This isn't about UEFI, I've had no issues with it. Primarily because I don't use Windows on it. Microsoft is up to it's old tricks here. Then again, try to run OSX on a Dell. I just wish all these guys would get their heads out of there asses.
Except that OSX does run on PC's. The architectures are identical now. My MacBook Pro can run windows natively because it is an x86/x64 architecture from the ground up.
I am aware of the architecture of Mac hardware. But OS X doesn't have driver (thus hardware) support for all (or even a large range of) hardware that conform to the architecture. Apple develops (espcially when it comes to optimizations) OS X expressly for it's own selection of (as opposed to general purpose) hardware. Apple also goes so far as to actively try to prevent OS X running on non-Mac hardware[0]. Contrast this with Linux, *BSDs that are developed on and for a wide range of (and general purpose) hardware.
Heh, they both look fine to me. I really couldn't see the difference... I'm a sucker for good design, but it seems my font style is in the incompetent zone.
The most noticable differences (apart from the rendering) are the fi ligature in the title ("overfilled") and the Q feature (where the tail is extended past the first letter ("Quisque").
Kerning is also better on OS X (with Firefox, Chrome and Safari 6), but it's hard to notice on the demo pages because, for some reason, the text body in the Google Fonts page is three pixels lower than in the Brick version.
I glanced at the CSS but couldn't find the reason.
I've worked in healthy and unhealthy work environments, the healthy ones have ample diversity, and the unhealthy ones were heavily male dominant. When I worked for Dell, it was so heavily skewed that several of the female workers felt unsafe, and I would walk them to their cars. Little boys who would otherwise sit in the corner at the bar and completely avoid actual interaction with women get very brave when they have 30 of their friends backing them. It was disgusting. You do what you can, but senior leadership is ultimately responsible for the tone and the hiring/firing. I on several occasions brought complaints from what I had seen, I know the women had as well, and not a single person was ever fired for this.
Well, anywhere from unwarranted sexual touching (ass slaps), to coming up from behind and cozying up to a woman at her cubicle. These were all after the women had made it clear that this was inappropriate, though this shouldn't be required. Language was often beyond condescending, and often abusive and dismissive. One individual was particularly bad, he would get really upset if his advances (which could only have been learned from bad porno, they were so clueless and inappropriate), he would travel straight to verbal abuse and threats. The language was simply degrading.
This same individual, was in the elevator when my friend who worked at another company, but same building. He got into the elevator with his wife, and the individual said something along the lines of "I bet you'd like it if I bent you over now. Let everyone here have a turn" to his wife. My buddy showed far more restraint than I would have.
Zero percent of this conversation should be about the article, and should entirely be on the validity of the claim against the unhealthy work environment.
Unfortunately, we can't judge the claim at all, because for now it's innuendo, not a claim.
I'm curious why she'd post this on Twitter instead of taking it to a lawyer. And I don't mean for that to be innuendo- there are many reasons for this to go any which way.
If I had told people publicly my workplace was safe for women, and then I found out it wasn't, It would be important to me to let people know that fairly quickly. There might be other women applying for jobs there and making big life choices based on that information who deserve to know that the information has changed.
If I had told people publicly my workplace was safe for women, and then I found out it wasn't, It would be important to me to let people know that fairly quickly.
If you publicly told people that for two years, and suddenly have a live-streamed blow-out on twitter with Facebook-style innuendo, honestly I would completely discount your claims as an emotional tantrum, and would give it absolutely no stock.
There is absolutely nothing "actionable" being discussed. And this may surprise some people, but women are just as capable as men of grinding an axe or trying to take down someone (or some organization) they feel slighted by.
So if you were a woman considering taking a job at GitHub, this would have no influence on your decision? Really?
All it would take for me personally to reverse my stance on an employer being a good place for women is a single case in which I reported being sexually harassed and management then took the side of the harasser over me. Because one case is not acceptable, and it's all it takes to turn a workplace into a hostile and unpleasant environment.
