“Hate speech” is actually a great example. I’m a fan of the fact trans people are getting better treatment in today’s society, but if some obnoxious jerk says “there are only two genders” or “Chelsea Manning is a dude”, that may make him an asshole but it’s not a crime, it’s not aggresssion or violence.
Yet “hate speech” is literally a phrase created to justify oppression against people for having opinions you don’t like.
I may choose not to associate with a jerk like in my example, but the perpetrators of “hate speech” concept want to deny him basic human rights, and often do violence against him.
Ironically for the “crime” of being different.
Basic human rights s are rights for everyone.
Genuine liberals used to advocate for the right of the KKK to march. The ACLU even filed a lawsuit Withings the past ten years defending their right to make white robes fools of themselves.
When “liberals” stopped defending human rights, you lost the plot and the whole point of being liberal.
HN has a long history of censoring particular groups of people based on identity. That’s why it’s become such a monoculture (a monoculture of people generally convinced than HN is diverse, however.)
Down voting things you disagree with despite being well articulated (in fact because they are well articulated) is a form of censorship here.
But of course it goes much further when shadowbanning is deployed to enforce the narrow and rigid views of the moderation team.
Yes, I know pointing this out means it will now happen to me.
Nothing a censor hates more than thwarting the narrative they are trying to enforce.
But that’s why you think it doesn’t happen here. This is the most harshly and hypocritically cultivated walled garden on the Net. (Moderators violate their own rules regularly with impunity.)
Alas, I cannot abide not pointing out these abuses.
Tyranny, in all its shapes and sizes, comes wrapped in claims that it is for the common good.
In fact a good way to think critically about things you hear is to ask “how is the politician profiting from this law?” And noting what new powers the law gives government.
If government “needs” more power with the justification of “helping people”, it may be the case that helping people is just the excuse.
Government power is easy to monetize: threaten industry with worse regulations but forget the idea when you get campaign contributions, etc.
“By definition” people are just making up “Blockchain” as a desperate technology, usually people who don’t understand how bitcoin works and don’t realize they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Redefining the nature of the technology to get away from the difficult reality of it isn’t effective in the end.
A Merkle root including previous Merkle roots may have been innovative when Surety started, but while its required in bitcoin its not a key feature of what defines a Blockchain.
Because the term was coined by Nakamoto to describe the technology behind bitcoin. Decentralization, proof of work and other characteristics of bitcoin are intrinsic to making the system work. Otherwise you have an inefficient database that has no reason to exist.
This is one of the problems with the generic use of “blockchain”.
People think you just need Merkle roots including previous blocks, like you do, but that’s useless and pointless without the rest.
Because the term was coined by Nakamoto to describe the technology behind bitcoin. Decentralization, proof of work and other characteristics of bitcoin are intrinsic to making the system work. Otherwise you have an inefficient database that has no reason to exist.
The fix was a hacknand as for “on time”, no we were already three Sadat’s into the heavyvsakes week, literally hours before thanksgiving when Bezos decided to cancel everyone’s thanksgiving because of his own incompetence.
I call it incompetence because prioritizing a new feature over a bug fix is almost always wrong. And Bezos surrounds himself with yes men so if he under estimated the bugs impact because a yesman was saving face that’s still on Bezos.
I think selling drugs on campus to employees is a pretty bad result. He also drove off %80 of the talented team before I left. The DMV person was a dumpster fire and all the incompetence they showed us what you would expect— so cliche it would be boring to give examples.
Amazon is way over valued relative to its actual business... that shows that effective PR is good for the stock price (and amazon as a company is pretty much a pathological liar when it comes to PR. Like claiming AWS was what Amazon.com ran in at launch.)
No, waiting two months and working in less critical stuff was not the right choice on Bezos fault.
Bezos is a bozo.
Which makes me think that their competition must really suck... or like the fact they were able to use political pull to to tie Apples hands on ebooks it may all be government powered rent seeking.
