iamdave

I wonder sometimes if writing articles “Trolls did thing trolls are known for doing” is incidentally giving the trolls exactly what they want.

IT tries to be proactive at first, but being proactive usually costs money, so it's often ignored. And then a failure happens as a result of ignoring that issue and then the tech people get yelled at.

Reminds me of a line I heard once, can't remember where but it was definitely in the very context you mention here, it goes: "When people realize they can't reliably work with you, they start looking for ways to work around you"

Wasn’t that about perfectly healthy people being forced to die against their will?

The specific episode I referenced it wasn't so much about perfectly healthy people being forced to die against their will, since the character in question intimated quite heavily that their species had made a conscious decision that this is how their elderly would "pass on".

He repeatedly made it appear as if their species treated it as an honorable affair, and that it was a celebration.

Further in the episode, his daughter comes onboard the Enterprise and expresses that she does still love her father but is ashamed of him for defying a long standing tradition. So I'm not sure if it's a matter of anyone being "forced" in this case to die before they may emotionally be ready to.

The episode kind of plays on this through the meta-narrative/"B Plot" of the character (Timicin is his name, by the way) working to revive a dying star and save his species, after the entire episode and all of the build up, his experiment ultimately fails, dooming the star to die anyway, his planet doomed to the same fate.

The episode routinely ruminates on the concept of death as a choice, only once do we see an instance of what could be called 'force' when Timicin's government demands he comes back and undergo the ritual suicide, but even they finally relent to his wishes and tell him that if he wishes to stay with the Enterprise and continue living, he may-they wont pursue him further, but he will effectively be disregarded by his society and his scientific achievements effectively destroyed.

The takeaway, I believe it was Picard who noted that sometimes death must come in whatever manifestation it comes, even if we feel it's something that can be stalled by wit, intuition or will-this happens during the scene we see the experiment fail and the cast comes to the realization that there may be nothing that can be done with current technology to save the local solar system.

Timicin ultimately makes peace with it, as does Counselor Troi's mother (who fell in love and didn't want to see him throw his life away), and realizes he can still die in peace and allow his contributions to flourish with younger generations of scientists who might be able to learn from his research and keep their local star from dying out for good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_a_Life_(Star_Trek:_The_Ne...

Star Trek: The Next Generation has an absolutely brilliant episode on this topic that touches on a lot of the things brought up in the article, as well as a concern you've brought up here in your comment:

I definitely wouldn't want to put this kind of binding decision over future me

A character facing this very conceit admitted that in the past, he was-like many others of his species-in favor of a policy whereby at 60 years old their kind would sacrifice themselves in an honorary fashion so as not to impede the progress of their descendants.

Fifteen to twenty centuries ago, we had no Resolution. We had no such concern for our elders. As people aged, they... their health failed. They became invalids. And those whose families could no longer care for them were put away, into... deathwatch facilities, where they waited in loneliness for the end to come, sometimes... for years. They had meant something; and they were forced to live beyond that, into a time of meaning nothing. Of knowing that they could now only be the beneficiaries of younger people's patience. We are no longer that cruel[1]

But the character later has a change of heart over the policy he was invariably complicit in supporting, while IMDB doesn't have the quote, paraphrasing it poorly-he opined about how his present and potentially future self may rebuke his past self for such a policy--a question of hindsight.

Great episode, I encourage one who's interested in the discussion created by this article to read it. It's one of my personal favorite TNG episodes, as it creates an interesting confluence of emotional narrative and philosophical narrative that comes to a narrative conclusion, but leaves the philosophical question open in ways most episodes of the same 'template' don't.

[1]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708724/quotes/qt1125551

Has that been the case for your content, and would you say it's at all worth it for someone looking to start out?

I insinuated that your statement wasn't overly concerned with the merits of democracy vs. corporate interests, pretty directly in fact, and asked you to let me know if that assessment was incorrect.

Turns out it was.

I was incorrect in that assessment, there is no terror here. I was merely mistaken and I am pretty openly owning that mistake, not shying away from it. Not sure how this idea that I'm somehow "terrified" of the debate is relevant when I openly invited you to correct me no the matter-which you did.

Thank you for the correction, I guess?

No, because I already did.

"Governing itself" isn't some magical good

I don't think one who holds this particular stance is particularly concerned with the merits of democracy. Call me on it, if I'm wrong, scarejunba.

I'm not disagreeing with that and I'm not even making a value judgment on what's more acceptable, porn or racism. I don't care to have that discussion. Perhaps my initial question was unclear to receive already negative votes for asking a pretty benign question.

