kodah

Again, the problem seems to be who the arbiter of safety is. The police being the arbiter seems to be the problem. I don't think we disagree much. That bill carves out reasonable exemptions that become unreasonable when the police are the interpreters.

10-25 feet isn't reasonable for a no-filming police abuses zone. It can make it crime for someone who is handcuffed and being beaten by police from recording them.

Has that actually been interpreted by a court in that way or are you proposing a hypothetical? Your interpretation makes all dashcams illegal, which makes many Tesla and Toyota cars illegal.

The way I interpreted it was that people who are not part of a scene need to maintain some distance for safety.

---

The legality of filming police is thorny. For instance, a number of states passed laws after LivePD became a thing that barred the filming of traffic stops. That, however, contradicts the abilities of citizen journalists to document traffic stops and interactions.

Personally speaking, I don't want to be filmed during a traffic stop unless its my own footage. When I was arrested and went to jail the police posted my mug shot to every local paper and crime reporting website. It took quite a long time to scrub the internet of all of that once charges were dropped. Footage would be much worse because at one point after my head was driven into the ground I was sobbing. My instance also involved the police roughing me up because they perceived me to be "strong".

How do you account for the safety and liability of near proximity parties?

10-25 feet seems reasonable with 25 being the upper bound of reasonability. The average person can move 9-12ft/s in a single direction; starting speed would be slower so generous is 5-6ft/s. 2 seconds worth of distance sounds reasonable to keep everyone safe.

As others have pointed out the issue likely isn't the distance. It's that police can enforce their own measures here without accountability.

That was my fault, I don't know why I thought that, but they got it from me.

Sure, you all are probably right that unless I care to dig up his now deleted tweets and a recording of that conference that it's not worth saying anything about.

On the note of DORAs quality, I don't think they've ever actually released any datasets. The excuse they give is anonymity but their collection surveys always stated that the surveys are anonymous. It's impossible to determine the quality of their research beyond their own statements.

I'm curious how this will impact Radon release from deep areas of the crust. For context, a Radon risk map of the US: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/ra...

Uranium and Thorium decomposes into Radium, which themselves are found at 450m but the gas then rises through the Earths crust as it moves. I could see this kind of constant agitation releasing significantly more at least within a radius.

fwiw, I'm OP. I use it with 32GiB of RAM and a 1TB M.2 and it's been fantastic for day to day development on two HiDPI screens. The Vega-M graphics card mine came with is also on mainline Linux in terms of driver support.

You're right! My mistake.

He wasn't just affiliated, but I understand the frustration with the idea to some extent. Yes, it does sound reasonable because at any point in time they could've sat him down for a course correction and helped him learn. This was pretty much his brand as much as I can tell.

I really wish we'd stop mentioning DORA, which is now owned by Google. DORA employed a man who openly admitted on stage during a conference to beating someone elses child because that child had hit his daughter. He also went on numerous inappropriate rants on Twitter, one that was about a specific homeless woman and, from his perspective, how she had more privilege than some non-homeless groups. There are plenty of other reports of this type available and plenty of people doing great research.

If you're looking for an idea of whose best, I'd say ThoughtWorks is by far one of the most forward looking companies when it comes to determining future trends.

Australian Football is another. I'd really like to go see it after watching it streamed two years in a row.

This seems like a question that can be answered with data.

Maybe I've worked at all the wrong companies but in my experience any comp that's based on "data" will be gamed until it's meaningless. There is no "data" because reading impact data is often like reading tea leaves.

Frankly, what I think is going unsaid here is that corporate executives make a disparately large amount compared to the people who do and plan the work. While executives can make a great difference, so can a great manager or a great engineer. I wish we'd see executives as just another role, taking on different tasks rather than something substantively more valuable when it's not, especially in large orgs.

OpenGroup manages that social construct, the government stuff is just there to protect against misidentification and encroachment. The standards for Unix, Sockets, and LDAP were all transferred to OpenGroup to manage and they've done so.

I use a Skull Canyon as my daily driver for programming and honestly I wouldn't have selected another machine.

I've been using systemd for a while, which I'm surmising is what you're referring to when you say controversial, and it's frankly not a diminished experience for someone that wants a consistently working desktop. The amount of things I used to have to hack into my OS were substantial, these days they're nearly nil and applications have common interfaces to plug into.

I'm not sure what, if anything, I materially gave up other than that all of those components have a contracted API now so all future components will need to adhere to that API.

Fun fact, there is only one group who decides what's a unix and what's not: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

Agree to an extent. Contractor relationships are abused at many companies, but this is usually the case with mid to low level positions. People who make it through senior ranks and go on to become consultants get treated very differently. The latter is also incredibly lucrative.

Not going to lie, I went into reading this was very low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. It's worth noting that mentorship in the corporate world doesn't need to depend on level, it can be a skill gap someone wants to fill.

One thing that I think I may deviate with on this article is that mentoring shouldn't be started after coding; you should really be mentoring all along the way in your career. If the first time that you mentor is when you hold the title "Senior" then you're bound to screw up in some major ways and those screw ups will be amplified because of your perceived power and position. If you're a senior and haven't mentored up until this point I'd spend a good while mentoring people of your own level before you take on juniors.