That's not to say "oh, if she says something, she must be telling the truth", but the possibility that she is telling the truth is a huge red flag.
You're thinking only one level deep and taking her statements at face value. Look at the entire construction of this piece. What was specifically referenced? Nothing really.
In my opinion, a simple tweet like
"@x has done @y thus influencing me to leave this company, will put up a blog post." would be much more effective.
This way people know what happened, and all journalism is formed around the actual event. If the guy didn't want to get called out publicly, maybe he shouldn't have fucked up, but this way we get to hear both sides of the story.
Have you ever heard of gaslighting? I don't know what actually happened with this woman either, but it is unfair to say, "Tell us what exact event caused this."
Many people have developed PTSD from a traumatic childhood within which no one distinct event/spoken sentence can be pointed to-- just many, many hurtful episodes over days, weeks, months, and years.
There probably was an event that set her over the edge. I just wouldn't expect it to be some Disney movie scene in which a guy in a suit slams his fists down and shouts, "Women are the worst!" Real people are more crafty than that. Real-life abuse is more subtle.
Again-- I don't know what happened. Just can't help but point out the kind of faulty logic being used here, since it is so common.
No, I'm using risk analysis to conclude that the cost to me of accepting a job there if she's telling the truth is much higher than the opportunity cost of not taking the job (assuming I have other options) if her complaint turns out to be wrong.
Edited to add: the process of deciding the best action to take given uncertain information is fundamentally different from the process of trying to decide what is most likely to be true when there is nothing in particular at stake personally.
1. Which is why I have to estimate risk from incomplete information. Which is a pretty common thing for people to have to do in real life.
If I'm in an unfamiliar city and someone I don't know says "Hey, watch out for that alley, several people have been attacked there recently," I wouldn't know whether it was true. But it would be pretty stupid to decline to take any precautions until I could perform my own plot of crime statistic data by location to assess the truth value, don't you think?
2. Actually, they have a history of problems with women that they were trying to repair. Which is why she was trying to turn the company around on the issue and evangelize it in the first place. Did you read the article?
> So if you were a woman considering taking a job at GitHub, this would have no influence on your decision? Really?
If I was a woman interviewing at GitHub and then read this, it would absolutely influence my decision. I'd want to work there more.
There are two possibilities here:
1) Github has a culture of sexist workplace harassment
2) She is not telling the truth and Github is a perfectly nice place to work
In 1), I would be harassed, sure. I would then take care to document the harassment and file a lawsuit against the unrepentantly sexist company. I'd get a great settlement, Github likely has deep pockets or backers who do and would be desperate for this to go away. Cha-ching, cash in, and feel great doing it.
In 2), I'd have a nice job and everything would be cool.
Says a person who has obviously never been in such a situation and can't even imagine the reality.
It's cartoon-ish to say, "Well then I'd sue and everything would be worth it." Know why most women don't sue? Death treats. Rape threats. Not being able to ever get a job in tech again. No one believing the claims could possibly be true. The expense of suing someone and losing. Etc.
The day-to-day psychological effects alone are bad enough that, with any familiarity, you would never roll the dice on that chance.
> Says a person who has obviously never been in such a situation and can't even imagine the reality.
I worked on a community care facility for developmentally disabled adults when I was in college. I was young when it happened, probably 19-20, and an older woman I worked with made constant unwanted sexual advances. We worked unsupervised in a two person team in a group home, and for about six months she would never let a day go by without pointing out that she would be willing to engage in intercourse with me, right here and now, in pretty graphic terms. I was pretty low on the totem pole, the woman harassing me was very good friends with management, and so I never did anything about it.
So yes, I have been in a situation like that, can imagine the reality, and would totally be willing to go through it again and do it right by reporting it and maybe saving others from getting that treatment in the future.
She'd put a fair amount of reputational capital behind the idea that github wasn't like that, so making a public retraction is the honourable move if she genuinely believes she was publically spreading misinformation previously.
