise. But there's nothing good about being biggest. I suspect SystemD has played a big role in the Linux project becoming so big. If the kernel without the bootloader, et al is 20+ million LOC - YIKES!!
There are some very convenient things for desktop users now.... That's an important part of growing the user base....
All this post does for me is stress me out.
Millions? Do the T's really number in the millions?
The New York Times had an article about the difficulties of estimating the number of transgender people. The estimate they came up with from various studies was 700,000 people in the US (between
As a point of comparison, there are 1.8 million Muslim adults in the US (and 2.75 million people - lots of kids). I quote the adult population because it was easy to find and the transgender population is pretty much all adult. There are 5.3 million jews in the US.
Compare that to 14 million asians, 38 million black people, 55 million latinos, and 256 million caucasians.
2 or 3 people per thousand is a pretty small minority but it's not infinitesimal. Assuming the NYT decided to tell the truth (not a guarantee), every major retailer in the US interacts with several transgender people per day. That's enough people to form a minority class that merit some special protections.
While the American SJW industry thrives on blowing things out of proportion, this is not an issue that is so rare that it hardly exists. Whether its a large enough issues to change our expectations of who we'll encounter in a public bathroom is a question that isn't so simple if you look at raw demographics. It get's clearer when you look at other factors.
Transgender people face a remarkable level of violence compared to other populations. That fact alone demands a certain amount of urgency. If allowing them to use a bathroom consistent with their appearance can reduce violent encounters for this minority, it seems like a relatively small sacrifice. Of course, I'm a college educated, urban, non-practicing Catholic, cis-gendered, white collar dude from California. If I was the test for these kinds of things they'd sell weed at Walgreens.
I thought that RedK and Rockoon were being a bit shrill calling you an SJW until I read,
"...I would happily accept STEM being 90% male if there was evidence that all involved made a free choice, but there is actually a lot of evidence to the contrary."
In the spirit of fairness, I'm going to first present an article that aggregates support for your general argument in a well organized advocacy piece: https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-stem
Academic settings tend to encourage examinations into topics that have the potential to over turn accepted ideas. This is actually a significant bias especially regarding fuel for the social justice agenda. So it won't be surprising that there are studies looking into this "problem" and coming out with support for the idea that it's a problem.
Here's another way to view it that is sufficiently obvious that it doesn't need a study.
American society has been actively encouraging girls and women to take an interest in STEM for about 40 years and got focused about it 10 years ago.
The Association for Women in Science was founded in 1971
WEPAN was founded in 1990
The AAUW started the Tech-Savvy program in 2006
The National Math and Science Initiative was founded in 2007
National Girls Collaborative Project
And there's Scientista and Million Women Mentors and... and... and....
My point is that there is AMPLE support for girls and women to enter STEM education and STEM careers. That support has been around long enough to successfully work its influence. And the result has been zero or negative change in the number of women entering college in STEM.
It seems remarkably biased and disingenuous to HUNT for reasons for this in STEM culture. Will you find some male bias there? Sure! Is that male bias the signal you should come away from after beating a drum to increase women in STEM for decades and getting no significant increase in APPLICATIONS for STEM in higher education among women (a class of people over represented in college populations already)?!
Here's what this tells me - A certain percentage of girls and women are into STEM. A certain greater percentage of boys and men are into STEM. The cause of the disparity between these percentages is not due to a lack of support or an exclusionary STEM culture.
This doesn't mean that STEM culture is without male bias. It doesn't mean that it's legitimate to ignore concerns about that bias. It doesn't mean that there aren't gender biases in the greater culture at work on girls and women that keep them from taking an interest.
But it also doesn't mean that men in STEM are part of a pervasive culture of denial when they observe that there are less women interested in their field. It doesn't mean that when all the digital assistants end up defaulting to female that it's part of some blind male presumption. We've been imagining robot voices sounding like Sigourney Weaver for 30 f**king years. In Hollywood, with the exception of Kit, J.A.R.V.I.S, and Max Headroom, EVERY GODDAMN COMPUTER VOICE sounds like Sigourney Weaver. Every countdown sounds like her. Every warning system... every magic talking box.
That voice is a MARKETING decision- not a tech decision. The order in which bugs are fixed is largely a business decision - not a tech decision. And, if you've done enough work in tech, you know that the shortfall in women programmers is made up for in a larger percentage of women in marketing and management.
So, when the various commenters went on their tirade about the SJW nonsense posing as an article in the OP, they had a pretty good point. They weren't demonstrating that they were part of the problem. They were observing yet another irritating, stupid bug in the system of social justice advocacy that allows idiots to cut the legs out from a movement that has legitimate things to do (like saving girls around the world from sex slavery) in order to shit out another diamond-hard nugget of uptight clickbait.
