coffeeisyummy

You mean, "Omit words".

Or maybe I mean "Omit."

Or maybe if I didn't even post a reply, I would have added the same value to this thread.

I'm smiling because I let my baby daughter play with my computer and type random gibberish for a while, then created a "blog" of her work.

This has the same vibe.

The waters get muddy when the government asks companies to censor on its behalf, as we've seen with social media in the past.

Moveover, a couple of years of go, it was a good thing "dangerous" ideas were censored, in the name of the greater good. Certain elections and viruses come to mind.

What really blows is this has been a concern for at least 15 years: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11819-oral-sex-can-ca...

That blows.

Did you know that the Macintosh Performa 6400 was the PC to have in 1997 if you wanted the best combination of performance and high quality software?

That's what this blog post reminds me of. I loved my Macs in the 1990s, but I knew I wasn't going to have access to a fraction of the software available to Windows machines at the time. Access to a wide-range of software was the killer feature of PCs, back then.

And in the case of social media, access to as many eyeballs as possible, reach, is the killer feature. Everything else is just features that add to or subtract from accessing that reach.

This iteration through pseudo productivity comes from management's real world problem of demonstrating progress on their projects. The promises of visibility on your development team's productivity always turns Agile into a steaming pile of burn-downs and story points.

"No one has done true Agile" is the "No one has done true Communism" for software engineering. Because, in the real world, no one uses Agile in an ideal environment free of pressures like deadlines or budgets.

My favorite EBUG story - the GM of the Rangers forced to play goalie in the Stanley Cup final: https://nypost.com/video/rangers-gm-lester-patrick-plays-goa...

I'm black and white on the behavior. I absolutely agree with your point about biases being often not obvious.

In this case, though, the biases are so apparent that these employees can't be expected to interact with other potential employees. If an employee's behavior is so abhorrent you have to work around them, they should be replaced.

Another way to think of it - I'm sure the company has language in it's employee handbook around non-discrimination. These employees are overtly violating this language. By letting them stay on and accommodating their behavior, a clear message is sent that they're not serious about non-discrimination.

You're okay working with people so bigoted that you have to hide them away from certain parts of their job because they might fuck it up with their bigotry? Why are they still employed? How can you be okay with coworkers that can't be expected to treat everyone in the company with a certain level of respect?

Do you believe that's just the way "they" are? Is that the way you are?

Remind me never to apply for a job at your company. JFC.

That was sort of my point, though. The idea that our elites are now going to take a harder line on China for their involvement with Russia is laughable, given what they've turned a blind eye to in the past.

There's too much money on the table for them to risk angering China.

I prefer outsourcing my opinion on world events to Wordle players who get all green boards. But you do you.

You mean "fought their draft" in the sense of "avoiding being sent to Vietnam"?

No... fought their draft as in "We think the draft is bull, this war is bull, and we don't want to go."

Hey, I could be wrong - I wasn't there to observe first hand what happened in the 60s and 70s. I only assumed the Vietnam draft was unpopular based on pop culture. Maybe boomers didn't sit around college campus blocking up traffic, chanting slogans, and smoking pot? Maybe there were never peace marches? The soundtrack of Boomer's youth? Largely works of fiction! 80s anti-war films? Anti-American propaganda!

If you're telling me only those who actively avoided the draft were against it, I believe you.

I should have just used my own eyes and ears to observe what Boomers have done since then. Baby Boomers in Congress and in the White House sent troops to Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with overwhelming approval at the time. Yes, there was lots of backtracking and second guessing after we stuck of fingers in those pies, but I guess that's a development that's arisen after Vietnam. Maybe the problem with those wars was there were no Commies to shoot.

I just didn't realize how much blood-lust Boomers held deep inside.

I stand corrected. Thank you for setting me straight.

So call Putin's bluff? He's already made an explicit threat to take things further if anyone gets involved: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/02/24/vladimir-putin-w...

But, fine, let's play this game. The US is sends troops into the Ukraine. You do understand this is right at Russia's border. What does Putin do? He'll engage. Great, now we're in a shooting war with our nuclear rival. Now do you want to roll the dice this doesn't escalate further. Does Putin go after neighboring NATO countries? Now the US has to escalate further to defend an ally. And if the US/NATO pushes into Russia, does Russia go nuclear?

This is why the Cold War stayed COLD. We didn't directly engage Russia on anything close to their borders. Yes, we fought two proxy wars in Asia and just look how that turned out.

Do you really want to roll the dice and hope your neighborhood isn't a parking lot in the next five years?

Hey, wasn't this the EXACT argument Democrats made about removing Trump from office before the election? Floating the idea he'd risk WW3 instead of losing an election?

Turns out Trump's general hard line on everything was useful for something.

Amen. The rank hypocrisy of the generation that fought their draft starting WW3 and a draft would be incredible.

Yeah, a ground war with aerial bombardment is totally the same as nuclear holocaust.

Great analogy.

Might need to consider sanctions with China as well...

No chance in hell our elites will allow that.

We've ignored the Uighurs, we ignored China antagonizing Taiwan, we've ignored China antagonizing the rest of the Asian-Pacific region, we've ignored China lying about COVID, we've ignored China stealing our technology, we've ignored China spying on US politicans.

We've got corporations and universities bending over backwards to partner with China. We have our celebrities apologizing to China and asking everyone to play nice so the elites' meal ticket isn't ruined.

No sanctions of any substance are going to happen.

http://tech.mit.edu/V118/N8/aporn.8n.html

Prof. Abelson wanted to hammer home the point porn was a problem on the internet back in 1998 and thought putting up a porn site for the first slide of a lecture would make his point.

It was pretty shocking when it happened.

RMS brought it on himself. Although, yes, MIT turned a blind eye to his behavior until his comments about Epstein.

IHTFP is love, IHTFP is life...