Feels incredibly strange that anyone can publicly view all these office layouts, down to very specific room/corridor/stair layouts, occupancy status, of random private office and university buildings...
Politics is an interesting domain. Everyone has an opinion. Most are convinced they know what’s going on, despite the fact that they lack the skills and knowledge necessary to evaluate the subject matter (math, science, medicine, law, business, economics, etc.) and absolutely refuse to do the research necessary to have anything approximating a valid opinion. It’s D-K at it’s worst.
I went through a phase of deeply researching topics in an attempt to communicate the realities and facets of many issues. After a year of nothing but frustration (and worse) I stopped caring. People take sides on these issues like picking colors. It’s crazy. It’s amazing to see just how attached they are to their chosen perspective while knowing so little and making no effort at all to research and understand.
One of my favorites is Climate Change. Both deniers and supporters are engulfed and fully invested in their respective delusions. This means the reality of the matter is in the hands of a minority with no voice.
The same brain that allowed us to survive in the wild is now driving mass delusion. We are still cavemen.
Those are even worse. Why can't we let political discourse stay in political spaces? That used to be the norm and everyone was far less stressed out and amicable for it. Now every space has become a battleground for sociopolitical discourse and we're drawing lines everywhere.
I'm not sure what people think the word "politics" is. Human rights is politics...
Like... I agree with the sentiment of your comment, 100%. Standing against discrimination is something everyone should (and should feel the right to) do. But.. it is a political act. Which is good.
I understand the context and reasons behind "politics" becoming a taboo word (there is, by definition, "bad"[0] politics). But that doesn't invalidate the "good"[1] politics.
[0][1] Yes, "good" and "bad" are of course subjective.
Standing up for human rights is absolutely a political act, but it shouldn't be a politically controversial act. I think that's why people have always been more willing to make political statements in favor of human rights in contexts where making other political statements would usually be considered distasteful.
Basic human rights for everyone should be the common ground that everyone agrees upon. Everything else we can debate in the appropriate contexts.
Humans have a right to ownership of their property which includes their bodies and who they interact with.
That includes having the right to discriminate. While it may be unkind, it is a greater evil to force someone to interact with someone they don’t want to, even if it’s for reasons of race, sex, living gay, or just being ugly, mean, old or young, or any other reason.
Only in an unfree world there is no discrimination.
I’m reminded of a tattoo I once saw written in runes: “free men are not equal; equal men are not free”.
I will judge the business owner as prejudiced - but it does not make it ethical to send armed men forcing them to trade money for labour with Irishmen. Government laws in the end require enforcement, otherwise they are just nice words. It’s not moral to force someone do act against their will, even if they are unfair, as long as they themselves are not using force against others.
The same principle holds for borders and other forms of property.
Issues of right and wrong often are issues or greater vs lesser evil.
The fact that you pose this question admits the political nature of these cultural conflicts. There are multiple avenues of resolution, some which involve government, some don't. We're all welcome to have differing opinions on how to deal with them, even if we can come to agreement on common values.
When was that? In the US you can go back as far (at least) as Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe for popular figures getting involved in politics. In terms of actors and singers, you can go back to Bert Willams in the 1910s to numerous outspoken figures in the 1950's and beyond.
Clearly there is a palpable difference between the sociopolitical climate of today and the sociopolitical climate 20 years ago. There were other times in history where it was similar to this, but not in most of our lifetimes.
That you assume I'm privileged because I want a more peaceful society suggests you will constantly seek to divide and set social groups against each other for the sake of some personal satisfaction.
But saying that we "let politics be politics" is a privilege. If you are in a minority, either by choice or by birth, it's not that simple. Standing up against discrimination and making that one of our core beliefs should not be as controversial as you make it out to be.
And it's great for you that you can just keep politics in "political space", go home and live in peace. But others can't turn racism they experience off. I would highly suggest watching this video of a psycho-social experiment [0].
There is no such thing as "the political space". Politics is just the word we assign to the concept of people organizing and working out (or failing to work out) their differences. Everything we do is a component of it. None of us are absent from it. And just because you don't value someone's particular job does not mean they do not get to have or express an opinion on politics.
When people complain about "politics", what they are complaining about is often a perceived failure within a system. Chesterton's Fence[0] is a parable that describes the need to understand where the system came from before making changes to reform it.
For example, in a large corporation, we might say that the yearly review system is "political", but getting rid of it completely would be removing the one (albeit, flawed) means that the organization has to evaluate employee performance. In its absence, a new system would have to be created to replace it. Any system that would replace it would also be prone to being perceived as "political" to some people.
What does that have to do with software? We write software to be used by and for the benefit of people. There is no point to it, otherwise. Writing software is fundamentally a political process.
