Wait - not conversing with someone who thinks it's fine to post the N word is now classist and some kind of neuro-whateverthefuck bigotry?
No it's not, it's enforcing the norms of civil discourse. If they have some kind of actual underlying issue that causes this and it's legit beyond their control - then sure, go the extra mile and try to meet them where they are.
If on the other hand, it's some annoying person who likes ruffling feathers on purpose - I really think they ought to be ostracized for such behaviour.
There is still a difference here at play you haven't addressed yet: "posting" here sounds like its some form of direct speech i.e. the author is using the nword as part of their terminology. The context is what is the deciding factor. Does the display of a specific cultural artifact stand to represent itself and and thus point towards its own specific context, or is it a stand in for the authors speech, with a thin veneer of displacement of authorship that ambiguates thuer racist bias.
The argument against classist bigotry is also "just something to think about" and not identified specifically with saying the n-word"
Also there might be some contexts in which this identity might be a valid argument - e.g. some works of black artist/thinkers/writers philosophers etc. (E.g. sylvia wynters ceremony must be found, the music of aanderson paak etc.) Well thinking about it: As a rule of thumb it seems pretty reasonable to not converse with people who >>post<< the nword as long as it is not a dogma that takes the responsibilty of contextual awareness away. (Not certain about the context here, haven't properly read the article)
Short of something like the recent event with the chap with Tourette's saying awful things at the BAFTA awards, or Terry Davis with schizophrenia saying outlandish stuff, there aren't many scenarios where I'd be willing to give someone a pass on this.
If you have the ability to choose not to use the n-word, and you're not in a group that can use it self-referentially among your peers, and you use it anyway, then you're an asshole and I don't really care to hear what else you have to say. I feel pretty OK with that blanket assessment.
> Short of something like the recent event with the chap with Tourette's saying awful things at the BAFTA awards, or Terry Davis with schizophrenia saying outlandish stuff, there aren't many scenarios where I'd be willing to give someone a pass on this.
"There are some scenarios where you might want to give people a pass for reasons outside their control" is literally the only point I was trying to make
So I guess we are in violent agreement?
Edit: also, you will never actually discover which people you should give the benefit of the doubt if you categorically dismiss anyone who uses language you dislike
> No it's not, it's enforcing the norms of civil discourse
You don't see how that is exclusionary to people who struggle with norms?
I guess if you're born neurodivergent and can't handle social norms, you don't deserve any kind of grace. You can't ever contribute anything worthwhile or meaningful if you don't live up to all of society's polite norms. Good to know
Speaking as one, I have found that I have never gotten "grace" from most folks. A few folks have been especially patient with me, over the years, and for that, I'm grateful; but they haven't been the norm.
I used to go to Japan, quite often, and watched Americans violating societal norms, all the time. The Japanese were usually fairly good at not lashing back, but I could see them visibly restraining themselves, sometimes. Over the course of about a decade, I learned to at least respect their ways. I found the Germans to be less accepting of annoying Americans (and I was one). I learned a lot quicker, there.
I know that many folks think that self-diagnosing as "on the spectrum" is considered some kind of "get out of jail asshole" card, but that's just an urban myth. If you're an asshole, you'll usually be treated like one; no matter the reason.
> Speaking as one, I have found that I have never gotten "grace" from most folks. A few folks have been especially patient with me, over the years, and for that, I'm grateful; but they haven't been the norm
This mirrors my experience too. I think my bitterness about that is on full display in this thread
Well, in my case, I had to learn that I live in the NT (neurotypical) world; not the other way around. It's my job to adapt, and it's unreasonable for me to assume that others will, for me.
In my experience, it's been worth it.
Growing up overseas, in many different cultures, I think, has helped me with this.
Oh behalf of the neurodivergent people surrounding me, 100% of whom successfully resist any temptation to say the n-word in my presence that they may ever feel, it's reprehensible that you're conflating racism and neurodiversity. I've never, not once, ever, heard someone blame their racism on ADHD.
You've never encountered someone who is pretty autistic and doesn't care about (or perhaps understand) the social consequences of using slurs?
Or someone bipolar who gets kind of erratic and can say really out of character stuff when they are going through a manic episode?
Or someone with tourettes that might say something that pops in their head unexpectedly?
Sure thing about ADHD. You're right that people with the executive function disorder don't tend to blurt wild social faux pas. But there are also people with social function disorders who might.
It doesn't necessarily mean they are terrible people
This is an insultingly narrow definition of "neurodivergent" limited to people with profound impediments to social functions.
I'd already explicitly excluded people with Tourette's and other major challenges, but you knew that, so now I presume you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Have a nice day.
I just want you to know I'm similarly frustrated with you and also feel you are arguing just to argue, and deliberately trying to take my words in the worst possible light
Like seriously.
> This is an insultingly narrow definition of "neurodivergent"?
No! I'm trying to define it as a broader scope of behaviors than just "my friends with ADHD" like you did!
What a frustrating interaction. I hope you're pleased with yourself
Carriers have been in question long before this conflict. There's been a big question as to how effective and/or survivable a carrier battle group will be in the South Pacific, especially given China's long range anti-ship missiles.
There's been a whole ramp up of very exquisite technology to try to get the upper hand here, but I don't expect we'll see the carrier be the force it has been over the last few generations. It's just too tempting a target.