The author describes Tumblr as a "haven" for white nationalists, I'm asking based on what? What makes it any less of a haven than other social sites on the internet for those groups, is their presence on tumblr more or less pronounced than it is on, say, reddit? I legitimately don't know and was curious to hear insight from others because my experience on the site is deliberately starched and sanitized.

Clearly that question offended a few people.

Now Tumblr is a sex-free haven for white nationalists and Nazis.

Is the author basing this on anything other than checking to see if white nationalists and Nazis are simply using the site as some sort of electronic forward operating base such that it's worth calling Tumblr a "haven" for these groups?

Asked a better way: if you go looking for group x on just about any website, isn't it fair to say you're probably going to find some? Is Tumblr really a haven for these people?

I ask as someone who without really trying, just managed to curate his tumblr "feed" to be full of classic cars, aviation, scifi and comic book stuff plus sometimes video game review, so I admit to being a bit ignorant as to what's going on outside my particular 'bubble' and will concede that I do lack some perspective on the matter.

Clearly that person has some fears or has had some troubling experiences, and it's not helpful or kind to be provocative.

And how do you know throawaysea isn't speaking from the same or similar position? minikites made an unfair assumption about their character and presumably their life status, I'd say that's probably more inflammatory and infinitely less helpful to this discussion than making direct, if dissenting statements about the validity or physical violence in response to speech, or vice versa-as topics being presently discussed in the thread, and it is CERTAINLY not helpful or kind to make speculative suggestions about someone's personal physical appearance which has no place in on this message board.

I understand and appreciate that passion can emerge in this discussion, and the sub-thread we're having between us right now, but I don't find it any more helpful to respond the way minikites did to throwawaysea if we're going to warn people about helpful, kind, or conversely provocative responses.

So Arch?

Why would it be defined only in terms of the government?

"Freedom of speech only applies to the government" exists as an argument that is technically true if one were to go to court over the matter, so it is often used as a philosophical escape hatch to avoid having the tougher conversation on the larger implications of what 'freedom of speech' practically means, why the framers of the Constitution bothered with it in the first place-I would wager because having that discussion would reveal some ugly truths about someone who responds to a discussion like this by saying "freedom of speech only applies to the government" and what their true goals and intentions are in the face of unpleasant or disturbing information and opinions.

The irony of such philosophical laziness isn't lost on me, but surely no one would say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are only ideals that can be granted by the government-yet there they are, in one of America's operating manuals. Clear as day.

The argument falls apart at the surface, and if I'm being honest, sometimes I wonder if the people who like to deploy that tactic know this.

American political discussion, in observation, is full of carefully picked cherries it seems like.

Pffft, the Metra catches fire even when it's not -20 below, we've become quite used to it.

Better idea: Change your name to Wallace F. Davidson, write this same article but in novel form, publish it under the title "Infinite Mess", become best-selling author, send me a check for $200,000 when you become a millionaire.

It's not that the left dislikes freedom of speech, it's that the right has twisted the meaning and use of freedom of speech to promote hate, conspiracy, and fear.

Seems to me that in the US there's an incredible unwillingness to look this particular horse in the mouth because everytime I see this debate online it's always "it's not us, it's THEM, they're the ones twisting words and ruining things, I'm not the boogeyman, it's them".

Maybe not everytime but with enough frequency that it does become curious.

But maybe that's just politics applied by humans equipped with human nature.

Because prosecutors sometimes care more about being seen as tough on crime and not compassionate towards young kids who do stupid things at an age where they're not blessed with an abundance of restraint and good decision making skills?

That in mind, in the interest of specificity I wonder if the phrase '[foreign] state actors' would be better used?

I have not but will take a gander this morning. Thanks for that!

This looks like something that may be useful for my team.

A question for the developers if you're reading this: something we've needed for a while was the ability to audit changes and review past values in our AWS environment.

CloudTrail does a decent enough job, which is why I suppose this was created but we've found that it doesn't tell us what a value was changed from.

If a security group gets changed to bar, cloudtrail doesn't seem to record that the previous value was named "foo"

Does your console recorder do this?

The fact that you succeeded doesn't matter

You don't get to determine that for someone. It is not my nor your, nor anyone else's place to tell someone what matters to them as an individual in their career goals or decisions.

It's fair to assess a choice as one you perhaps would or wouldnt take because your situations or living requirements may be different but one does not have any right or any authority telling someone what matters to them or why they are right or wrong for making decisions they feel are in their own best personal interests.

Especially if that individual is satisfied with the outcome and has found it beneficial for their career goals.

I don't think there's much that's going to change my mind on this.

Well sure, if you want to get into the weeds of actively measuring what success looks like across different methods of screening out potential employees then that conversation can break down to the atomic level. A part of me feels like the number of people who do this as a conscious and deliberate part of their job hunt is going to be smaller than those who don't.

