Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement.
The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might biased against their client.
I remember this very well. I was living close enough to the commotion to hear whatever it was that was getting set off (smoke bombs?) in an attempt to disrupt the protests at night. I recall pulling off the highway only to see an army Jeep and a soldier with an assault rifle waving me back toward an on-ramp.
Haven’t experienced anything nearly as dramatic since.
To be reunited with the woman I married who had a mental health crisis and divorced me in the throes of it. She could have ended up dead or homeless but somehow managed to stay safe enough that when police intervened and called her family she was able to get the help and diagnosis she needed.
We’ve been back together for nearly two years now but it’s really sinking in now how close we all came to losing her permanently to death or ending up another nameless face on the streets.
The great thing about CoC is that they tend to be self-reinforcing, keeping out exactly the people who are bound to conduct themselves in ways that are inconsistent with the principles behind them.
> The GPL does not on its own have the power to "infect" the rest of your codebase.
The reason some people specifically want to avoid enhancing GPLed software is because they want to be able to modify software without the condition of releasing the source for their modifications. The fact that the alternative to voluntarily releasing the source is being sued doesn't make the situation any less burdensome.
> With proprietary software, if it's found out that you've misused someone's code, they probably will not offer you that viral option - they'll go straight for the monetary damages.
And this rarely happens in practice because people with proprietary software guard the source and don't intentionally let others have it.
All three options (proprietary, GPLed, permissive open-source licenses) serve different purposes and will be chosen by different entities based on individual circumstances.
None is a one-size-fits-all, and I think we've seen over the last decade or more that the size that fits many corporations is the permissive open-source license model which allows them to contribute back what they'd like without being forced into the choice between contributing back everything or being sued.
I seriously doubt that. People are busy and have a lot of things to be concerned about. The general perception of SV employees doesn't seem to be very favorable from what I've seen, either within the Bay Area or beyond. The average worker in middle America is not going to feel much compassion for people making $200k a year who end up out of work because they publicly challenge their employer.
> and with its workforce.
That's the calculus that they (Google management) needs to compute. How do they deal with this situation without angering so many people that they end up losing people they want to retain. The other side of that is of course the absolute disinterest in keeping people who are not key contributors but are likely to be "activist".
FWIW, I know ~50 people at Google, and although I am not in touch with most of them on a very regular basis, of the ones I have been in touch with exactly 0 of them have any sympathy for the positions of the people who are making a public scene.
What they are concerned with is the company being seen as a place where people are running amok and the work isn't seen as the first priority by the employees. That can be demoralizing to the rest of the staff who are interested in having impact and can affect recruiting if potential recruits think the company is a big hot mess.
> It seems odd that you don't dispute that companies change, yet seem to dislike people trying to make a company change.
I don’t “dislike” people trying to make a company change. There are ways to change companies from within, discreetly, by building consensus around those things you would like to change. It isn’t easy, and there is no guarantee of success. Often people trying to do exactly that end up losing their positions, or end up not advancing, as a result of being “out of step” with the culture.
That doesn’t appear to be what’s happening here at all, though. You have employees trying to publicly exert pressure on management. You cannot do that and expect no consequences.
> Google created a culture and set of values and recruited based on that.
Company culture changes. Companies change. The fact that you were told one thing or a company had a particular reputation when you joined doesn’t mean that thing will always hold true.
Union busting and discrimination are illegal. Terminating someone’s at-will employment because they are acting against the company’s interest isn’t.
From what I have read thus far, this situation sounds a lot more like the latter than the former despite some of the people involved claiming it’s the former.
Perhaps more facts will come out to support that position, but in the meantime I am with the grandparent post. These people want to have their cake (i.e. some of the largest total compensation packages in the industry) and eat it too (force policy by protesting management choices expecting no consequences).
Translating: "People with little experience have ill-formed opinions and thus when you point out the holes in their arguments they cave, whereas experienced people have well-formed opinions which makes it difficult for you when you have weak arguments by which you try to change their opinion."
Younger people don't have fewer opinions from my own experience. They often have plenty of opinions, and with that comes less experience to back them up.
As I've gotten older I've become far less likely to express opinions unless the issue I am offering an opinion on is one that's important, and one that I am able to offer some new perspective on. I wasn't that way at 25.
I feel the same way about Bloomberg, and am consistently surprised by the number of Bloomberg links posted here on HN because clicking through any of them results in “Sorry, but you read your free article, time to pay up!”
Forbes is also effectively full of opinion hit pieces of low value (although these don’t seem to be paywalled). These also show up in a lot of Google searches and likewise get up-voted here quite a bit.
The question is, should google actively try to trim this content, and if so where should it end?
TLA+ and similar tools are certainly interesting but hardly something I could recommend as an early step to take for someone wanting to learn more about CS.
If you want to prove protocols correct, sure, but for someone wanting to move from knowing something about programming to something more, this is not one of the first (20) steps I would recommend.
Can you cite any references about this? I don’t recall anything like this at all unless perhaps it’s specific to FENV_ACCESS and non-default rounding modes.
The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might biased against their client.