jochung

More nuanced take: men are finally acting like women have told them to act for decades: talk about your feelings, open up, be in touch with your inner self... not realizing that only works for women because women's feelings matter and verbalizing them often enough will cause others to take action sooner or later. The reason men had the "irritating" habit of offering solutions is because it was inconceivable to most that you'd complain and expect that to actually accomplish anything.

It's like an attractive person telling the ugly that they just need to approach the world with a more positive attitude and good things will come in return. No honey, that's only because they want to have sex with you. Other people don't get shit for free.

As Warren Farrel said: men's facade of strength is their weakness, women's facade of weakness is their strength. When a man displays weakness, he forfeits his right to get help.

Two generations now have been utterly miseducated on gender by a feminized education system that treated masculinity as a condition to be medicated away and passive femininity as the role model, not realizing boys need adversity in their youth to prepare them for the complete heartlessness they'll receive as adults.

"But I love my husband!" Yes, until the marriage is over, after which he'll be devastated and pining for years, while you'll discard him like an old pair of shoes, still getting alimony, the house and the kids.

You're right. Just look at all those men telling us they don't feel safe because of what someone wrote, that the work place needs to be more welcoming to them, that being told they're bossy or domineering is insulting, that having to defend themselves in public debate is unacceptable, that they shouldn't be expected to choose between career and family, and that male hygiene products should be paid for by the government because having a dick and balls is just such a burden.

Wait no, sorry, I got that backwards. It's feminist women who do the female equivalent of this. And who find it deeply irritating if you only imply men do not exist to serve at their beck and call, and have zero obligation to them even if they damsel.

And no, not all women. But definitely even some who do have all the power, money and influence they could want. So who's fragile? Or perhaps more accurately: who succeeds in using their facade of weakness as a lever of power, time and time again?

I don't mind admitting the world is not fair, but it takes a special kind of obliviousness to look at women's position in the West in the 21st century and still see a class of victims and men as the ones who need to suck in their gut and soldier on for once.

"Centuries of privilege" is the kind of idiocy only a sheltered American suburbanite could come up with.

A century ago millions of young white men were too busy dying in trenches and being gassed to death with mustard gas in a war none of them could vote on.

Children worked on the field, in factories, and in coal mines, like their fathers were expected to.

And yes, women stayed home and took care of the kids because without electricity, plumbing, appliances, refrigeration and cheap groceries, that was actually a laborious full time job, and people were poor. Not to mention that getting through child birth and infant mortality was a blessing for both mother and child.

None of them were given opportunities simply by existing. On the other hand, providing scholarships to specific ethnicities, or creating special women-only pathways to entry, that is exactly that.

What people like Damore have tried to point out is that expecting demographics and sentiment within a field to match the general population, or else the "playing field" is not level, is an unwarranted assumption. It also puts the blame for actually society wide issues on a small group of people who had nothing to do with it.

If you want more black people in tech, start by addressing the way the US school system is stratified entirely by social class. Maybe you'll see a difference, and maybe that IQ gap will shrink. Maybe it won't, and what new "leveling" policies will you want to introduce then? Don't push out or disadvantage others out of misplaced revenge, and don't cite your American tunnel vision as justification.

People keep trying to make it so you can build complex sites and applications without coding, and in the end, what you end up with is far more complicated, fragile and inflexible than if you had just stuck with a normal development pipeline. Drupal's insistence on being both a product and a platform out of the box is what got them into this mess in the first place. They overestimated how much different use cases have in common, so they had to bolt on late-binding and lazy evaluation all the way up into the presentation layer.

I don't know if this is solvable. A CMS is complex enough that each of its functionalities deserves the care of good product and technical designers. These pieces ought to then be integrated into a cohesive whole, a la carte. For desktop software, we were able to pull this off pretty well, with 2000s OS X as the most cohesive, successful attempt, dictated by strong design guidelines and solid enough tech... And note that they invisibly transitioned CPU architecture along the way! But when online collaboration and multi device access became a requirement, everyone flailed and forgot the lessons of the past.

I don't think the current software market is capable of something like that. Almost everyone is trying to make captive SaaS where compatibility only exists on a service-to-service basis, in a subordinate manner. Branding is more important than cohesion, and flexibility and interoperability has taken a back seat to dumbing down.

This is what millions in enterprise funding gets you. A decade+ of sunk cost fallacy.