Your deconstruction of "political spaces" is deflecting from the concept which is intuitively understood by us all. Politics in this context means discourse about contentious government policy. Political spaces are places where these politics are typically discussed: think tanks, halls of congress, public debates, forums, close family, etc.
It was always like that. :) Artists, writers and singers did have political alignments and either benefited or suffered from them. In US-centric world post-9/11 reality may seem different and politically charged, but the rest of the world haven’t experienced the same “Belle Époque” as America in 1990s. And even in USA just 20 years before that plenty of things happened.
To me, it's an integral part of celebrity. We expect them to be role models, give up their privacy and generally hold them to higher standards, so why shouldn't they be able to use their fame to support something they believe in?
Agree on both counts, I don't think worshipping celebrities is doing us much good. But the fact is that we (as a society) currently do it, so it seems unfair to be upset when they use their platform for something political.
It's always fair to be upset when people use a powerful platform to spread ill-considered ideas, slander, and/or divisive rhetoric. Everyone agrees with this. If celebrities are significantly more likely to do this because they live sheltered lives and don't spend significant amounts of time considering what they call for, then they're more likely to use their platform irresponsibly.
But the more prevalent issue is that using their platform politically results more in tribalism than the genuine changing of minds.
It's one thing to be upset at a specific instance of a celebrity expressing a horrible opinion. I'm totally down with that.
What was commenting on here was a wider remark that celebrities should just avoid making political comments in general. "He's a football player, he should just play football. Keep politics out of sports."
This is the part I find unfair. If Kanye West has an opinion on global warming, we shouldn't reject it by default. If it's harmful, we should criticize it proportionaly to the reach of his platform (so... A lot). And if the negative effects get out of hand, we should be educating people on getting their environmental information from reliable sources, not limiting Kanye's freedom of speech.
I'm not totally against, in general, artists and celebrities publicly sharing political opinions, but I am saying that those places which are supposed to be shared, places of common unity, shouldn't become places of polarization. Kanye West is welcome to have political opinions and go on podcasts and share them, but it would be inappropriate to bring them to something like the Grammys or a late-night talkshow. Colin Kaepernick is welcome to go to a BLM rally, but when he creates a spectacle of it on the field, he's wholly inconsiderate of those who don't agree with that sort of cop-hating message. People criticized him a lot for it, but is anything better for it?
These things aren't changing minds, they're just dividing people. People who agree with the messages feel good about it, and people who disagree turn away. Right-leaning people, who would otherwise hold Kaepernick in high regard as representing their city, now see him as an enemy, and he holds them in the same regard. This sort of thing is happening everywhere now, and it is what it is, but no one should be surprised when the country becomes increasingly polarized and uninterested in any sort of unity.
GDS hosts a CF instance called PaaS (Platform as a Service) which hosts web applications on *.cloudapps.digital but the majority of the actual GOV.UK estate is hosted in AWS, as is GOV.UK Verify. I believe GOV.UK Pay might be on PaaS and a lot of internal tooling is.
(Source: have worked at GDS for the past couple of years.)
Since surprisingly nobody has mentioned it in the comments here yet, we have a similar scheme in place in London, and have done for quite some time. It's only for the most central/congested zone and has had a hugely beneficial impact on congestion.
That being said, it almost never makes sense to drive a car inside central London anyway as the public transport is very reliable and has almost full coverage, and it's dealing with a very different problem in the first place (old horse and cart windy roads adjusting for the modern age).
Not sure if it's the same client, but the Skye for Business client is also just as bad.
I used to work on a virtualised Windows machine (work mandated) and the only usable accessibility option was a high DPI setting. The old Lync client worked perfectly with this, obviously dating back to an age where they cared about accessibility. Skype for business completely ignored system DPI settings, made certain things huge with other things being tiny.
The spacing was the biggest issue - literally 30-40% of my 43" monitor would often be taken up by spacing around icons etc on the app.
It really felt as though they just stopped putting as much effort into UX, accessibility, usability. Lync felt like a professional IM client, Skype for Business felt like a half baked bodge.
Is there a clear definition between airfield and airport? Or rather, is there a distinction between places you can land a plane vs places an individual can buy a ticket to fly with an airline? I imagine this line gets blurred in certain countries more so than others, perhaps that's what the posted dataset is more geared towards?
With the ever increasing price of BTC you could even end up inadvertently making a small profit on the transaction. That being said, with the volatility of it you could also lose all of your money in an instant.
As with any automated transport discussion, there's the question of liability. If a pilot is at fault, there's an obvious liability on them. People have an intrinsic trust of a human pilot to sort out an issue if it arises, versus relying on a computer which is a complete black box to the passengers. If a pilot is at fault, it's a forgivable thing - in the worst cases the families have some closure, some level of "the pilot messed up, such is life". If a machine or system is at fault, who's to blame? The engineer? The programmer? The maintenance worker? The airline for procuring a cheap contract?
