Yeah - isn't this more measuring anticipated fear of a situation vs actual risk? Of course the risk _is_ higher if you're less able to defend yourself, but we're talking different measurements here. And I don't buy that the different visual scanning patterns necessarily mean what the article suggests.
Something you're not allowed to say today: there are differences between men and women, and some of those probably include the ways that we scan for danger. Perhaps males are more worried about armed threats up ahead while females are more worried about stalking panthers in the bushes, etc (pick your scenario).
I would think I'd also be very mindful of risk if I was very small or weak, very young, visibly injured, etc - regardless if I was a man/boy or not. These things seem like basic primal wisdom that transcends species.
I've so far found it almost entirely useless for code (mostly Scala, no big surprise there), but for suggesting tools / alternatives, big picture stuff it's come up with some interesting ideas.
If I was hacking Javascript or Python, especially gluing together common components, I'm sure I'd have a different experience.
The great thing is it can repurpose the code from the old inertial guidance unit since the new one is so close it's basically the same thing. I think that GPT thinks it knows what it's doing.
Ok but that's a little different than saying you can't cut the traversal short.
If I'm traversing ancestors (let's say) until I find one that doesn't satisfy a condition, it'll bail out then. I get that this doesn't serve all uses cases, but it isn't a small thing either.
I worked as a contractor/freelancer for ages, and coming back into fulltime employee work I was appalled that this was actually considered to be relevant to my impact on the job site. Some of our clients used gitlab, which to github looked like a long stretch of zero activity.
I'm sad that we as an industry use such simplistic and error prone metrics. The closer I get to the hiring side of things, the sadder I get.
Particularly the business often doesn't want to take on the goal of improved performance when good-enough will suffice. Which can often make sense when you factor in increase development costs, reduced flexibility/maintainability, and reduced ability to recruit for people with the skillset to work on such things.
Then again, performance is often a feature in itself. In some cases it can open whole new areas of potential business. Often times it isn't even particularly hard to achieve, it just requires decent engineering practices.
Unfortunately good engineering practices can be hard to find/hire for, especially among a development community/culture that hasn't had to bother caring about performance for a long time.
The cynical side of me thinks that the move to embracing "the personal is political" is mostly about making any transgressions widely visible. That makes it that much better for the claiming of victimhood and the ensuing backlash to the perpetrator.
No, people are concerned when 'kids' call out an innocent action (a glance, let's say) from a teacher a 'microaggression' and have their parents call in and threaten them.
There are countless examples of this kind of behaviour across all of society now. Writing this off with a racist strawman argument that you just invented sounds like a bad faith response to me. Which honestly is one of the tactics (purposefully taking the least generous interpretation) that is so popular among the silence-is-violence crowd.
Harley style motorcycles take the cake though, "loud pipes" are such a thing in that part of motorcycle culture. I don't understand the aesthetic of trying to annoy everyone to such a degree, and I don't understand why it's not prosecuted at all.
The internet was such a big deal because groups of people could finally interact without the mediation and filtering of a large (typically corporate) entity determining what's "fit to print". You don't have to search very hard to find the bounds of acceptable thought from corporate-sponsored media, even pre-internet. I don't think I'm alone in feeling constrained and frustrated with that situation. Sure, it's not a North Korea situation, but it's not great either.
There are some very real problems with unfettered access to communication, and I don't think we've solved them yet. I am very concerned that this law will have a range of unintended negative consequences, and I don't think defending our existing (flawed) structure really proves that it'll all be fine.
Specifically we're talking about moving from a model of centralized media control (eg: media companies and the conglomerates that own them) to one where a select group of people get to manage the filtering of content on the largest platforms. That seems like something that will be almost impossible to manage properly, and ripe for (at a minimum) political manipulation.
> must prioritise complaints raised by "trusted flaggers"
That's the real concern here. Speech must be handled very carefully, but now we're elevating some specific people to be 'more equal' than others? Who are these people, and why do they get more say? I can see that opening a can of worms.
I don't live in the EU, but just like that well intentioned but shortsighted cookie law, the rest of us will have to deal with the fallout of that for a long time to come.
Something you're not allowed to say today: there are differences between men and women, and some of those probably include the ways that we scan for danger. Perhaps males are more worried about armed threats up ahead while females are more worried about stalking panthers in the bushes, etc (pick your scenario).
I would think I'd also be very mindful of risk if I was very small or weak, very young, visibly injured, etc - regardless if I was a man/boy or not. These things seem like basic primal wisdom that transcends species.