Alternative explanation: if they actually go after Facebook all the previous shady shit US politicians have done would also come into question. So they'll stick to emotive appeals like "when elections are meddled with" instead of specific, measurable outcomes.

Recall that the Obama campaign got the explicit go ahead from FB to violate their privacy policy, and built up equally large databases. Heck, recall Obama explicitly endorsing Macron. Does that count as large scale meddling?

What's hilarious is that the same people worried about internet driven misinformation are now the ones jumping into action because the media told them to #deletefacebook.

Man, where to begin.

The presumption of bad faith is both a lack of imagination and a lack of information. The person cannot imagine how a reasonable person might believe something, and why they might believe it.

The accusation of sexism is a perfectly good example, with James Damore as the case study. His words were twisted into things he didn't say, because his uncharitable opponents couldn't imagine that he was simply saying what he was saying. No, no, he must be dogwhistling something far worse, it cannot simply be that their own premises are too narrow, that their own value judgements are coloring their reading.

As for ethics in journalism, I'm one of those "deplorables" too, and you know why? Because there were 100x more people talking and emailing about that then were causing amok on Twitter. If the black bloc shows up at a protest, you don't suddenly dismiss everyone else as car torchers and bus stop smashers. But that's exactly what the press did to gamers, and that's why they were so pissed off. And the more they wanted to be heard, the more fringe behavior there was to point to to support the foregone conclusion. When the police does it at the G20 and calls it kettling, the progressives don't like it, but when they do it, it's just fine.

What's particularly galling is that none of this was new: the online harassment, the doxing, the stalking, that was pioneered on Something Awful's leftie forums like Helldump and LF. And lo and behold, those people ended up in media cliques like Weird Twitter. Pots calling kettles black is not a new concept, it's just amazing they fooled so many into defending their incestuous little circle. History has been rewritten, and now apparently online trolls never existed until 2014, when the fire nation attacked, and everyone of import got amnesia.

Here is what I saw. To change my mind, you'd have to prove that there was a massive invisible shadow campaign that could somehow eclipse hundreds of thousands of views, posts and tweets:

https://medium.com/@KingFrostFive/gamergate-august-2014-revi...

Mozilla is like a modern American university. There is a parasitic growth attached that is only concerned with funneling more resources to itself in the form of bureaucrats and intersectional evangelists.

Democracy is in danger because publishers, large and small, lack the discipline and expertise to produce objective, quality reporting, and give a voice to people with something interesting to say.

Nobody forced them to chase clickbait or spend their days sourcing stories from Twitter and Tumblr. That's all on them.

And before you think that's an exaggeration, I'm talking about one of my (European) country's major national papers whose daily front page now consists of breathless American political drama, hashtags and gender politics. It's ridiculous, the children are running the show, the writing is atrocious, and their world view is about as sophisticated as a first year pol-sci major who's never held a real job.

Get those people to shut up and we'll be far better off. I look forward to their tears. If their content was worth it, they wouldn't be struggling.

Your Honour, the courtroom is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth for all time. Now, sooner or later, this man or others like him will succeed in replicating Commander Data. And the decision you reach here today will determine how we will regard this creation of our genius. It will reveal the kind of a people we are, what he is destined to be. It will reach far beyond this courtroom and this one android. It could significantly redefine the boundaries of personal liberty and freedom, expanding them for some, savagely curtailing them for others. Are you prepared to condemn him and all who come after him to servitude and slavery? Your Honour, Starfleet was founded to seek out new life. Well, there it sits. Waiting. You wanted a chance to make law. Well, here it is. Make a good one.

There is a noticeable gap in all this chatter about toxic masculinity. We're told that it's adolescent and immature male behavior, the worst of a roomful of teenage boys.

Ok.

So let's look at what the worst teenage girls get up to...

- Queen Bee'ing and passive aggressive social dominance games.

- Whisper campaigns, slut shaming and going behind people's backs.

- Crab bucket mentality, obsession over relative status and appearances.

- Recruiting authority figures to whitewash cry-bullying and enact revenge.

Now, does that remind you of anything that's been happening on the internet in recent years? Consider this: the supposed plague of online harassment aimed at women, typified by anonymous sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica and Kiwifarms... Does that sound like something angry teenage boys would do, or angry teenage girls?