And that's perfectly fine, for both parties.

I'm deliberately trying to stay as high above ground here and proffer that individual choices kind of matter here, and taking the broadly utilitarian viewpoint of: if the way you look for jobs results in you getting the kinds of jobs you want and opportunities you're looking for-not to mention satisfies the financial goals you have for yourself, great.

That's where it begins and ends for me personally.

then you're doing it wrong

What's right and what's wrong in this case here? I'm gainfully employed now, at a company I actually have come to really enjoy working for, making arguably the most I ever have in my career so far.

The method worked for me, doesn't mean it's universal, also doesn't mean this success can be directly and completely attributed to screening out copy/pasted job ads (nor any of the other criteria I look for in a potential employer). Only that I have a method that I've stuck to for deciding who I want to work for, and haven't found much of a reason to change it. Personal financial and professional goals are being met, and supported by my employer.

It works for me, if your system helps you succeed as a job seeker, more power to you-but if people here have systems that are working for them and getting the outcomes they're looking for in a career, I don't know if we should be so eager to tell these individuals they're "wrong".

You know, where people typically list "8 years experience in 3 year old technology" and the laundry list of every other keyword/language/framework they've ever heard of.

I have a really funny story about this involving a recruiter deciding I wasn't a good fit for one role, and recommending I take another because I didn't specifically list any experience with CSV files of all things on a DevOps resume.

Turns out a friend worked at first company, in the support team-made a referral and I was hired two weeks later after interviewing with the team lead and department head. During onboarding week I'm talking with a few team members at lunch and one of them mentions how they've been needing to hire the role but never put much effort into it, HR connects them with an agency and the recruiting company they hired never sent them any candidates, and only even emailed to say they "maybe" had one person, but that they were missing a few 'key' skills.

I smiled discreetly and listened on, but the whole time I had this image in my head: https://i.imgur.com/JbzO6uM.png

Sure but this can be said about nearly any aspect of evaluating who you want to work for, hindsight will always be 20/20 once you sign the offer agreement.

I'm sure most if not all of us have taken jobs where all the things on our personal checklists were checked off in the interview only to discover the place didn't live up to expectations and certainly probably the opposite has happened.

What may be arbitrary for some might be the difference between accepting or declining a job offer for others. At the end of the day the only person who knows if what they see in a job interview matches what they're looking for in a workplace is that individual, and no one else.

Whether or not a company encourages burn out probably has nothing to do with whether or not they put this or that boilerplate on their job ads.

Interesting you put it that way, since I've learned to be on the lookout for boilerplate in job ads as a personal filter. Usually I've figured this out by just copying and pasting select texts from their ad into Google and seeing how many other job ads from different companies for similar (and in a few cases wholly different) roles.

You say "spiting yourself" I call it doing due diligence because you can best bet those companies are gonna be scrutinizing the hell out of whatever resume I give them, turnabout is only fair.

I don't think being a shareholder gives you such rights.

Doesn't the state of California actually allow vested shareholders to inspect certain financial records and other inspection rights? Wouldn't this include the records of finances marked for distribution from a legal settlement or otherwise?

I suspect this will be a take that someone is going to have a problem with, or maybe many do-but this is kind of the editor's job. Editorials while probably not the express opinion of the publication you're writing for does need to at least carry enough of an opinion of theme to stay consistent with readers expectations when they pick up $Publication_Weekly$.

Would it be nice to see if a publication just decided to run editorials contrary to or perhaps ones that eviscerated a viewpoint or position said publication has been known to hold-and entertain plurality for plurality's sake?

Probably. If that's what the readers have come to expect, probably.

But as a default condition of running a newspaper? I think senior editors like keeping their jobs too much for that.

They'd push this initiative occasionally.

I wonder if anyone has any experience in flat out refusing to participate in this sort of thing. I did it once, but was already on my way out the door/in my two week notice period and HR would ask me once a day, every day for almost two weeks to write a review before I left.

I say "almost two weeks" because I finally told the HR person that I would be talking to the local workforce commission if they came to my desk one more time and asked me to write a review.

I (once) wrote a Sports Illustrated opinion article years ago (similar situation to yours: made a comment on twitter to one of the popular talking heads, talking head took notice and replied, SI took notice, asked me to write something), your experience matched mine from the editing and review standpoint.

At first sitting back and reading the suggested edits and changes in place I had a similar first reaction as you did, but after doing the "walk away, do something else and come back to your writing later" thing, I found the opinion was still there though much less verbose.

Share that to say, the editorial process itself, even for opinion pieces-is rather....well... opinionated.