Democracy doesn't imply that every human has a vote, nor that each vote has equal weight. Plato, for example, wanted to limit voting to the educated. I tend to agree, Others have had votes with different weighting, much like some publicly traded companies have.
Unfortunately most of the "education" in the US is re-education.
Philosophy hasn't used reason since the 60s. Did you ever read OF GRAMMATOLOGY? It's a really interesting read if you suspend any kind of rigor and just go with it. Kind of like a novel with no characters.
If it weren't for some of a halos taking a while to set behind the horizon, I'd put the break with reason with the later works of Nietzsche. Brain cancer is a bitch.
Toyota's trucks and 4x4s share a code base with those cars that have unintended acceleration problems and over 2000 global variables. Remember them? For the price of a Land Rover you can get a Ford F350 - a vehicle that could literally pull a Land Rover up a 45 degree incline at freeway speeds while it fought with all its might to drive the other way.
We have this thing in the US called a blizzard. When your Land Rover gets stuck in snow (which isn't easy, their excellent 4x4s), an F350 or its GMC or Dodge equivalent shows up to save you. And then it continues on saving a few dozen more like you before it's driver has to stop for a nap.
Uuhm. In general you're right about Nixon leaving office driving a lot of new information on surveillance of citizens into the public eye but Nixon was elected in 1969 and MLK was assassinated in 1968. So, if Nixon was monitoring MLK I'd imagine it was for a oligochaetology study.
J. Edgar Hoover monitored MLK and pretty much everybody else. Maybe that's who you were thinking of.
...better than spending up to one solitary hour hesitantly prodding at a poorly-explained API, never to be discussed or revisited?
I wish I had mod points because this is REALLY, REALLY funny!! There's just something so fatalistic and humble about it. how much of programming is just that kind of torture? You look at the "documentation" and there aren't even dates or version numbers and nothing in the API actually looks what's described except, "Hello World." You open the code and there's one comment every 500 lines. You dust off for the weekend just as you see an email announcing changes to API you just "finished" working with....
Kinda makes you wonder if you're really so smart after all.
Given that programming has the potential to be a creative act and that we've hardly scratched the surface of what is possible with technology, I strongly doubt programmers will go hungry if you add an additional few hundred million over the next few decades. The technology job pool is not a fixed thing.
Even assuming you recruit an entire generation, what programmer doesn't use and depend on applications other programmers write? Yes, you'll no longer be able to charge significant money for tech flimflam based on easy stuff. That would be the equivalent of knowing how to write a letter. But the higher you go up the capability chain, the better off you are that there are more programmers able to make use of your code.
If we built everything we can think of that we now consider physically possible, chances are there would be millions of more things we couldn't imagine by the time we were done and every one of them represents work for someone.
https://soylentnews.org is a place the cool kids are trying to build out into something that does the old fun and useful
My HS science teacher would race people with calculators and always win with his slide rule. When he was at his desk he'd move the thing back and forth really fast but when he was racing someone he always slid it along all even and slow and eyeballed them like they were trying to get him to believe a lie or something. It was really funny to watch.
Can I have a legible process tree with that magic, please? I like to actually know what's going on. I guess I can call systemd-analyze with whatever options look fun, ps with "matching options(?)" and then pipe those through a filter/formatter that gives me a static look.... Then run that on a loop to see a near real-time update.
And then there's doing something about it.... because if I find something that's not working for me I get to find something to replace that part of systemD, replace it (with whatever labor that takes) and recompile!!!
That's a fair amount of work for a system administrator to do compared to looking at their processes, finding what's causing a problem and replacing it with a better solution. It adds a layer of complexity.
AND, the dependencies of various applications will still be looking for systemD and expecting everything it does. So when I replace that thing, instead of knowing it's on a list of possible dependencies for a given app, I'm on my own.
SystemD adds opacity and what it gives back in exchange requires a sea-change in every corner of the *NIX ecosystem or the net benefit is negative.
And it makes it feel like your diddling a registry key whenever you touch it. It has that dirty, built broken, fuck you if you don't like it, we'll surprise you wherever the fuck we want signal built into using it. You feel like committing to learning it's intricacies is a boat ride with a psycho whose just going to change every time you think things will calm down. You can just tell by the releases it will NEVER settle into being one predictable, reliable thing. It's built to keep surprising us all. I used to work for a Microsoft Gold Partner and I know that feeling.
1 Sagan = Billions & Billions