Another piece of unsolicited advice is to drop any kind of perceptively fake facades; people will very much pick up on if you're git clone --depth=1 around them. Use that time to really invest in and get to know someone, and as the article points out, let them get to know you.

My last piece of advice is be there with them through their trials, especially in the lows. I once had a Marine that was going to get the equivalent of a PIP for behavior and none of the other NCOs wanted to go to our equivalent of HR with him because they knew they'd be dressed down by a man whose very existence was validated by dressing seniors down for their reports behavior. Of course, if a senior wasn't present he'd happily give that tongue-lashing to the junior. Without missing a beat I said I'd go. The worst place you can leave someone on their dark days is alone.

Unpopular opinion: the next iteration of privacy laws needs to factor in AI. If AI is allowed to slurp up PII or derogative works and the people defending it defend it with the zeal of cryptobros then we're in for a decade of real pain in terms of both copyright law, PII, and IP exposure.

I'd be supportive of licensing but it needs to go after the right things. Currently the industry is dominated by academics who took their CS & CE degrees and made them barriers to entry for jobs. Real software engineering involves very little DS&A. If we were making people demonstrate competency around OWASP on an infrastructure and dynamic application level I think licensure would go a long way.

Just to build on this, there are RCEs that involve overflowing headers; Go just had one not that long ago. There's plenty of inputs on a GET request. You still need to do proper security on a static site.

This also means that fewer resources (electricity) are consumed

Most servers in the world use a constant amount of electricity, regardless of load. Generally the way to make DCs more green is to build them around a renewable plan with batteries (that they already need). Save for the fact that the whole thing is made of rare earth metals and lead, and you've got yourself something pretty green.

Glad you've never owned a car, but you haven't been paying attention to the news if you think some of these things: https://bikeportland.org/2023/03/15/city-counts-reveal-data-...

This is a silly oft-repeated notion. The city of Portland had maintained bikes alongside cars for decades and was the most bike friendly city in the country - still primarily built for cars because of the snow we get up here. That only ended when we expanded buses and trains alongside getting rid of our cities traffic division.

both aspects are defined with a language that the computer parses, interprets, and executes on.

Sure, but low order definitions of "code" being something that takes an input and produces a different output do not relate to the real world unless you believe modern word processors require programmers.

Referring to someone as a beginner is not discriminatory, we all start as beginners and it's okay to not know things.

I think you're missing the point that the statement you made applies to a wide variety of discussion, not simply binary code|not_code discussions.

Most of the gatekeeping of what is and isn't "coding" is done by novices who don't really know what they're talking about

This statement would also imply anyone trying to sort out coding from formatting, from styling as a novice. There's a reason we separate these activities in programming that has to do with how you model applications not to mention empowering the people who have expertise in doing them.

While I agree that code|not_code is not helpful, trying to make the definition of code so low order that it's meaningless is also not helpful. There's a bar there that belongs in the middle and I think you both have missed it. I was merely calling out equally harmful wording that you were using to correct harmful wording.

Most of the gatekeeping of what is and isn't "coding" is done by novices who don't really know what they're talking about. Beginners tend to want a hard line with "coding" on one side and "not coding" on the other, but that's not a very useful way to model interactions with computers.

I disagree. There's a meaningful distinction between what is code and what is formatting because the concerns are quite different. This distinction is more apparent on frontend applications where the code bits are actually dealing with the fact that there's a single process doing all these seemingly asynchronous things, the use of very infrastructure-like components (eg: pubsub implementations, stores, etc). Formatting and design doesn't need to deal with the how, it needs to deal with the why. The powerhouse of a developer is knowing both.

Trying to shoehorn peoples attitudes into discriminatory experience levels based on your perception of that rhetoric is an odd behavior unto itself. These topics merit talking about because ultimately they affect how we think, reason, and organize on different layers of projects.

You actually somewhat proved my point with your example of CSS. It more recently became capable of more "code like" qualities, but it can definitely be used for just styling and formatting. Without discussion someone may never know the difference or why you'd use some of CSSs computational capabilities. Another crossover is YAML; YAML can be very markup language oriented but it also supports aliases, pointers, etc.

I worked for a large fintech firm that used this as reasoning to layoff 700-some employees years ago. They cited their changing needs and the talent of those engineers juxtaposed to their needs changing. I had seven friends among those engineers, only one of which I would consider in a grey area with respect to the skills he possessed that were relevant to the times. The company refused to release a full list of employees that were let go so we used Slack to create a list of users deactivated between certain time periods (this gets tricky with EU). What we learned is that most of them were tenured employees with higher wages. Their wages (likely) predated a movement that caused average wages at the company to go down so that everyone on every team with the same title made the same amount. These were basically the people left over who didn't quit but stopped getting raises because they were above pay bands for their level.

Even the military (in some branches?) is aiming for sharing goals instead of orders and promoting self-organizing teams because hierarchies don’t scale.

This is incorrect. We consolidate most of our decision making at the small team leader level. Title and role, because of that, are explicitly not intwined. Lance Corporals can lead Sergeants if they possess the experience to do so. This is more common in the infantry. Small team leader have always practiced servant leadership; the idea that you eat last, take first watch, are the first in and last out on patrols is as old as time herself.

Broader question: Given that SEC enforcement is speculative (eg: we think this might be a security) do they have to pay damages when they're wrong? If not, why? If so, how much?