I wonder how much of a deal they are getting from USPS and how much government IT has been outsourced to AWS.
But ask anyone- Amazon is well known to be incompetently managed.
Yes, and early in my career I was a technical sales person for a product I built... paired with a pure sales person.
I don’t mean to say there was no value to his skills— but I am saying that it was not hard for me to understand enough about sales to hire a good sales person.
They would of course be a better sales person than me.
The problem is people think your CEO should be a sales person and that’s s mistake.
Sales is a process that’s easy to replicate.
Creating a novel software application isn’t.
Ate hnicwl CEO can hire a great chief sales guy. A non-technical CEO can’t hire a CTO and often ends up undermining the product.
I would have no problem being hands off with the sales department.
I have yet to meet a Non technical CEO who doesn’t think he knows how to design products.
I’ve seen many software companies where for months on end each week more than a weeks worth of new work is added to the product, without changing the deadline, because “management” keeps deciding therecare new features that are critical and they can be just slipped right in.
If you tell them they are going to increase the time it takes or lower quality, you’re “not cooperative” or “not a team player”....or they tell you they will take the quality hit... but when there are any problems in the delivered product it’s the teams fault, of course.
I believe they hire those “lunatics” because it’s believed that engineers can’t understand business.
As an engineer that has started businesses this is BS.
It’s really easy to learn business skills, sales and marketing are not difficult, finance is laughably easy.
But so long as the companies are being formed to sell equity to VCs you will see them led by frat boys who the VC frat boys recognize... and they will abuse engineers.
My solution- stop working for anyone who isn’t technically competent or at least recognizes engineering needs enough to get out of the way and support being efficient.
The cause is that “leadership” is generally people who don’t understand technology, and the solution is to stop hiring such incompetence.
No car company would allow a CEO who doesn’t understand how cars work, let alone one who has no respect for those who design cars.
But most tech companies are lead by tech illiterate MBA types who disdain engineers, and so engineers are managed by people who don’t understand engineering.
I’ll give you a particular example but this is not the exception, this was the norm in %85 of the dozen tech companies I’ve worked at:
At Amazon my boss was a guy trained to be a prison guard, who was selling pot on campus on the side, who got his job managing engineers because of a political connection. He had difficulty operating Microsoft Office. He was borderline computer illiterate.
After a re-organization my bosses’ boss was replaced with a woman whose previous career was literally managing state DMV offices. Hey it’s management, right?
Notably both of these people resented the fact that we were getting paid close to as much as they were (yet they with no skills, not even good management skills were still getting paid more!)
At that point between me and Bezos there were no engineers in management and nobody who respected engineering (and that included Bezos, this was early enough I worked a lot of tickets with Bezos involved, saw him literally stop us from fixing a problem in October only to go ballistic the day before thanksgiving when the problem surfaced again.)
Meanwhile Amazon has this propaganda campaign about how they “raise the bar” in hiring- and it’s true I’ve seen brilliant engineers not hired because of the objections of the “bar raiser”— only that person was the woman whose qualifications was a history keeping he nose clean working for the state!
He’s not held in high regard by economicists or even economics. He has been proven wrong repeatedly. He’s held in high regard by socialists because he white washes the death and destruction their socialism causes. That’s his purpose. That and virtue signaling.
Your instincts are right. Go to Mises.org for real economics.
Yet “hate speech” is literally a phrase created to justify oppression against people for having opinions you don’t like.
I may choose not to associate with a jerk like in my example, but the perpetrators of “hate speech” concept want to deny him basic human rights, and often do violence against him.
Ironically for the “crime” of being different.
Basic human rights s are rights for everyone.
Genuine liberals used to advocate for the right of the KKK to march. The ACLU even filed a lawsuit Withings the past ten years defending their right to make white robes fools of themselves.
When “liberals” stopped defending human rights, you lost the plot and the whole point of being liberal.