She never said GitHub "wasn't like that" as much as that she was doing her best to change the situation from inside of her own company (GitHub). She encouraged women to join GitHub because of the change she was working on creating-- not because it was a utopia at the present time. That was never claimed. (Though your point is still valid that she was "changing her tune" and that is a risk for anyone to do publicly.)
A very puzzling point of view. She claims to have been harassed all along at GitHub while she was promoting it. This goes to show the limitations of the twitter platform for serious discussion. I'm sure she'd have a more logical case to make in >140 characters. Twitter is the easiest platform to vent on, and that is precisely why it should be avoided in such circumstances.
"I regret defending GitHub's culture to feminists for the last two years. I'm sorry to everyone I've hurt in doing so."
"I've been harassed by 'leadership' at GitHub for two years. And I am the first developer to quit."
Worse than having a serious discussion on twitter, though, is tweeting twitter as a source of breaking news.
Sorry, but the article is doing Julie Ann Horvath a disservice by mixing up her - let's assume valid - complaints about the work environment with irrelevant rubbish. Blame re/code for not treating the subject seriously, either purposefully, or through sheer incompetence.
Well, it's the internets !! I wouldn't blame re/code. Julie has done herself a disservice by mixing up her - let's assume valid - complaints about the work environment with venting out on Twitter. I find it amazing that the kind of people who presumably, ought to know and understand the effect of something going viral sometimes are so unconcerned about what they post.
This is ridiculous, you want to force my company to host your hate speech? Bullshit, you're now removing my rights, to enable your own. It's the internet, build your own platform and say whatever you want.
I'm not really a fan of this libertarian "My house, my rules" approach. To a person voicing a controversial (or non-controversial or just plain stupid) opinion it does not matter who exactly silences them. The US constitution might protect from the government, but ultimately it's not exclusively the evil government suppressing one or the other thing, and in the end it don't ever matter who did it. In the end a thing that was considered so important government (usually completely sovereign) might not touch it, goes away.
And no, this is not the internet, it's a iphone and the apple appstore, I can't build my own. Cydia does not count, that exploits a bug, that could be closed anytime.
It's similar to how I would expect my ISP to not block the websites of competing ISPs. That's forcing the ISP to have content move through its system that it may not like.
It's the same logic behind forcing private businesses to ban smoking on their premises, and the same logic behind forcing photographers, bakers and florists to provide artistic services to celebrations they abhor: 'if you don't want to do X for everyone, according to the rules and regulations we have promulgated, then don't do X!'
The sad thing is, most folks don't want liberty for others.
I certainly don't want unchecked liberty for others, or myself. I want intelligent, compassionate, and humane liberty, meaning that you can do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting someone else.
Say I take the grocery example from above. And I have unbridled liberty, and I now don't allow any black people to shop there because in the original texts of Mormon, the lord cursed Cains seed, and the black skin curse was to identify the cursed. Now if there are 30 grocery stores in town, who cares. But say I'm in a small town, and there are only two, and we're both Pre-1978 Mormon believers. Now black people in the town can only eat at the Chick fil a. Well, Chick fil a decides to also have this policy, and now there is no place for the black populace to eat. The only option to the black people is to open their own store, except no one will sell them the food, and no one will sell them the land, and no one will sell them... anything. I effectively own the black populous because I can get them to work for food. Oh, and it's not racism, it's religion.
I don't care what ideology you have, it must not suppress human rights.
If you're referring to the subprime mortgage crises, the problem appeared to be the removal of regulation more than regulation itself. There was a reason there had used to be laws placing firm lines between banks and securities firms.
This encouraged banking institutions to increase the number of sub-prime mortgages with the stated goal of increasing home ownership among lower income communities.
Changes to this regulation made during the 1990s, specifically the 1992 change to require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (USG-sponsored entities) to devote a percentage of their annual budget to securitizing (read: buy the loans made by other banks and bundle them into securities) these sub-prime mortgages.