The toxic femininity was coming from inside the house all along. And the fact that those two words are never uttered together by supposed gender specialists ought to tell you something too.

dire state of hate speech and vitriol

Yes, things are now so good for the average person that you can create mass hysteria over mean words. Not a satanic child murdering panic, not teenage violence, sex and substance abuse... just words.

Once you stop consuming the outrage crack pipe, it all goes away. It's all a big game of signaling and sophistry. Ask yourself why the average journalist is qualified to whip you into a frenzy on topics that should rightly require years of study to become authoritative on.

You can be trusted, you just gotta turn your brain back on. When there is a breakdown in the accepted mechanisms for spreading social consensus, you go back to primary sources. It shouldn't be a surprise: nature has told us that monocultures are eminently vulnerable. The solution is always diversity, the actual kind, not the ideological puritanism that has appropriated that concept for themselves.

Oh lovely. I've been trying to figure out how to address this in the context of GPU shaders and here comes the perfect paper!

I find it eery that a documentary that isn't telling people what to feel or think or do is criticized for being incomprehensible and boring.

Maybe we're already far more doomed than people realize.

Not really. The octahedron defines the positions you pre-render the impostors from. The actual rendering uses a flat plane (like a regular billboard) but with a parallax shader and depth offset to make it look bent.

I'm not OP, but... The fact that it is not consistently connected to other instances of political campaigns previously is a big one. The narrative is that the West is radicalizing to the right because of the evil propaganda, unlike the pure and virtuous honest reporting that brought us "change we can believe in" or "Clinton is 95% sure to win" and so on.

When the good tribe does it, it's "remarkable insight into the political base and clever use of modern technology", when the bad tribe does it, it's "disturbingly sophisticated targeting and an automated violation of consent". Really, go read the write ups about previous democrat campaigns, the narrative was of tech savvy modern progressives leaving the conservative old timers in the dust.

Russel conjugation is the favorite trick or the press today as they hawk their narratives:

"I am trying to get an important message out. You are running a political campaign. They are spreading harmful propaganda."

But 99% of harvested data is gathered with only proxy consent of 1% of the users, and most of either group is unaware of what's happening. Ignoring this ratio in order to haggle about exactly how the 1% was or wasn't tricked is entirely beside the point.

The bigger problem with this whole affair is that people correctly diagnose a breakdown in the mechanisms for forming consensus reality, which makes a lot of information suspect. This should make you question your in-groups' world view as much as the out-group. But instead of going back to primary sources and reevaluating what they know, people only double down on it more, and use it to justify why the out group is even more clueless/insidious than before. But one of the biggest hallmarks of propaganda is that the enemy is both horribly inept and terrifyingly powerful at the same time, swapping between the two seamlessly to serve the current narrative.

I have the exact opposite experience. If you find yourself annotating your variables and methods with extra adjectives and nouns, your code isn't simple enough. Those explanations go in code comments.

Often it means you can refactor it so that there is only one of any "thing" so there is no need to clarify which version or role this "fooBarThing" is serving to disambiguate it from the other "bazBarThing".

Functional composition and well structured data is the key to this. It's basically halfway to point-free style.

People are made to feel personally affected because the sin has been lain on team Trump, who has become a symbol of the end of democracy and a return to fascism. Even if Trump is mostly more of the same.

Worse, the same media power that turned the election into a reality show is now aimed at tearing down its results, washing their hands in innocence and tagging it Resistance.

If they weren't upset before, then they're not upset now because it happened, they're upset the "bad" people used it to accomplish the "wrong" goals.

The main reason that "playpen" is the way it is, is because the default news and politics subs went full Clinton, with moderator and admin approval. It's also an open secret that SRS and its friends brigade the rest of the site, and again, admins allow their rule violations to continue.

Reddit is not interested in being a neutral platform, and the constant scapegoating of the people they drive into containment subs as being the cause rather than the result is both tiresome and idiotic. If you don't want people to isolate themselves and radicalize, don't drive them away from mainstream channels.

One if my main gripes with the current American left is their inability to see themselves as agents who cause the things they hate.

I'm somewhat surprised the term "help vampire" didn't appear in the original post. It's not just that some people ask for homework help. It's that some people's entire repertoire of problem solving skills well into adulthood only consists of asking others.

Good questions ought to lead to better problem solving skills. Often they don't.

Why not skip ahead to Web 3.11 for Workgroups?

