http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_movement -- "sex-positive" is a term describing a movement meant to embrace rather than repress sexuality. The play on words of "sex-negative" refers to the opposite of sex-positive, ie., sexual repression.
OP is saying that you are sexually repressed because sex jokes make you uncomfortable. This is a good point, because dongle jokes are actually not "sexist", they are simply sexual. Men hold no exclusive territory over dick jokes, or sex jokes in general. Women can tell dick jokes too. They can also joke about vaginas (Sarah Silverman much?) and both genders can appreciate the humour EQUALLY (yay equality!). Those who don't find it funny are NOT victims of sexism-- they are victims of a shitty sense of humour.
> It is tiring to translate thoughts, experiences, and feelings into a digestible and understandable format.
This is a very telling statement-- it's also somewhat ironic, given that one could easily interpret this as a passive aggressive jab at OP's "inability" to communicate. One could ALSO interpret this as a general sentiment about the importance of vocabulary. So either you did not communicate this point precisely enough, or you intentionally left it vague as some intelligent ploy to poke at the flaws in your own argument. I'll go with the latter cause it sounds more meta.
The actual issue is that it isn't about difficulty. It's actually impossible to translate thoughts in a predictable manner across racial, gender, and cultural lines. We are not machines, and so people interpret statements, and, in some cases, jokes, in the way that they are brought up to interpret them. In a victim-culture, jokes are usually interpreted as malicious devices. The problem here is that while some call for equality and understanding of other cultures/genders/races, this usually only applies to the cultures that are victimized. Equality is a two-way street, and understanding semantics is an important step to equality, because in order to respect, you must first understand. Just because culture/gender X makes a dongle joke, does not mean that culture/gender X meant the dongle joke as some insult to culture/gender Y, even though culture/gender Y might interpret it that way. We (all) have to put effort to understand things in the right contexts, so a dick joke between two guys (with no assumption that women are eavesdropping) is just that-- a dick joke between two guys-- it is not an assault on women (especially given the fact that it seems like it wasn't even meant to be heard by anybody else). Some leeway ought to be given to the interpretation of words, just as you should be reading the OP's text as it was intended, not simply as the words aligned on the page.
That said, I actually love how this very statement ties back to the original issue at hand so perfectly, even though it was some tangential argument about semantics, so thank you for pointing this out.
My only real concern with this essay is that the OP bothered to refactor out the duplication, but didn't bother to refactor his internal refactoring when it got too complicated, instead claiming: "look, now it got messy", threw up his arms, and said there's nothing more that can be done, blaming DRY as the culprit.
Except we CAN do something about it.
It would have been just as easy to continue refactoring the tweet_list() method to pull filtering, pagination, and profanity checking out into sub methods-- at which point you've built a strong reusable component that can support many more combinations of those extra requirements. So by the time you get more feedback saying, "we need a new page that only shows 5 tweets per page and hides profanity, but does not filter", you can now easily take that reusable component, pass in those options and be done rather than starting from the top because you refused to clean up your internals. That's why we strive for reusable components in the first place.
In other words, if the argument is that refactored code is messy, it really means you aren't done refactoring.
This timeline of events is inaccurate. _why's name was called out on a mailing list prior to the Slate article publication-- and prior to his vanishing. Please don't rewrite history in favor by pretending "he grew tired of the persona". He didn't quit because he wanted to move on with his life, he quit in a hissy fit because he was outed.
Open an issue for IAM roles in the GitHub issue tracker (http://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js/issues). It seems like we want this, so opening an issue will give us all a better way to track the feature.
Method swizzling and refinements are basically the same thing. The real difference isn't in the features, it's in the fact that Ruby is a dynamic language, and Obj-C is only dynamically typed. You can swizzle all you want in a statically compiled program, and refinements work equally well in a "static" Ruby program. The problems with refinements start coming to light when you start refining things at runtime, i.e., with module_eval. Obj-C doesn't have this problem, since swizzling happens only once at compile time.
I don't believe that is true, you can use class_replaceMethod to dynamically swizzle methods at runtime. This gets rid of compiler error and warning messages that appear when just using categories to override existing methods. From my understanding, the compiler enforces compilation unit visibility for methods implemented in a category, but the methods actually are actually added to the global scope.