This, among other factors, eliminated a lot of the risk for banks - there was always going to be someone to buy the sub-prime mortgages, thanks to this regulation.
And as long as housing prices went up they could afford to keep issuing predictably bad loans, since the assets that would fall under forfeiture would have a greater value than the principle of the loan.
When housing prices tanked in the mid-2000s, after a solid 10+ year housing bubble, all of this mania inevitably caught up with reality as home values went under water.
So let's not pretend that regulation is some short of magic wizard armor that prevents human stupidity and greed (on all parties: the banks, the Government, the realtors, the home builders, and the consumers who took the loans).
Regulation doesn't guarantee anything other than unintended consequences and should be looked at as a tool of absolute last resort when it comes to addressing market issues.
Consider the FDIC, often held up as an example of successful financial regulation - it's enabled plenty of new forms of reckless behavior on the part of financial institutions (see the Savings & Loan crisis from the 1980s) and more or less guarantees government bailouts to the depositors.
Laws are not magic patches to the fabric of reality and human behavior. They often don't even achieve their stated goals and aren't always so easy to correct.
You should consider reading the article you linked. ""However, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission formed by the US Congress in 2009 to investigate the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, concluded that "the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis"."" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Repo...
> According to American Enterprise Institute fellow Edward Pinto, Bank of America reported in 2008 that its CRA portfolio, which constituted 7% of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses. He also charged that "approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences ... [had] characteristics that indicated high credit risk," yet, per the standards used by the various government agencies to evaluate CRA performance at the time, were not counted as "subprime" because borrower credit worthiness was not considered.[125][126][127][128] However, economist Paul Krugman argues that Pinto's category of "other high-risk mortgages" incorrectly includes loans that were not high-risk, that instead were like traditional conforming mortgages.[129] Additionally, another CRA critic concedes that "some of this CRA subprime lending might have taken place, even in the absence of CRA. For that reason, the direct impact of CRA on the volume of subprime lending is not certain."
So if you're basing your argument on the authoritative application of the label "sub-prime," please feel free to indulge in as much or as little semantic pedantry as you like.
Pinto was pretty much the central figure in CRA-blaming, and the vast majority of his claims have been repeatedly and exhaustively debunked.
In a piece deeply critical of Fannie and Freddie, William Black (again of S&L crisis fame) addresses Pinto's attempts to place Fannie and Freddie's terrible risk management on the back of CRA regulation:
Pinto estimated that Fannie and Freddie held “34% of all the subprime loans and 60% of all Alt-A loans outstanding” [p. 7]. Pinto seems to have treated subprime loans as non-liar’s loans, but that is clearly incorrect. I cited Credit Suisse’s finding that by 2005 and 2006, half of all subprime loans were also stated income (liar’s loans). The presence of such large amounts of Alt-A loans is one of the demonstrations that Pinto, Wallison, and the Republican Commissioners’ “Primer” are flat out wrong to claim that it was affordable housing goals that drove Fannie and Freddie’s CEOs’ decisions to purchase loans they knew would cause the firms to fail. That claim doesn’t pass any logic test. One of its unobvious flaws is that no one was making Fannie and Freddie buy liar’s loans. For the reasons I’ve explained, and Pinto admits, Fannie and Freddie actions with respect to liar’s loans were the opposite of what they would have been if they were trying to demonstrate that the loans were made for affordable housing purposes.
The GSEs were deeply irresponsible with their lending and were poorly run, but both were prevalent long before any CRA impact would have been felt. If AEI / Pinto / Wallison had focused on the actual causes of the mortgage / financial crisis instead of trying to blame poor people and Barney Frank, the world would be a lot better off.
Do you honestly think that a few poor people in the US caused a Global Financial Crisis that took down dozens of banks and sent most of the Western World into a recession?