Disturbingly sexist

Yes, I always hear this repeated breathlessly. Then I go look at that hive of scum and villainy that is the Gamer Gate sub and find:

"The Metropolitan Police's (Greater London) Orwellian definition of "hate incident" is actually terrifying"

"[Censorship] Lauren Southern talks with Sargon about her Detainment and UK Censorship"

"[Gaming] Violent video games not welcome for Olympic esports consideration"

"London Mayor warns big tech on hate speech."

"[Related Politics] The creator of the world wide web is disappointed that huge platforms "control which ideas and opinions are seen and shared"

Point me to the omnipresent hate please. They seem pretty on point about censorship and free expression.

See, you are free to believe that it's a misogynist and hateful movement all you want, but you should at least be honest with yourself about the kind of argument you are making. Namely:

"Black Lives Matters is about looting."

I assume you don't need me to tell you why that is dumb.

(And every time this gets brought up here, some dedicated flaggers come out of the woodwork)

I think the too-many-channels problem is a symptom of the excessive walled gardening.

Slack segregates by interests and social group, and bundles that with strict gatekeeping. There is no way for people to remix that to suit their own preferences. You can only fragment existing communities more.

I would love a slack multiclient where I can put channels I care about side by side, regardless of origin, and keep the rest out of sight. Instead now everyone has their own #random and #offtopic and so on. Cruising between Slacks and Discords is like navigating a hall of mirrors. If there is disagreement, the only solution is complete schism.

Discord's inability to separate identities is the deal breaker. I don't want to be logged into work and play at the same time. I'd also like to be able to engage in some communities pseudonymously and others not.

None of the chat apps ticks all boxes, which is why we need a universal client that puts the user back in control like in the Trillian/Adium days. And no, matrix+bridges is not that solution.

Moral outrage is hiding the fact that it's not the kids doing it. There is an entire network of activist organizations researching these issues, so that when tragedy strikes, a campaign can be astroturfed within a day, and pressure can be exercised on large corporate and public targets.

This takes time, and effort, and willing megaphones in media. The biggest illusion of the social media era is that any of this is "organic" rather than instigated top-down, using human networks built slowly over time rather than spontaneously willed into being using the magic of Twitter.

The media does not report, they shape the agenda, decide what is important and what isn't, and who gets to be heard under what sort of light.

Even this article pulls the same scam: it sneaks the question by you of whether the "kids" will succeed, thus painting them as the only real people with agency. You don't need to believe in conspiracy or crisis actors to see this is bunk.

In the FP community there is often griping about obtuse mathematical terminology. APL seems like an alternative answer that embraces the unsuitability of human language to capture the nuances of composability space and just presents an alien language instead.

It's not about the code, it's about transforming between different shapes of information. I suspect this requires a degree of kinesthetic thinking that most people do not have, similar to the phenomenon of aphantasia. Linear, word based thinking is not the best for everyone, and for those averse to it, there's APL.

The article contends that women tend to focus more on communal well-being while men focus on individual success. Yet an increase in women in governance and leadership has gone hand in hand with a decrease in male success in education, lower mental health for men and a family court system entirely biased in favor of mothers. These are issues the female gender activists do not seem interested in fixing. These people have influence themselves because... they asked for it, after men built technology and infrastructure that made the traditional labor role of women in the home obsolete.

I really don't buy this notion that women look out for all. I don't doubt that they believe it, but I have yet to see women come together en masse to redress imbalances they benefit from. Unlike the entirety of civilization, built by men, many at the very bottom rungs of the ladder.

It was already submitted 5 times and never went anywhere. Nothing from S451 has gotten any traction, except for one post about Hintjens' passing, which was then visiby flagged. Because of S451's role in rescuing LambdaConf from the twitter mob with a fundraiser, they are now on the socjus shitlist, and those links and posts have a habit of disappearing off HN with plausible deniability.

Asking for proof or data: denying someone's lived experience. Having a debate: sealioning. Providing evidence: mansplaining.

Yes I know, each of these terms has a well defined meaning. But that's not how they're used in practice. They are used in games of strategic equivocation.

A better read is this post, which frames it as a conflict between people who communicate to share information versus people who are seeking emotional harmony and who interpret disagreement as one-upmanship. One person offers the gift of information, the other interprets it as a slight.

https://status451.com/2016/01/06/splain-it-to-me/

His book seems to have both people on the left and the right complaining, so at least my interest is piqued that it says something real.