Some of those try much too hard, which is kind of silly because you don't need to reach very hard to find people saying stupid/ignorant things about any race/religion/sex/gender/orientation/whatever.
"Most girls aren’t into this kind of stuff." - Easily can be said about guys. In fact, most guys aren't into many stereotypical nerd pursuits.
"How did you learn to do all this?!" - Said to me all the time, and I'm a guy.
"Let me know when you want to do that so I can help you. No offense, but you just don’t know enough about it to try it on your own." - Said to me, and I'm a guy.
"See, that’s the great thing about you, I know I can tell ‘offensive’ jokes around you and you won’t care." - Coworkers say things that make me uncomfortable as well, and I'm a guy (I get squicked out when people start comparing how physically attractive people are, male or female, for example).
I don't get how people read these things and want to poke holes and attack the weakest points in argument. If someone feels uncomfortable at work how about we listen? There's certainly not much/any evidence that women are treated well in tech and yet there's a rush to defend against any criticism of the men in tech.
It's actually very simple code, if you're at all familiar with go. That's probably what I would have written just by sitting down at the computer to do so for work.
The problem is that the general public is going to take "unbreakable encryption" at face value. So don't worry, unbreakable encryption prevents the hacker from getting access to the golden key, because without the golden key even the government can't break into things. The whole thing feeds on itself.
Which is too bad. I'm curious about rtc's argument around machines taking the pictures. It seems the logical conclusion of his argument is that if you buy a camera, and the software on the camera takes a picture without the act of camera owner, then the owner of the camera doesn't own the copyright but instead the company that made the camera? That seems like a very strange conclusion.
I think the issue at hand is that (from what I've read) the photographer set the camera down without intending for the monkey to pick it up and start snapping.
I don't think anybody would be arguing about the copyright had the photographer given the monkey the camera.
Yes, though if you're taking a picture of a scene which was set up by someone else then they may own the copyright in that scene. There can be multiple owners of copyright of different aspects of an image, e.g. if I make my own cartoon and include Darth Vader as a character, then I naturally own my own the copyright to my work but it still infringes on Disney's copyright and I don't have the right to reproduce those aspects publicly.
Also if the images you take have no creative merit then there's no copyright.
People might be arguing but I tend to think they'd be wrong. (i.e. giving a bunch of monkeys cameras to shoot selfies is pretty clearly a planned creating act). But distinguishing that from the (apparent) situation here seems like splitting incredibly fine legal hairs and I don't really understand why Wikimedia seems to thin this is an important principle on which to make a stand.
Incomplete sentences confuse me. Of course "pay for opt-out" is kind of how it is now, since those who opt out will still have to subsidize the support burden of filtering.
Q contains some helper functions for creating generators, tying them to a promise, and automatically starting the generator, eg Q.async(). I've found that I'd rather continue using Q and use Q.async()/Q.spawn() rather than dealing directly with the generators and managing them.
Well, from the same article: »All a worker as (sic) to do is load the bricks into the machine in the desired pattern and gravity does the hard work«
So it is a more ergonomic way of laying bricks; you're doing it upright, not crouched down. But you still have to lay them. You can't just throw a pile of bricks into it and get a road out without workers doing anything.
Have you ever worked at Amazon? He did. For 3 years (I did for 4). I very much doubt PA is any worse than Amazon with regards to it being the job from hell. Everything in the PA job description is practically a carbon copy of what should be in every job description from Amazon.
"he probably has no idea what a market salary looks like"
Amazon doesn't pay as well as Google, but Amazon salary is really far better than you'll get at anything other than the four big tech companies for a normal SDE.
Amazon is infamous for being a terrible place to work that drives people away in a few years (notice how everyone works there for 2-4 years?). Saying "this is no worse than amazon" is about as damning as you can get.
You're conflating their target functions. etcd is all about configuration distribution. Serf seems more like its about member discovery. So you might have a service you run in multiple clusters. Each cluster has a different configuration (etcd), and each instance in a cluster needs to know about the others in the same cluster because they talk to each other (Serf). You could make etcd handle all this, but it probably wouldn't do it as well (Serf has heart beats and recognizes dead nodes, etcd won't do that except for etcd nodes themselves).
"Most girls aren’t into this kind of stuff." - Easily can be said about guys. In fact, most guys aren't into many stereotypical nerd pursuits.
"How did you learn to do all this?!" - Said to me all the time, and I'm a guy.
"Let me know when you want to do that so I can help you. No offense, but you just don’t know enough about it to try it on your own." - Said to me, and I'm a guy.
"See, that’s the great thing about you, I know I can tell ‘offensive’ jokes around you and you won’t care." - Coworkers say things that make me uncomfortable as well, and I'm a guy (I get squicked out when people start comparing how physically attractive people are, male or female, for example).