> It shows you what society really thinks about men with those
I think you're missing a rather big part of what's actually happening, which is that it says nothing about the insulter's feelings about dicks and everything about the insultee's feelings about dicks. The entire reason it's viewed as an effective insult is because it's the sort of thing that the ICE members themselves, who appear in every moment to be of the most fragile-in-their-masculinity caliber, would feel insulted about. What the dick chuckers believe about dicks is quite unrelated.
> it‘s a-ok to insult...as long as the recipients are evil
Signal's use of phone numbers is the least of your issues if you've reached this level of inspection. Signal could be the most pristine perfect thing in the world, and the traffic from the rest of your phone is exactly as exposing as your phone number is when your enemy is the US government who can force cooperation from the infrastructure providers.
Your point is correct but irrelevant to this conversation.
The question here is NOT "if Signal didn't leak your phone number could you still get screwed?" Of course you could, no one is disputing that.
The question is "if you did everything else perfect, but use Signal could the phone number be used to screw you?" The answer is ALSO of course, but the reason why we're talking about it is that this point was made to the creator of Signal many many times over the years, and he dismissed it and his fanboys ridiculed it.
The reviewed MSI looks like a great 2-in-1, but a laptop is also more than its CPU and RAM. The MBP's screen has substantially higher resolution and brightness and refresh rate, for instance. I'm not saying the MSI isn't a good deal, just that it's not reasonable to compare the prices of two laptops like that.
Yes you can, because if the user wanted a better screen, he would likely have purchased a laptop with a better screen. You can buy any sort of screen you want in an x86 laptop, from really crappy to better-than-Mac.
The more often it happens, the more practice you get at delivering the bad news, and the quicker Mike learns to live up to the team's technical standards?
> This is software support, it is a job, it should be paid.
It is paid, even if not in money. It seems like maybe you lack awareness of the other forms of capital and reward that exist, because your framing implicitly insists that financial capital is the only form of capital and that monetary reward is the only form of reward. But there are also a bunch of other forms of capital, like social, cultural, symbolic, etc. which you have missed, and there are non-capital (non-convertible) forms of reward, like feeling good about something. It's the entire reason why permissive licenses still preserve attribution.
To wit, people maintain things literally all the time either purely for prestige, or because being a contributing member of a community, even a small one, makes them feel good, or because knowing that maintaining things leads others to also maintain things. There are both intrinsic and extrinsic non-monetary gains here.
Stallman makes the same critical error in his foundational writings, so at least you're not alone in this.
>people maintain things literally all the time either purely for prestige, or because being a contributing member of a community, even a small one, makes them feel good, or because knowing that maintaining things leads others to also maintain things.
True, but the expectation means that taking on maintenance involves taking on and leveraging a large amount of reputational debt in a very risky way.
If you release something to the world and place yourself in a high-visibility maintainer position, burn out on it and then decide to drop it, it's very hard to ensure that your legacy and reputation in perpetuity will be "released something great and did the world a solid by maintaining it for a while" as opposed to "person who overcommits, bails, and leaves the world in a jam".
It is incontrovertible that the entirety of the open source / free software world exists, in a very fundamental way, because people experience personal reward by doing work that they give away for zero dollars.
The existence of risk does not eliminate the existence of reward. It's called "expected value", and it's non-zero, and it's for the person to manage for themself like everything else in life. Working for equity also involves risk, and nobody says that it's not compensation.
> If you release something to the world and place yourself in a high-visibility maintainer position, burn out on it and then decide to drop it, it's very hard to ensure that your legacy and reputation in perpetuity will be "released something great and did the world a solid by maintaining it for a while" as opposed to "person who overcommits, bails, and leaves the world in a jam".
This is like saying you suffer reputational damage by retiring from a career. The claim is clearly absurd. It's not hard to step down from leading a project in a way that preserves reputation in the same way that it's not hard to leave a company without burning bridges. Some people are bad at being people and fail at both.
My point is that the OP doesn't >lack awareness of other forms of capital, they're asserting that those aren't sufficient on their own, and that one of the reasons for that is the risk that stems from stepping down being something that you can fail at in the first place, with the consequences of cementing a reputation of "being bad at being a person" regardless of anything that's happened to that point. You don't have the opportunity of accumulating reputation without having that risk at the end, unlike a career, where you have the opportunity of taking a job that pays a regular paycheck regardless of whether you leave at the drop of a hat and burn all your bridges by doing so.
> My point is that the OP doesn't >lack awareness of other forms of capital, they're asserting that those aren't sufficient on their own
OP said "it should be paid" because "it is a job", and so the rejection of that claim is two-fold: 1) Uncertainty in the expected value of payment does not change the fact that it's payment, 2) Payment in units other than dollars is still payment. If I get paid in bitcoins, the bitcoin market could completely collapse before I cash out. It's not different than that.
OP's specific written framing, that because it's a job it needs to be paid, which is only additive commentary if OP believes that it isn't being paid, disagrees with your prediction about what OP really secretly bases their statement on.
