It really irks me when people conflate calling for someone to step down from a CEO role with "lynching", "blood", or "militant". As you know, actual LGBTQ people are actually lynched, and our blood is actually shed. Your metaphors are, frankly, offensive.
(disclosure: I am also a member of the LGBTQ community.)
right. ignore the validity of my comments. just take offense to the words.
Whilst living in Montana, I have been harrassed multiple times for my sexuality. I have been beaten to unconsciousness by people I didn't even see approaching me, left with a sign saying "HOMO" on my body. I have had a rope around my neck, and three men lift my drugged body to a tree so I could die. Thankfully, a less bigoted person scared them off with a shotgun and got me medical attention. It's why I left the states and moved to Canada.
I know the words I'm using. I feel entitled to use them, as I'm fully calibrated to their meanings.
Now, perhaps you haven't learned that a "Political Lynch Mob" is a thing. And that angry mobs are often out for blood, literally AND figuratively. Perhaps you haven't seen any political lynch mobs in the past, and never seen them literally go for blood. Allow me to inform you that they do happen. I invite you to crack open a history book. Perhaps start with the Boston Tea Party, which, while not a literal lynch mob, did in fact irreparably burn a politician with hot tar, and then cover him in feathers as a sort of public mockery. because of Taxes on Tea. If you think that is somehow more justified than a group of people that (I completely believe) would beat Eich in the street if a group of them found him alone, for donating money to a cause they found abhorrent, I don't know what to say to you.
if you think I'm exaggerating about how groups of angry citizens almost always lead to senseless violence, you should probably crack open that history book again.
>if you think I'm exaggerating about how groups of angry citizens almost always lead to senseless violence
If you're saying that groups of angry people always lead to senseless violence, you're wrong, and there's no history book that will back you up. Yours is the typical argument against the concept of anger in defense of of a person who has inspired anger. Completely empty.
To say that a particular reaction isn't justified in a particular case is one thing. To say that to react to anything in anger makes one dangerous and therefore bad is silly and an argument that can be directed at everyone on every side of the argument with equal vacuity.
Was the lynch mob the one that decided not to use or support the use of a particular product, or was the lynch mob the group of people all over the country who combined forces to help defeat an element of gay rights in a single state? Answer: neither. No one was lynched, people weren't prevented from expressing themselves, and people weren't prevented from expressing objections to those expressions through their own personal choices: Eich got to donate money to help keep gays from getting married, and people stopped using Firefox because they didn't want the company that makes their browser to be run by a homophobe.
If you wanted to use Firefox twice as much to show your support for people being able to express any view (or even just the views you like) without personal consequences, you were always free to - Chick-Fil-A, Duck Dynasty, Cracker Barrel, Hobby Lobby, and Paula Deen still do good business.
You have set up a straw man by omitting the "almost". You're right, though; if I had said they always led to violence, everything you said would be true, but I didn't. So it isn't.
You seem to have set up a straw man for each paragraph. And they're all unique.
I don't think it does. I think too many people are trying to short circuit real discussion around this issue by either calling people bigots, or taking offense to the term "bully".
I don't believe money is 1:1 with value. Consider for example a "Craigslist Flipper" - someone who finds items for sale on Craigslist, buys them, and turns around and sells them for a profit. Did this person create value? Not at all; I would argue they created negative wealth in the world. See also: people who run window installation companies and go around breaking people's windows at night.
I agree with you on the breaking windows guy but not with the Craigslist Flipper in the pure form(just buy and sell locally with no shipping or repairing which would add value besides flipping).
Why does the Craiglist Flipper add value? The Flipper takes away the random luck factor and distributes goods to those who can best utilize them.
Consider an iPad 1 listed for $10 on Craigslist by someone who just wants it gone. Almost anyone would buy just for the heck of it and take it away from the market even if they already have iPad Air and 3 other Android tablets gathering dust at home.
However, if the Flipper buys it and puts it back on the market at say $100, the person buying from the Flipper will actually have to think before making such a purchase.
So a reasonable Flipper adds liquidity and stability to the market. Unreasonable Flipper (one either putting prices too high or too low) does not stay in business for too long.
This definition of value ignores ancillary departments such as marketing, office management, HR, and legal. These are sometimes known as "cost centers" in a business organization, but in that they support the engineers/artists/makers, they most definitely are creating value. Sometimes the chain can be long, but it's usually present.
@Horse_ebooks is (was?) an excellent piece of performance art. I think the modern audience still has a sense of wonderment when it comes to the computer-generated (as though it is the computer itself doing the generating and not really the programmer who wrote the algorithm). People were willing to believe that "computers" were at the point where they could create consistently hilarious phrases, and are disappointed (and even outraged) today when they find that we're not there yet. The artists have imparted the audience with a sense of disillusionment. Perhaps we'll see more art in this style in the future, although part of (or all of) the magic seems to be in the audience's belief that there was no human intelligence behind the content, so perhaps this isn't duplicatable. If only I could set this experience to a Kraftwerk soundtrack, and maybe play Bladerunner on a screen in the corner.
I can't wait to see what this group comes up with next!
The NY Times has been running an automated haiku experiment for some time now. I think it has a lot to do with your comment. Check this: haiku.nytimes.com
The underlying theme in this post, from what I gather, is "Male programmers are often treated poorly by their peers, so female programmers should have nothing to complain about when they are treated poorly."
This is denial of the very real sexism in our industry.
That is nowhere in the article, not even between the lines, outside the lines, generally implied by the curvature of the lines or audible if played backwards and slowed down by a factor of 10.
Don't agree with the blog's author though, arseholes being arseholes is a general fact of life and there's no special link between them and programming.
That's a different use case. Computer owners usually use their computers every single day for multiple hours, while drill owners, unless they are professionals or hobbyists in construction, use them very rarely, maybe once or twice a year.
But the cost is vastly different as well. You can get a drill at Wal-Mart for under $40 and it barely takes up any room. People's time is a lot more expensive than the drill so there will never be a time that it will be economical to pay somebody to do just that for you instead of buying a drill and doing it yourself.
Perhaps because ideas are a dime-a-dozen, but not every idea-haver has the time, energy, desire, or capital necessary for execution. Perhaps someone else will come along and run with this idea. I think sharing startup ideas aloud in blog posts is wonderful for this reason.
If technical recruiters did actually have technical experience, they could make much more money being programmers rather than working as recruiters. Therefor, there are few to no technically experienced recruiters. This isn't a problem that's going to fix itself, unless companies start valuing recruiters by paying the good ones a lot more. Clearly, this isn't happening widely, if at all. So instead of bitching about bad recruiters, startup founders could put their money where their mouths are and hire technically experienced people to recruit for them.
Anecdotally, the IT recruiters I know make more money than the developers I know. If you look at industry averages then you'll probably find recruiter income to be misleadingly low. Like most sales jobs, there's an incredible amount of entry-level turnover and stagnation at the left of the curve. Once you limit yourself to looking at people with a few years of successful experience under their belts, they actually make quite a bit of money.
As a matter of fact, that's the way many successful startup founders operate - lots of them say they get their best hires by referrals from existing hires.
This article doesn't address the CFC effect relative to the effect of CO2 emissions fallout landing on the glaciers and polar ice caps, which changes the albedo of the ice, resulting in melting them. More and more ice melts every year, and less re-freezes, raising the sea level, altering the salinity, changing the worldwide currents, resulting in massive change to the ocean biomes. Does that result in less climate change than CFCs eroding the ozone layer over the poles?
(disclosure: I am also a member of the LGBTQ community.)