I would encourage you to read 'The Big Lie' by Barry Ritholtz that completely debunks this nonsense.[1] He even offered a bet of $100,000 to debate anyone in front of a 'jury' about the role of CRA in the crisis (unsurprisingly, he had no takers).[2]
I'll just point out some facts that address your most incorrect assertions, but just about everything you wrote is incorrect or extremely misleading.
This encouraged banking institutions to increase the number of
sub-prime mortgages with the stated goal of increasing home
ownership among lower income communities.
CRA loans looked nothing like sub-prime loans.[3] In 2004, about 3.5% of CRA loans defaulted, while about 18% of subprime loans did, and 25% of broker-placed subprimes did. By 2006, 15% of CRA loans were defaulting, but almost 50% of subprimes were and 40% of broker-placed subprimes were.[4]
Additionally, many subprime defaults originated in prime loans, up to 60% in Massachusetts![5] So these people qualified for Prime mortgages, and then refinanced with Subprimes. They couldn't possibly be CRA loans.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (USG-sponsored entities) to devote
a percentage of their annual budget to securitizing [..]
these sub-prime mortgages.
Fannie and Freddie did securitize many mortgages, yet during the housing bubble, their market share was cut in half by all the private banks running wild with MBS products.[6] They also had proper due diligence and lending standards, so their 'high-risk' loan performance was almost 3x better than private lender subprime performance.[7]
Also, if Fannie and Freddie were at fault, then why did the commercial real estate market, with absolutely no government support, have a much more severe price drop (45% compared to 30% [8])?
Or you could take it from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission[9]:
The study found that only 6% of such higher-cost loans
were made to low or moderate-income borrowers or in low
or moderate-income neighborhoods covered by the CRA. The
other 94% of higher-cost loans either were made by CRA-
covered institutions that did not receive CRA credit for
these loans or were made by lenders not covered by the CRA.
I think that's enough for now.
I would love to hear how the Savings and Loan crisis was the fault of the FDIC though, that promises to be entertaining. Especially when the guy who literally wrote the book on the crisis noted that[10];
Deposit insurance was not essential to S&L control frauds.
He then goes on to demonstrate an argument regarding how CRA loans had virtually nothing to do with the crisis. How on earth do you feel he isn't addressing an argument you made?
What the?? Your argument is thoroughly debunked and THIS is your response? When your wife calls you a bitch do you also thank her for the quasi-relevant information? Because that's basically what you just did.
Please do a serious study of the facts. There's no reason that any thinking person in 2014 should still believe that the CRA was to blame for the 2008 financial crisis. It is supremely ludicrous that anyone ever bought that line.
Just start by comparing the total value of subprime loans at that time with the total value of derivatives, CDOs, etc. built upon them. Then, see where that takes you. It's been covered ad nauseum, so it won't be hard to find.
>Consider the FDIC
I have. Bank runs aren't cool. Neither is depositors losing all of their money.
>it's enabled plenty of new forms of reckless behavior on the part of financial institutions
That's why you regulate with something like Glass-Steagall. It worked pretty well for what it sought to prevent until it was repealed, which really set up the 2008 meltdown. And the S&L crisis? Well, that's why the Fed shouldn't double the interest rate over night. You can't just have actors do any mindless thing, then blame unrelated regulation for not mitigating the consequences. The FDIC didn't have anything to do with creating or escalating that crisis. The eventual scale of that crisis was a product of outright fraud.
In fact, Congress had deregulated the thrifts (S&Ls) just prior to the crisis, which opened the door for that fraud [0]:
>Congress finally acted on deregulating the thrift industry. It passed two laws, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. The deregulation...significantly expanded [the thrifts'] lending authority and reduced supervision, which invited fraud.[6] These changes were intended to allow S&Ls to "grow" out of their problems...Other changes in thrift oversight included authorizing the use of more lenient accounting rules to report their financial condition, and the elimination of restrictions on the minimum numbers of S&L stockholders. Such policies, combined with an overall decline in regulatory oversight (known as forbearance), would later be cited as factors in the collapse of the thrift industry
>Regulation...should be looked at as a tool of absolute last resort when it comes to addressing market issues.