There is no "top level" object or class_eval in Objective-C, so the situation is quite different from Ruby.
Here is an interesting paper about classboxes[1] (same concept as refinements), and the source code for the Objective-C runtime[2]. I found them to be useful in my research.
Objective-C is a dynamic language in every sense of the term.
As examples, at runtime, you can:
- change an existing class' superclass
- swizzle methods
- create a class ex nihilo (though it'd be a better idea to inherit from NSObject)
- give that class (or even an existing one) methods, ivars, and properties
.. and much more
Visit the runtime reference[1] and jump into a running Objective-C app with GDB or F-Script. It's a lot of fun.
There were some dark times during the 1990s for Apple. They fundamentally had a technology stack though. They had vast amounts of technology that made them look like an incredibly valuable target for purchase.
There also had an army of loyal supporters. Supporters longing for their return to greatness. That and they had, in ways, carved out a safe harbor, they didn't have to compete head to head with MS or the clone makers. We're talking about a rare turn around though, that doesn't happen often. Comparing companies to Apple is going to be the new Godwin's law..
RIM is just in a different spot, the game changed and they didn't. They had some good stuff but the rules are just so different, if they made a product that was on par with Android of iPhone, that's simply not enough.
Nobody is slinging mud for taking the site down temporarily. At least, without knowing the details of the attack, I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should have been zero downtime. The mud is being slung by those who don't appreciate a host dropping a client (paid or not) because of a single incident. That shows a complete lack of loyalty to your clients, again, paid or not. RM could have found a more reasonable way to drop pastie, if it really could handle the mix of takedown notices and network disruptions, but they didn't need to do it in the middle of the night with zero notice to the owner. Certainly they could have at least given him some time to migrate his stack and not have to leave all of pastie's users out in the cold --- not that it's such an essential service, but still...
"You mess with my customers"? So, pastie.org was asking for it by hosting a free-form data pasting site? Again, this is you acting like pastie.org is the one at fault and is responsible for a bunch of idiots deciding to saturate the line.
It seems as though you're skewing the issue here. And I think the real issue has nothing to do with whether pastie.org was a paying customer. I'd be interested to know if RM would do the same thing if there was no sponsorship arrangement and it was paying regular bills. My hypothesis is they'd throw them under that same bus -- and that's really what this comes down to. It's hard to be sympathetic with a company that gives up on its customers (paying or not) after "9 hours". Given that they had been hosted for 3 years prior, a night of DDoSing seems like a really isolated incident, and no reason to drop them permanently. Of course, we don't know if there were other DDoSes, but given that wrecked was so eager to share the piracy concerns and didn't mention any other DDoSes, I don't think there are any.
Imagine for a moment that your million-dollar app on Amazon goes down. You file a ticket. They are currently absorbing a DoS attack, but they can't tell you that due to their privacy policy with the victim. So instead they tell you they are looking into it and it appears to be some kind of network issue.
Nine hours pass. You get frustrated. You take to Twitter. Anybody else on Amazon down? you ask. You get several people to confirm that they are. You tweet that it's an Amazon issue from your company Twitter. You start Googling alternatives. You write a blog post, months later, about how incompetent Amazon must be and you're so glad that you moved your million-dollar app to Rackspace Cloud. You make the front page of Hacker News. Hundreds follow you. Amazon gains a reputation for unreliability among those that read HN. Sales start decreasing.
Or, they null the customer and none of this happens.
The issue isn't unplugging, I don't think anybody here thinks that it is unreasonable if they were to do this. The issue is that they kept the site unplugged for good because a single DDoS attack. My analysis based on the official response is that they used this incident as an excuse to drop the site because it was too much of a hassle to deal with the takedown notices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_movement -- "sex-positive" is a term describing a movement meant to embrace rather than repress sexuality. The play on words of "sex-negative" refers to the opposite of sex-positive, ie., sexual repression.
OP is saying that you are sexually repressed because sex jokes make you uncomfortable. This is a good point, because dongle jokes are actually not "sexist", they are simply sexual. Men hold no exclusive territory over dick jokes, or sex jokes in general. Women can tell dick jokes too. They can also joke about vaginas (Sarah Silverman much?) and both genders can appreciate the humour EQUALLY (yay equality!). Those who don't find it funny are NOT victims of sexism-- they are victims of a shitty sense of humour.