Long-range anti-ship missiles of old are also obsolete, they and their launch problems are also too expensive for their vulnerability. A salvo Shahed-style drones launched from expendable unmanned vessels would overload a carrier group air defences way cheaper than old school ASMs from frigates.
New weaponry poses great challenges for these platforms. I don’t know if a swarm of very slow moving drones would be my biggest concern though.
You can afford to spend a few million when you’re taking down billions of dollars worth of hardware.
I would think a simultaneous barrage of maneuvering hypersonic missiles would pose a much bigger threat. A CIWS or three can take down a lot of slow drones.
but if you know there are 3 CIWS, you know they can move the pew-pew pipe at some radians per second this axis, and that axis, you put the drones in a formation to maximize the need for muzzle movement, estimate how many rounds are in them (or how long can they fire before getting overheated)
and send that number + 1 drone.
.
.
of course it's a bit oversimplified, but really with decoys, and putting cheap shaped charges on them ... they can fuck up the launch/landing surfaces, the AA capabilities, there's absolutely no way to jam them if they have the "last mile" set to automatic.
(yes, in theory a dumb and big fireball or good old flack can take out a lot of them, seems trivial, but in practice we don't see that, instead we see faster drones trying to intercept them, currently with FPV remote control)
I think we're heading for a real crisis here. We've got an imperfect system of constraints and bottlenecks, and we've just eliminated one of the main bottlenecks - the speed at which we can add new code. This just puts so much more strain on the rest of the system, I think the industry is going to have a quick lesson on the non-linear costs of software complexity.
I'm glad to see that the author of the article is putting an emphasis on simplicity here, especially given the nature of their business. Those that fully embrace the "code doesn't matter" approach are in for a world of hurt.
Long-term, I expect there will be more tooling and model advancements to help us in this regard - and there will certainly be a big economic incentive for that soon. But in the meantime it feels like a dam has been breached and we're just waiting for the real effects to become manifest.
> "very sorted and hidden" mode of organizing is heavily socialized as the _only_ way to be organized
In some circles perhaps. I'm more of a fan of Adam Savage's First Order Retrievability - an overly fancy term for a pretty simple concept. There's certainly large swaths of folks that adopt that vs the everything-in-a-drawer approach, especially in workplaces where otherwise it would just cause entirely too much friction for common operations.
I give myself a lot of grief for a messy workshop, but it is nice once you realize there's a lot of ways to be organized and it's a very personal process. The important part is to devote a bit of time and energy to it, and to slowly pay down the organizational debt. And to let go of the perfectionism!
At the end of the day, if someone doesn't like my open workspace style, they probably don't value working the way I do, and I'm ok with that.
Thus far I've tried that (rejected), Floci (not great), and now looking at this.
This one is 7 days old.
I'm eager to have a localstack replacement, but these are a long way off from being mature enough. I suppose this is just the new state of software? Shiny website, big claims, AI coded, insufficiently tested.
Out of curiosity, why did you reject Floci? It lacked some feature I needed, so I just went ahead and added them. My needs were not that complex and it has patterns to test that implementations match AWS. I agree it’s lacking things, but the bones aren’t that bad.
I too added some stuff, but keeping up with the pace of it was annoying. Conflict city, slow reviews made it a headache.
In particular my issues were:
- missing range fetches (probably in place now)
- Missing version support in various places
- bugs wrt to the handling of versioned objects across api calls
My needs are not super mainstream, but I was better off using RustFS in this case. A single lightweight fake would be preferable though.
"LocalStack was just a mess of a codebase" - very true.
I do think there's potential to semi-automatically create a compatible suite of services, but it'll require some very talented use of LLMs and some novel testing approaches. Not something I want to sign up for.
I evaluated Floci, but that has the typical issues you'd expected with freshly minted vibe code.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. They do have a dynamo db fake, but they don’t even release the code for it! Perhaps they’re concerned about making it really easy to clone their stuff.
But we can still do that ourselves, dynamically interrogating the real thing and comparing it to the fake.
Usually languages are not the issue. It is the code that we write. As long as languages help us to find/debug a problem caused by crappy code - we should be good. Coding is kinda creative work. There is no standard to measure creativity or pitfalls of using wrong patterns. The incidents & RCAs usually find these. But most of the times it is already too late to fix core problem.
Not sure that I agree... I think some of the worst AI code I've had to deal with and the most problematic are when dealing with Java or C#... I've found TS/JS relatively nice and Rust in particular has been very nice in terms of getting output that "works" as long as function/testing is well defined in advance.
The class loading magic means you need to be exceptionally careful about things that would otherwise be very innocuous. It’s the rule, not the exception - that your average spring boot app will be doing tons of expensive stuff at startup. Most of which is unnecessary and was not even intended.
The JVM doesn’t need this kind of thing either, and it gets a bad wrap from the J(2)EE days, and the “simple” replacement that Spring was supposed to be.
No doubt there’s some benefits to be had, but I don’t think the trade-offs are worth it, especially at larger scales.
No it's not, it's enforcing the norms of civil discourse. If they have some kind of actual underlying issue that causes this and it's legit beyond their control - then sure, go the extra mile and try to meet them where they are.
If on the other hand, it's some annoying person who likes ruffling feathers on purpose - I really think they ought to be ostracized for such behaviour.
reply