11–20 of 40 posts
Aha, chatbots! Brings back my days on IRC.
Having a botnet with all your servers really isn't a bad idea. I mean, easy admin access, live monitoring, the ability to query everything and have all interested ops people examine the output... pretty handy. Seems like it'd beat a lot of these monitoring services and tools people pay for these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OT: those are some skewed definitions of meritocracy... The real issue the feminist camp is missing is that in a real meritocracy no one looks at your gender or background. The real issue at stake in the corporate world today is that a meritocratic org is an unattainable ideal - they don't exist. Every org ends up being an ol' boys club. And being an ol' gals club is going to be just more of the same. Double hilarity…
> The real issue the feminist camp is missing is that in a real meritocracy no one looks at your gender or background. A real meritocracy serves exactly the values of whatever person or group defines the merit function; when sexists exist and are in positions of social power, "real meritocracies" will also be sexist.
The unequal distribution of specific types of merit between men and women is not the responsibility of the hiring manager. If you put the burden of social change and "making up for discrimination" on businesses then they're going to hire just enough "___"s to not look discriminatory, give them inconsequential projects, and hire the rest of the team on merit.
That's an old picture, as in before January 24, 2014. Why do I know? Because the "United Meritocracy of Github" carpet shown was removed after feminists threw a fit and got them to remove it. Because "Meritocracy is masculine and evil." (Read; the women GH hired can't cut it. Mainly GitHub's Julie Ann Horvath) Source: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug
Humans are fallible. We see things through our own perspectives, and don't even realize what we're missing unless we make a conscious effort to attempt it. There's a lot of cultural baggage that still surrounds questions of gender, and diving into that is an incredibly messy process that, if we're going to be honest, is going to take years if not decades. And that's a damned scary thing, precisely because of how unjust the consequences of that baggage are.
Speaking as a man, I don't think most feminists have an issue with meritocracies as ideals: there's no basis for assuming that a woman can't compete equally against a man, and that'd be obvious in a meritocracy. Their brains aren't "different," nor are they the "weaker sex," or any of a thousand tropes littered throughout history. I think that the issue boils done to a problem with what happens before you get to that meritocracy that affects the decision-making calculus. It's hard to say that you're looking at a genuine meritocracy when the sample being analyzed is already skewed. This is setting aside questions of pay, culture, and other gender issues in the workplace.
That's an old picture, as in before January 24, 2014. Why do I know? Because the "United Meritocracy of Github" carpet shown was removed after feminists threw a fit and got them to remove it. Because "Meritocracy is masculine and evil." (Read; the women GH hired can't cut it. Mainly GitHub's Julie Ann Horvath) Source: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug
Also, being racist and sexist is okay, as long as it is against the proper race and sex. [1] [2]
Social Impact Project Manager Amanda Gelender & Rachel Myers, Github something-or-another. The Github part comes after the SJW part, of course. It's ranked by importance.
If pieces of software count as workers, I guess there are at least a dozen of harder-working more-vital workers at github. So as long as I personify a piece of software, it too can become the subject of worthless press articles?
That's an old picture, as in before January 24, 2014. Why do I know? Because the "United Meritocracy of Github" carpet shown was removed after feminists threw a fit and got them to remove it. Because "Meritocracy is masculine and evil." (Read; the women GH hired can't cut it. Mainly GitHub's Julie Ann Horvath) Source: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug
Don't ask what they do, because they won't answer [0]. Also, being racist and sexist is okay, as long as it is against the proper race and sex. [1] [2] Social Impact Project Manager Amanda Gelender & Rachel Myers, Github something-or-another. The Github part comes after the SJW part, of course. It's ranked by importance. [0] http://i.imgur.com/gqxQyFq.png [1] https://archive.is/6r6bR [2] https://archive.is/Q6yxX
If pieces of software count as workers, I guess there are at least a dozen of harder-working more-vital workers at github. So as long as I personify a piece of software, it too can become the subject of worthless press articles?
Where I work at, Sir Jenkins receives more praise, scorn, veneration and sacrilegious remarks than any traditional religious figure.
Aha, chatbots! Brings back my days on IRC.
Everything old on IRC is new again. I read an article about Slack that praised their speed of integrating feedback and iterating with the following example: "the Slack team quickly identified small changes that had a big impact: Within the list of channels, they added fields for a description and the number of people using that channel."
Not that I totally disagree, but, signing up for Slack is easier than using NickServ for the average person. There's a bunch of features that make HipChat, Slack, Hall et al easier to use than IRC, especially for someone who doesn't want to learn anything new.
Just worth thinking about...
That's an old picture, as in before January 24, 2014. Why do I know? Because the "United Meritocracy of Github" carpet shown was removed after feminists threw a fit and got them to remove it. Because "Meritocracy is masculine and evil." (Read; the women GH hired can't cut it. Mainly GitHub's Julie Ann Horvath) Source: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug
Genuine meritocracy would ideally see women in positions roughly commensurate to their percentage of the population (~50.8%). There are a lot of reasons why we don't see that, and those reasons shape choices made by, available to, and expected of women well before they ever get to the point where they're applying for a position at Github or any other tech company. I think a lot of the criticism of Github's rug went f…
One of my first jobs was a Subway. Had a female manager. Her boss was the district manager and also female. Cool. The store manager tries sexually assault me (shoves things in my underwear) in the store. DM promptly fires her.
And yet, I hear about this kind of stuff with guys doing it to women, along with butt slapping and the sort. I've not been around that crowd, but had it does the same.
I went to a bar with a my wife and a friend. He's a big burly gay guy (a Bear, self identifies). Technically I, along with my wife are both bisexual, it's not a big deal. The bar, however, was a Bear Bar. I'm 6'5", big beard. Pretty fat. In other words, I fit in. Except, the whole feeling that women talk about they are a piece of meat; I felt that. I was the piece, to be gawked over. It was pretty uncomfortable, but it ended soon enough.
I had a manager, female, in a professional setting. She speaks highly of feminism. Cool. Except, she would wear skimpy short skirts, low cut blouses and more. She would play the stereotype; the same stereotype she would claim she was against. And when people would treat her like the hot sexy eyecandy, rather than smart computer scientist (which she is), she would get pissed off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything old on IRC is new again. I read an article about Slack that praised their speed of integrating feedback and iterating with the following example: "the Slack team quickly identified small changes that had a big impact: Within the list of channels, they added fields for a description and the number of people using that channel."
One time I asked why, since cgroups and the pattern of container based deployment had been popular for a decade before Docker started, that containers are so popular right now. We ultimately decided that someone constructing a really easy to use suite of tools around the concept was the reason it has all this love and growth. Not that I totally disagree, but, signing up for Slack is easier than using NickServ for the…
In general I agree that ease-of-use is a big factor. Having said that, I was witness to decidedly non-technical teens in a mid-size town quite happily using mIRC in 2004, so maybe we're not giving people quite enough credit. If you tell people something is hard to use they'll believe you.
The real lesson is to look into what has been done and worked before and see how it can be improved if you're looking for "new" ideas and businesses.
