Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Nope (Score 2) 94

First off, that whole 15 minutes thing is absolute bullshit. Maybe its a worst case if you were in truly deep thought over one of the hardest problems of the year. But most of the time you aren't, and it will be a few minutes Like around 1.

YMMV but whenever I'm stuck with half an hour from coming to work to a meeting or between a meeting and the lunch break or whatever I feel that time is exceptionally unproductive. Whether it's making a change or implementing something new or tracking down a bug I usually need some time to work out what it really does, what it should do and how I can do it with good code that's easy to maintain. Most botched jobs happen if I rush that, I can work quick and dirty but it builds technical debt. That I'd be three times as productive if I had an hour (15 vs 45 minutes effective time) doesn't sound too far off to me. I try to have a few "just do it" tasks ready for that, but typically they're not supposed to be my top priority. So if I had a PHB who wants me to work on that task and no other task until I'm done productivity and quality would suffer.

Secondly- your productivity doesn't matter. The team's does. Those interruptions- it means a team member needs help. They're blocked. Their productivity is at or near 0 until unblocked. If interrupting you costs 15 minutes from you but saves an hour for him, that interruption is worth it for the team. There are almost 0 of those interruptions that aren't a net gain.

Depends on how many of these interruptions are from your team and about work, not to mention if they've actually checked and read the documentation or is just asking because bugging you is easier than making the effort themselves. That said, answering simple questions or checking Bob's calendar to see if he's in a meeting doesn't break the flow for me, that I can push/pop off the mental stack. If I need to take 5-10 minutes to check/discuss/explain/investigate/show something though I've decided I'm already distracted so time to check my inbox and answer what I can now before they're at my doorstep. Sadly we're not big enough to have a support staff to shield us from the solutions we've developed so it's DevOps and most the users are one or two floors down.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 884

These is a *fascinating* story to anyone who remotely cares about where the media is headed. You don't have to be a PDP fan (I'm not) to find it fascinating. There are multiple facets here, and I'm most interested in the stuff that involves the larger ecosystem. I've already linked to this a half dozen times at least, but this article [wsj.com] shows pretty clearly the WSJ's motive in all of this. (That one shouldn't be paywalled.) Don't forget, they didn't just "write an article" that started all of this. They didn't just hire three reporters to comb through his videos and edit them. They sent their edited results directly to Disney. They had an explicit agenda in getting PewDiePie's platform trimmed down a bit. Why is that? WSJ isn't a progressive-leaning paper. Well, see the above link.

The simple problem is there is no need for you to invent "an explicit agenda". It seems far more likely they were doing research for an article on YouTube "influencers" and found the anti-Semitic content. Knowing this should be a huge deal for Disney, they sent a video with the relevant clips to Disney for comment. Disney saw the clips, likely did their own quick internal investigation, and cut PewDiePie loose because they didn't like what they saw. If they had any ulterior motive, it is far more likely to concern the opportunity to hurt the profitability of a competitor or two, than to somehow gain control over what people post to YouTube.

There's a lot of other stuff you're conflating into this issue, that is interesting but not directly related to this issue. YouTube policies, leftist politics, millenial media interests can indeed by interesting stuff but you are muddying the water by trying to drag them into this issue. This is a bog-standard story someone got caught doing something bad then lashes out at the people who caught him. PDP might as well yell "I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling [reporters]".

1. Including J.K. Rowling now.

You do realize that J. K. Rowling re-tweeted an article about how PDP and others "just joking around" about racism, is enabling racists to normalize their views, right?

Not to be prejudicial here, but from a purely statistical standpoint the chances of a Swede (someone who grew up there) having right-wing views by American standards is must be darn small.

And yet, it's actual people in the alt-right community who think that PDP might be one of them... The left seems to think he's a immature, narcissistic, asshole. Which seems to be a pretty accurate assessment to me.

Comment Re:Simple answer. Dont use SAP. (Score 1) 94

Companies buy off-the-shelf ERP systems so they don't have to manage people like me, but they really end up paying through the nose for it.

Actually it's mostly so they if you get hit by a bus or decide to quit or decide you got them trapped and can demand a 10x salary increase they can get by without you. Sadly there's a lot of well designed custom systems that'll be throw out for no other reason than being very custom and very specific to your needs. The theory is nice, you can use a generic solution and it's just configuration. In practice I've found that you often end up with big limitations and have to work around them. And that can actually cost you a lot more time and effort in the long run than actually making a solution that works they way you want.

Comment Re:The machine ate my package (Score 1) 147

No matter how much damage, the ROMs are unlikely to be destroyed, which means there's value in delivering the contents no matter what, at least in this case. Of course with that many cartridges in one package, I wouldn't be surprised if some over-eager postal inspector mistakenly believed that somebody was importing pirated game cartridges to sell, in which case the package is probably fully intact in the evidence locker of some law enforcement agency.

Comment Re:The smarter thing to do (Score 1) 147

Not that easy, some ROMs straight don't exist except in some display or sales-pitch cartridges.

