Full Speed has existed since USB 1.0 — it’s “full” relative to USB 1.0, where the only other option was Low Speed — but I agree that the name was a poor choice.
Some of their other writing seems to be of a similarly low quality. Another of their pages [0] seems to mirror a post [1] that they had sent to comp.lang.lisp, where they describe their difficulty with finding out the identities behind some blogs in sufficient detail.
> PS it annoys me to no end when one cannot easily find the name of the author on blogs, when the blog author clearly didn't meant to be anonymous. Is there a reason you didn't want it spelled it out?
This turns into a small rant against handles, which, if you set aside the jargon, are essentially nicknames.
> (i despise hacker culture, where these “hackers” idiotic-namesake prefer to go by “handles” or abbrevs (e.g. “RMS”, “ESR”, “JWZ”) or whatnot insider-fashion fuck. But that's just me.)
One person seemed a bit annoyed by them, so they then responded with a larger rant [2] that proposes that “hackers” are a strict subset of the people who like to tinker with computers, without ever clearly describing what it is about “hackers” that they “despise” — concluding:
> It is this group of people, i despise. More accurately: i despise their general style and outlook. I despite them. Fuck them. FUCK hackers. FUCK their hacking. Fuck their mothers. Scumbags.
At this point, I’d have dismissed them as a troll, but they went to the effort of buying a domain name and everything!
Xah Lee is a well known usenet troll. He entered my killfile many, many years ago for his ranting against Python, Vim, Emacs, Lisp, and everything else under the sun.
The articles you are citing are from comp.lang.lisp newsgroup. I'm a regular there roughly from 1999 to 2010.
I didn't buy a domain to put a rant. I had a website since 1995, had domain since 2000, and my website had several thousand links from math department of universities, educational institutions, printed books, math journals.
If JS, absolutely needed JQuery in order to, say, select an element the way C needs a library to output to the console, then sure, you may have an argument here.
Because literally any child can start developing, and then grows up and pulls every library under the sun because the language they use is a piece of crap, without a single thought about the consequences?
Thankfully node.js is bringing this clusterfuck to the desktop too.
It's more about deployment and dependency problems.
The dependencies we are talking about are transparent to the user, save only for some download performance issues which are pretty minimal, if not overstated in many cases, compared to the former issues faced by native applications.
With progressive enhancement, Twitter could provide basic functionality with full page loads and the like, and use JavaScript to replace these with a better user experience.
If you only look within a given occupation, sure, the disparity isn’t as wide, but that fails to answer some important questions: why do the choices that women (or any given group) make result in them being paid less overall? Should they essentially be punished for those choices, particularly when you consider the power that money buys? Are some of the occupations that are dominated by women undervalued and underpaid, such as teaching and nursing? Consider watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV9zBAotFeo
> why do the choices that women (or any given group) make result in them being paid less overall?
If you pick a low-valued career, you will probably be paid less. No need to bring in gender here... movers are mostly men, and they're also low-value.
> Should they essentially be punished for those choices, particularly when you consider the power that money buys?
It's not punishment. They willingly give up the power of money by picking a career that earns less. If someone wants the power of money, pick a different career. Again, gender doesn't matter.
> Are some of the occupations that are dominated by women undervalued and underpaid, such as teaching and nursing?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with the dominating gender. Those fields are just under appreciated... it's a societal problem if we under value those professions, but (again) gender doesn't matter. Male nurses suffer the same problem.
It seem what you should be asking is: Are women inherently biased to pick these nurturing roles, and is this because of societal or biological pressures? If it's biological, is society responsible for correcting the economic imbalance by effectively subsidizing those roles? Should we accept that some careers are valued less, make this very obvious during formative years (highschool/college), encourage rational decision making, and accept any natural gender imbalances that result?
"should they essentially be punished for those choices"
Certain jobs are worth less than other jobs. Can we agree on this? I think it's reasonable that college education and experience allow me to earn more than someone working a job which requires neither.
Choosing work that is paid less in not being punished for your choices -- that's silly -- it's the obvious and expected result of having made that choice.
Nurses btw, make very good money.
Looking at a list of male-dominated fields just now, I noticed that they're all dangerous occupations: Construction, Logging, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction.
Should they essentially be punished for those choices by bringing safer jobs' salaries to the same level?
Someone is organizing the system to pay the lowest possible wages. This someone operates within deeply entrenched structures of power. Someone also didn't let women vote until 1920 in the US... 1959 in Switzerland. And someone made sure that inheritance customs were patrilineal... someone admired extremely patriarchal societies like the old Roman and Greek... someone treated women as property... someone kept women out of the universities... someone kept them out of the guilds and professions... who is this guy?
That's the long story of the struggle for justice for women.
You seemed to say that gender injustice could only be perpetrated by some shadowy caricature "someone." I'm saying there is such a someone: the patriarchy.
On an individual level, perhaps, but how would individual negotiations explain the difference in pay between whole professions (where most of the pay gap is)?
It's not really that individual negotiations explain the larger differences. It's more that the problems with individual negotiations are symptomatic of the deeper gender issues.
If I make the decision to take up painting; my economic worth will decrease. That's personal.
I, as somebody who aspires to be a father some day, will try to make it worthwhile for mom; but ultimately her lifetime financial earnings will be less with kids, and that's something she will decide.
As far as occupations which are "underpaid", that's up to the employees. Nurses are paid what they value their work at, if they don't want to work for that money, they don't have to. Because nurses don't mind working for what they're currently paid, they are paid that much. If they were paid less, fewer of them would do the work.
That a person would continue to work for a given rate does not imply that they don’t mind working for that rate. There are many reasons why one might continue. They may not be trained in another occupation. They may not have the money to choose to stop working in an effort to make a statement about their rate. They may even want to continue working despite their objections about how much they’re being paid.
>Should they essentially be punished for those choices
Men are punished by working in more dangerous fields. They are literally killed for their choices and at a far worse rate than any income inequality, even of the most exaggerated reports.
But perhaps my biggest gripe over this whole issue is that I believe that had the occupational death rates for men and women been opposite what they are, we would be having radically different conversations about the issue.
