downer72

This is basically the end of Slack for me. It's over. I'm done.

I am now anti-slack. I am an opponent of slack.

You had me, but now you lost me.

Ban all you want, it’s not illegal, and silly to suggest as much.

Here’s a picture I drew of your mom. Look at those stink lines.

Arrest me.

For sure, that’s what killed the Pebble watch for me.

I got it home, opened the box, thinking I had a new watch!

Nope. You have to connect it to the internet and let it phone home first. It would not tell time, permit you to manually set the time, or let you explore that watch at all, until it spoke with it’s mothership.

I put it back in the box, and tossed it in the closet, and it’s still there, and now it’s completely unusable because the company collapsed.

In some cases, it is explicitly stated by the prospective employer that any refusal of requested information (or providing false information) will be met with a rejection letter.

I have been on interviews where this is part of a boiler plate release/waiver for a background check, prior to receiving an offer letter, and on the same form, you are made to list prior employers, and fill in the salary box for each.

And if you don't like it, good luck taking legal action, right? Whether something is legal or illegal, most people lack the resources to even entertain the idea of challenging legality.

The only path that seems to effectively buffer this practice is working with recruiting agencies, which do a better job of negotiating, but do still collect this information. And although recruiters might only be capable of telling you whether you have real leverage for your salary demands, whether the recruiter is being paid by you or the employer is a clue as to who they're working for.

Hint: if you aren't paying them out of pocket, recruiters aren't actually working for you, even if they seem really pleasant.

And how does this further complicate the gender inequality issues, in terms of salary negotiations?

A common tactic is, if a company knows what you're making, they'll try to hold your earnings as close as possible to something only slightly better than any potential raise you'd be entitled to at your current employer, and you'll get the same tactic from multiple potential employers.

If you're only entitled to a 3% raise, organizations with access to this information might only ever offer 5%, and refuse to go higher.

With this information in the picture, lower salaries mysteriously stay low, even for some lateral moves, depending on who you are and what they can dig up on you.

This is a misleading title, and the meanings of related acronyms are not readily clarified.

  LSD:  Large-Scale Direct (monocular/binocular)

  SLAM: Simultaneous Localization And Mapping

Yeah, remember that part where we declared war on Iraq for no fucking reason? Oh wait, no... that's not correct... we did have a reason...

  “Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb 
   Iraq,” Clarke said to Stahl. “And we all said 
   no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need 
   to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there 
   aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. And 
   there are lots of good targets in Iraq. 

Put another way, there was never any rationale for anything we ever did anywhere. All of this is bullshit. Don't even bother trying to make heads or tails of it.

Nothing was ever supposed to get fixed, made right, redressed.

The travel ban? Why does it exist? Because they're fucking assholes. Not because anything matters.

https://www.usenix.org/conference/srecon16/speaker-or-organi...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf4RwlOdppg

https://medium.com/wogrammer/rachel-kroll-7944eeb8c692

I've gotten into numerous conversations with people about the proper terms to use for members of executable body of code, and the results are surprisingly opinionated.

Almost everyone agrees that a function (the noun), following the mathematical definition thereof, is a thing which accepts an input or multiple inputs, and returns a consistent, repeatable result, directly related to that input. But... say 'method' and/or 'procedure' in front of the wrong people, and you will be taken to task on the semantic meaning of such words, and what is proper and correct within a variety of technical fields.

Similarly, what is meant by "functional" (the adjective) is also up for debate. Some people, when they hear the word "functional" think you're speaking in terms of "functionality" perhaps in the context of user acceptance testing, and the proving of a minimum viable product. Others will think you're referring to the "pure functional" programming paradigm, like as in the sense of Haskell.

Still others will think you are simply referring directly to a specific Java method, or a specific JavaScript function, and correct you accordingly, and not consider whether the terms have any deeper meaning or context at all. (like: "no, this is Java, so it's a method..." or "no, JavaScript only has functions, not methods...")

That being said, I've always felt that these terms have such broad, generalizable definitions, since they've sort of been borrowed from layman's English, and repurposed within a specific context.

Is there REALLY a difference between a "method," a "procedure," and a "function" proper?

Jonathon always appears to be a misspelling of Jonathan. Like as if someone were promoting a Jon-a-thon.