So, in summary, you believe, for example, that Glass-Steagall has no value and that banks should be able to place ultra-risky market bets on exotic, esoteric derivative products, using their customers' deposits? And, further, that those customers should not have any form of insurance or recourse?
It's stunning that someone could look back at 2008 and conclude that less regulation is the solution.
I know, I was trying to add to it by bringing up the sub prime mortgage debacle, but apparently that isn't a funny topic, or I lost something in the delivery.
I'm not even going to go into why the correlation between influence and retraction rate exists, that should be blatantly obvious to any with a background in any of the sciences. Also, we want retractions, it means science works.
Well, there is the MPAA, which seems to do what you're talking about, except rather than coming up with an all encompassing solution, they sue you. Because nothing says customer service like a lawsuit.
Drinking alcohol has many health benefits. Even a beer a day, something that 'common sense' would lead you to think was unhealthy, demonstrates to be good for your overall health. And eating processed foods while smoking and drinking would likely be more detrimental than eating well, while smoking and drinking. The hard part is determining what eating well is.
> The hard part is determining what eating well is.
Eating well in seven words: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.". ...where "food" is defined more or less as: "as little processed as available, mostly plant-based food in as close to it's natural form as possible".
But that's kinda my point, we don't know that, anymore than we know an all meat diet is okay for us. Most of the "science" around nutrition would only be acceptable in theoretical physics and paleontology. We're starting to see nutrition studied a little better, but it's the past half decade where we seeing actual science around nutrition, and we'll need at least a couple hundred years before we can say with certainty what is best for human longevity. Until then, we're guessing.
We think cholesterol is bad in excess, and conventional wisdom dictates, that since eggs are high in cholesterol, that eggs should be avoided. Except, the body doesn't metabolize much if any dietary cholesterol, and instead it's the cholesterol that you synthesize that's dangerous. There are some interesting observations with high fat dairy, which actually reduces cholesterol instead of increasing it. Again, conventional wisdom is demonstrating itself to not be correct. Calories in, calories out sounds good on paper, eat less, and you will lose weight. But this also is proven incorrect over and over. I have seen this in studies, and witnessed it first hand with a girl I was living with who was trying to lose weight. She would eat a fifth of the calories that I would eat, and would gain weight, where I would chow down on meat, fats, and green beans and lose weight. What does appear to be apparent is it's easier to maintain a healthy weight if you never gain weight in the first place; essentially your body attempts to return to it's heaviest when calories are available. Many new studies show that the war on salt is based in bad science, and it may not have as much of an impact as we thought. So is a little haiku the answer? I don't know what the right answer is, but I know it isn't that simple.
People keep yapping on about the health benefits of alcohol, red wine in particular, but I'd be impressed if you could find me a single drinker who only ever drinks that one unit of alcohol a day. At that point it very quickly stops being beneficial to your health.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that light drinkers inevitably become heavy drinkers, and thus the benefits of light drinking are irrelevant?
Where do you live? I'm fascinated by your use of the word 'drinker', as if people who ever drink any alcohol aren't in the vast majority. Where I live (UK), pretty much everyone drinks alcohol at least weekly. Most people drink socially, within healthy boundaries (3-4 units per day is the current guideline), occasionally overindulging, often detoxing for a period of time. Whilst there are social problems caused by alcohol abuse, there is no way that in our society we would 'look down' on each other for consuming alcohol, nor define anyone as a 'drinker'. In my whole life I've met 2 people who are not 'drinkers', and one of them has a very rare drink from time-to-time.
As to your point, yes, of course hardly anyone who ever drinks never drinks more than one unit of alcohol per day; that is practically impossible. But many will drink on average, no more than one unit per day.