And yes, as you can imagine, they command insane prices. Collectors are kinda nuts that way. There are generally 3 kinds of games that are rare and hence valuable: Those that only exist in low number because they were just produced for events or to pitch them to investors (e.g. Nintendo World Championships), those that were produced so late that nobody gave half a shit about NES games anymore (e.g. Little Samson) and those that are SO bad that even without the internet word got around that they suck (e.g. Action 52).

So believe it or not, the most valuable games are those that are simply too bad to even play them. Nobody gives you a cent for Mario 3, but you don't even want to know what you'd have to pay to get a real stinker.

Comment Re:TANSTAAFL (Score 1) 152

Laws apply universally, so saying that I care about a law protecting MY property is pointless. It protects everyone's property, I do not enjoy personal protection laws. Unlike a certain group of "property" holders.

You see, that's the problem with the examples presented too many times by proponents of insane copyright laws: Most of them are far fetched and don't translate well into reality. I once, in a discussion, had someone argue that it's "impossible" to produce content the way the users want, despite exactly that being offered by those that copy the content. One really has to wonder whether the reality distortion field comes free with the conviction or whether it already has to be in place to become part of the copyright cult.

Comment Re:TANSTAAFL (Score 1) 152

Sorry, but just 'cause you invest a lot of time and effort doesn't make something valuable. By that logic any sandcastle built by the average 5 year old costs millions. And don't make me ask for money for the space station I built with Lego when I was 10!

Value is what someone who wants something gives it. By definition. You can ask for a price, but if that price is below what I value it, there will be no sale.

What you, as the creator, can attach to a commodity is its cost. Not its value.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 884

2. It's a bit amusing, but moreso deeply worrying to see you and so many other people view this as a major setback for PewDiePie or a victory for the forces of anti-racism. Uh, no. This is Pearl Harbor, and the mainstream media and the progressive left (two very distinct players here; I'm not conflating the two) are the Japanese.

Well, it is a setback for PewDiePie. As for a victory of the force of anti-racism? Why would I think that. PewDiePie is just a fool with a big mouth who got himself into trouble with his sponsors. You can continue to blame everyone but PewDiePie, but really he's really the only one to blame here. He shot himself in the foot, and blaming the media for pointing out that he did so is kind of sad and pathetic.

I'm not bragging or boasting or laughing; this is serious shit. How do you think his tens of millions of subscribers are going to react? "Damn, I guess he was a racist, the WSJ said so" ? How many of those people are kids? How many of those kids are (like most kids) currently left-leaning? And how many of those kids have never felt the rush of arguing on the internet, of calling out (what they think is) stupidity, of actually fighting for something before?

I didn't see them call him a racist, I saw them say he posted anti-Semitic videos. Are you sure you're not building up a strawman argument? You seem to attribute things to the WSJ that I didn't see in the articles (not that I can read them all because some of them are paywalled).

I don't quite know what to expect next, but this is the beginning of something, not the end of something.

On the other hand, it seems unlikely to be either to me. It's the same old story, a shameless populist blaming the messenger for his own self-inflicted problems. I've seen it so many times, it's kind of tiresome now. You, however, seem to be quite caught up in your impassioned defence of PewDiePie, but I see little to justify your impassioned defence. PewDiePie did several things likely to embarrass his sponsors, someone pointed it out, and his sponsors dropped him for it. It's a pretty boring story if you ignore PewDiePie's outrage at actually being held accountable for his actions.

Comment Re: Never (Score 1) 323

The difference between fascism and libertarian is that libertarians want "minimal rules to create a safe environment" where fascism wants maximal rules. Fascism wants the government to control things. Libertarians want the government to control nothing. They are on exact opposite sides of the spectrum.

You might think that, but I'm not sure that's actually true. In the short run, they can have many goals in common. Fascists like to dismantle entitlement programs, as do libertarians. Fascists want a strong military, as do many libertarians. In fact, many libertarians seem quite willing to go along with Fascism as long as their rights (specifically) aren't being infringed and the fascists promise to cut taxes and fight the "nasty liberals" who want to insist that people should be nice to one another.

Of course, the real problem could be that so many people who claim to be libertarian seem to be everything except actually libertarian...

Comment Re:Because Human Nature (Score 1) 345

Don't pretend that science does not exist just because your narrative is harmed by science. Most normal humans don't want to sit around and do nothing, they want to be productive and make personal goals

Yes, but it's vastly overrated how much personal goals are productive to somebody else. I know lots of people have hobbies and interests they'd like to spend more time on, but they have no interest in competing in sports at a professional level. They have no interest in making a product for sale or a service for anyone else. Achievements are things like reading a book, climbing a mountain, travelling the world, learning to cook, building a model train in your basement or raiding in WoW. The primary driver for doing anything that's of any value to anyone but yourself is usually the paycheck. I wouldn't sit idle, no... but net I'd be way busier consuming than producing.

Comment Re:that's it. the end game. (Score 2) 345

You'd have to start by explaining a lot of new words that did not exist then. Like "unemployment".

Only because working for somebody else was not the norm. You had workers, homesteaders and vagrants. Obviously if you worked on your own land, trade or craft you were what we'd today call self-employed. Those who didn't were drifters taking stray jobs, when they weren't employed they were just called much less civilized things than unemployed.

Slashdot Top Deals

The longer the title, the less important the job.