lennivelkant @ lennivelkant @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

0

Comments

545

Joined

1 yr. ago

Really, the metric we should be looking at is (f+a)/b where f is some subjective weighted measure of functionality, a of aesthetic value and b describes the bloat.

That's multiplicative, no? Conjunctive rather than disjunctive.

I suggest to remedy what must clearly be a misunderstanding, we give him a deep and personal insight: Cut him off from all of his assets, give him nothing but a set of cheap clothes and kick him to the curb.

Of course, we'd need to make sure his billionaire buddies don't help him, but maybe we can just enroll them in this experiment too.

Actually, they might just promise someone a reward once they get access to their funds again, so we need to make sure that this can't influence the experiment. Maybe we could just seize the assets without giving them back? With their hard work, surely they can get back to where they were, pulling bootstraps and all.

When he called them shitholes, I'm starting to think that might have been geopolitical tsundere.

Is it 13? I bet it's 13. Bloody thing keeps making trouble.

An individual would risk corporate lawyers lobbing suits at them they don't have nearly enough resources to fight. In that way, it's much like other forms of activism: individual actions are easily singled out and retaliated against.

If a ton of people were to do so, however, they might have an impact. Either the registrar would have to take steps to limit who can submit them, which might conflict with some laws, or they'd invest a great deal of resources trying to sort out the legit ones. Trying to single out people for retaliation is hard when there's enough of them. In this way, too, it is like other forms of activism:

There is strength in numbers. There is power in unity.

If, hypothetically, someone were to coordinate such actions in the style of a crowdsources DDoS, and they could get enough participants, they might get away with it.

Idiots participate in Bigger Idiot scheme, upset to find out they're the Bigger Idiot.

Hard to predict.

This act broke the taboo against violence and shattered the perception of powerlessness. Turns out there is something you can do against these assholes, and it's not as unpopular an option as you might have expected.

It may inspire imitation, emboldening other pissed victims. It may scare the other CEOs into treading more carefully. It might embolden progressive politicians to challenge the status quo, now that they see how popular that can be.

Or it might end up a big ball of hot air that doesn't do anything. Like I said, hard to predict.

I once made a reddit comment in anger that was most certainly over the line. I don't remember the context, but someone had my blood boiling quite badly, which I voiced by wishing pain on them. However, it was a support-oriented community, and my outburst was definitely not tone-appropriate for that environment - the last thing people seeking support need is a graphic description of pain. I got a two-day (I think?) temp ban from that sub, citing that reason. First I was pissed, then reflected, acknowledged my error and didn't repeat that mistake.

In hindsight, I think that makes for a good moderation approach:

Lock an escalating thread, clean out comments that cross the line, hand out brief temporary bans to particularly excessive offenders or those continuing their venting spree in other threads after the first one was locked, give them an opportunity to step back and reflect.

Of course, there's still the question of "what do the mods consider excessive?" But that's a question you'd have either way.

I feel we're arguing about definitions here, except that you're just asserting the equivalence instead of proposing a definition that would lead to that conclusion.

I offered my distinction. What part do you disagree with?

I'm thankful I don't do software dev (I did two years as a working student, that was enough), but working in Data Engineering / Analytics doesn't make things better. I'll overengineer the database, ETL and reporting, define a dozen measures I'll never use, prepare a dozen ways to slice and view the data I'll never look at and build a whole data warehouse I'll never look at.

Eventually I remember that it exists, realise that I've answered all my questions by directly querying the database, except for "What am I running out of?", which I answer by looking in the cabinet because I never update my inventory anyway.

I don't even know where the line is anymore and how much of my responsibilities is on either side of it

"6 for the beer, 9 for the longdrink, 4.20 for the water.... That's a total of 694.20 please."

He uses a pencil, paper and a mechanical calculator to tally up the bill, which I absolutely understand when your career is in IT.

When the alternative is either having to search, evaluate, compare, select and configure an application for that purpose that you're never quite happy with, or to scope, design, develop, test, deploy, maintain, eternally find things you wish you'd done better, refactor, realise you're spending your free time on doing more of your job, regret your life choices, resolve to only make this last improvement and then call it good enough, renege on that promise to yourself a week later, burn out, curse that damn app for ruining your hobby...

...yeah, using the most trivial low-tech solution possible does look rather sensible.

My new data structure:

Given a heuristic for determining data quality, it homogenises the quality of its contents. Data you write to it has pieces exchanged with other entries depending on its quality. The lower the quality, the higher the rate of exchange.

If you put only perfect data, nothing is exchanged. Put high quality, you'll mostly get high quality too, but probably with some errors. Put in garbage, it starts poisoning the rest of the data. Garbage in, garbage out.

"Why would you want that", you ask? Wrong question, buddy - how about "Do you want to be left behind when this new data quality management technology takes off?" And if that doesn't convince you, let me dig around my buzzword budget to see if I can throw some "Make Investors Drool And Swoon"-skills your way to convince you I'll turn your crap data into gold.

I think it's a symptom of the age-old issue of missing QA: Without solid QA you have no figures on how often your human solutions get things wrong, how often your AI does and how it stacks up.

I'm not denying his hatred or crime. A massacre born from racist hatred is a pogrom, a hate crime, an atrocity. Anakin isn't a good guy just because he only butchered one group, and I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise.

I'm arguing whether the massacre of one group of their race constitutes genocide in terms of scale (local outburst of violence as opposed to a planet-wide persecution) and intent (revenge out of rage and hate born from topical pain as opposed to a persistent effort to eliminate an entire race).

Not every pogrom is genocide. We don't need to reach for the most extreme terms to describe violence born from racism. In case it needs to be emphasised, Anakin committed a hate crime, incited by grief and rage, but likely fueled by preexisting prejudice.

There really is no need to stoop to insults and condescension about it either. If you have a contribution to make about the subject matter - perhaps because you think I've forgotten something - just contribute instead of prefacing and closing it with vitriol.

The thing I hate about Star Wars is how stuck-up and elitist some fans get. God forbid you get something wrong - if you haven't consumed and intricately memorised every piece of canon (and "Legends") lore, you're trash. And because everyone gets something wrong at some point, they all suck and everyone that likes it is an idiot (except me of course, I know everything). Damn Star Wars Fans, they ruined Star Wars!

That isn't the environment any fandom should foster. If you love something, help others love it too! If someone gets something wrong or doesn't know something, share what you know. If someone holds a position you disagree with, talk to them and figure out where you disagree. Be part of the reason someone says "I fucking love Star Wars". Let's love it together.

It's a common bait-and-switch joke. "I have Ligma" "What's Ligma?" "Ligma Balls!" (The joke being that "Ligma" sounds like "Lick My")

Maybe you're familiar with a similar joke: "Hey, do you think it smells like updog in here?" "What's updog" "Not much, what's up with you?" (Here, the joke is that "What's updog" sounds like "What's up, dawg")

You mean 30 years ago?

Oh look, someone is doing something eccentric online that doesn't actually harm anyone!

Better extrapolate that to their real life, make assumptions about that life and leverage that to make fun of them. Gotta make sure people conform to my expectations of behaviour online, right?

Socialist ≠ Tankie

You can be in favour of dethroning capitalist oligarchs without licking dictator boots.