We can look further back in OP's comment as well:
> The movement grew out of frustration that commercial software cannot be freely improved and fixed by the user
This is only fractionally true, and it is only true in an unpaid way for a desire to consume free software. It is not true in an unpaid way for the desires to produce or maintain free software. Those are done because the producers and maintainers experience some kind of reward from doing so.
> Payment in units other than dollars is still payment. If I get paid in bitcoins, the bitcoin market could completely collapse before I cash out. It's not different than that.
I can't pay my rent or my server bills in "prestige". Entirely different.
I can't pay my rent or server bills in "bitcoins". I need to leverage my bitcoins in some way to get "dollars" that I can then pay my bills with. Non-monetary payment is still payment. Rare pokémon cards are payment too.
Also, in fact, people get things that otherwise cost money all the time based on prestige.
You absolutely can, because you can sell the bitcoins and turn them directly into money in your savings account. There are exchanges that declare their exact value. You can't do that with prestige. There's no exchange and no market.
Crucially, money, bitcoin, and pokemon cards are all transferrable. You can't transfer prestige to someone else, so it has no value in financial transactions.
Transference doesn't matter, because exchange is not a requirement for gain. People get things merely from having prestige/influence/power all the time. It's sometimes called an award, and sometimes called tribute, and sometimes called currying favor.
> you can sell the bitcoins
Prestige is influence, and you can absolutely sell the use or effects of influence.
> There are exchanges that declare their exact value.
Payment does not need to have exact value, just non-zero expected value, which prestige definitely has. There is no exact value to startup equity either, but it's still rightly considered to be compensation for investment of labor and money.
You're thinking of exposure, not influence. And the payment is what an individual agrees to. If you don't agree to doing work to gain influence, that's up to you, just like I don't agree to doing work for bitcoins or Pokémon cards.
> none of the standard temperatures make any sense. 32 for freezing water, 212 for boiling, 98.6 for human temperature?
None of those attributes matter much. F is great for talking about the weather in the US, where 0 to 100 is approximately the experienced range through the year. You don't need to know the exact boiling or freezing points of water to know how cold or hot you'll be each day.
To be honest, I didn't think screenshots were that critical, mainly because static images don't really convey the specific behaviors or features of a tiling WM.
But I see your point. I'll upload some screenshots tomorrow, though a proper video demo might take a bit longer. Thanks for the comment!
Krafcik's quote about how shitty the Tesla cameras are is the only important part:
> "Human vision is so much more capable than the vision of a car equipped with seven 5-megapixel cameras, only one of which is narrow-view, while all the others are wide-view. So you’re basically dispersing those 5 megapixels in a way that makes the actual effective vision more like 20/60 or 20/70. The rest of the cameras in a car like that wouldn’t even pass a DMV vision test"
But we already knew all of this. This is not news. This did not need an article.
The rest is the tired "redundancy" argument, which is also not new:
> "If you have been following the autonomous driving space, you know the debate: Elon Musk believes that since humans drive with eyes (cameras) and a brain (neural nets), cars should be able to do the same. Krafcik, along with the vast majority of the industry, believes that redundancy via LiDAR and radar is non-negotiable for safety."
I really hate this framing.
Redundancy is the least important aspect. Humans just don't drive with "eyes" in the first place. Humans drive with eyes behind lids that squint, inside a head on a neck on a torso on a butt, each part of which has substantial freedom to rotate and move around in space. Your eyes have 6 degrees of freedom plus adaptive light filtering, all of which cyclically respond to the brain's desire to understand the road. Tesla cameras do none of that.
We actually have no idea at all if a vision only approach would work just as well as a lidar system, because nobody has tried a vision only approach that reproduces any meaningful fraction of the human vision system.
On the other hand, a human can only look into one direction, while a Tesla can look into all directions at once. Also human drivers are often distracted, intoxicated, etc. An attentive driver would probably perform better, but I’d rather have all others be slightly worse on the high end of driving skill, while significantly increasing the skill of low end drivers.
> a human can only look into one direction, while a Tesla can look into all directions at once.
Human visual targeting happens extremely quickly relative to the rate of change of objects on the road, so this isn't very important. If it were, attentive driver crashes would happen far more often than they do.
> Also human drivers are often distracted, intoxicated, etc.
This says nothing about the capability of the system. Tesla's have their own non-camera-related failure modes too, like not knowing that traffic lights don't move with the vehicle through space, like changing lanes into opposite-direction lanes, like not having object permanence, like needing to recognize what an object is before deciding to not run it over.
But now also imagine if human drivers were in serious need of glasses but weren't wearing them.
I think you're missing a rather big part of what's actually happening, which is that it says nothing about the insulter's feelings about dicks and everything about the insultee's feelings about dicks. The entire reason it's viewed as an effective insult is because it's the sort of thing that the ICE members themselves, who appear in every moment to be of the most fragile-in-their-masculinity caliber, would feel insulted about. What the dick chuckers believe about dicks is quite unrelated.
> it‘s a-ok to insult...as long as the recipients are evil
Um. Is this in question?
reply