> Wayland was designed exclusively i3 style compositors
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool i3 (now sway) user. I don't even use floating windows. Wayland has still been an awful experience, broke a bunch of workflows for me
In 2008, I remember playing starcraft over LAN with my roommate. It played better on Wine/Ubuntu than it did on his Vista machine (and unrelatedly but hilariously, in the middle of the game his computer gave him a countdown to reboot with no option to cancel it)
Ah appreciated, that is indeed exactly what I was asking about!
Now I'm left wondering why enforcement was supposedly so hard. Seems like shooting fish in a barrel, especially given that some very large websites were in clear violation of this article
I may be missing something, but I don't see how this clearly precludes that behavior.
Which descriptor do you think is unambiguously violated by making it easier to provide consent than withhold it? To my eyes, both 'freely' and 'informed' are plausibly upheld.
It would be very straightforward to specify that consent and withholding must be equally accessible in the interface, instead of splitting hairs about definitions of "freely given". This is what people refer to when they say the law is poorly written
An additional one I noticed with my female cousins was that a lot of fun was sucked out of high school girls' social expression/reconnaissance.
On the recon side, gossiping is a fun bonding activity, but scrolling through snaps/reels is relative drudgery.
On the performance side, "be pretty and vivacious at fun social events" is no longer sufficient without obsessively managing your profile's brand. This doesn't only include posing for, curating, and editing photos, but a bunch of arcane rules about tagging etiquette, who's included in your photos, etc.
This is all from the horse's mouth, with a little bit of editorializing. The social environment of an in-crowd high school girl has always been extremely intense, but these tools hage made the process simultaneously more work and less fun, to hear my cousins tell it.
> I feel like those assertions are more socially-founded opinions than technically-backed arguments
You think the complaints about rickety, unintuitive syntax are "socially founded"? I can't think of another language that has so many pointless syntax issues every time I revisit it. I haven't seen a line of Scheme in over a decade, and I'm still fairly sure I could write a simple if condition with less likelihood of getting it wrong than Bash.
I came at it from the other end, writing complex shell scripts for years because of the intuition that python would be overkill. But there was a moment when I realized how irrational this was: shell languages are enough of a garbage fire that Python was trivially the better choice for my scripts the minute flow control enters the picture.
I remember having issues with locking when going to Muir Woods, though I don't remember the details. I think one time years ago I just left it unlocked for our whole home (not my most responsible move)
Just FYI for anyone for whom this didn't work by default: I needed to use the --all flag with smartctl (and install smartmontools if you don't have it).
Yea, it's weird. I don't think I've actually really encountered someone smart and experienced who has thus problem. They tend to be secure enough in their own intelligence that honest consideration of their mistakes and gaps doesn't send them spiraling into insecurity and ego-protective backlashes.
I can only speak to my limited dataset, but it's a lot more correlated with self-esteem than actual skills IME.
> Was it cultural issues for example foreign born coworker who doesn't understand how respect in the USA works in text form?
No, this was a white guy born in America. I think it was just a self-esteem thing: he didn't feel worthy of being treated as a peer, and wasn't emotionally healthy enough to handle the confrontation of one's mistakes that good engineering requires.
> That's an interesting point about high skill/experience/knowledge inequality leading to unequal code output. It seems that the less skilled person wants you to sign off on the code in which case they turn their brain off a little and defer to you.
I actually mean this less negatively. In my current job, I work with extremely talented and intelligent colleagues on an applied research system that also requires some heavy-duty engineering. Writing high-quality code is only one of the many skills required to be effective, and many of them handily beat me at any number of skills. There's a no-ego recognition that my ability to write and review clean, safe code massively outstrips theirs, in the same way that I recognize coworkers with (eg) ML or even execution expertise that outstrips my own.
In this context, I have relationships where both of us are extremely clear that my review of their code is not a meeting of peers, but a (relative) domain expert reviewing someone else's work. Again, these colleagues are intelligent and driven, so they are hoping to grow from these reviews and will absolutely push back if they disagree or don't understand a suggestion. But there's a baseline of mutual respect and a clear-eyed understanding of the asymmetry in expertise.
This means that I can use assertive statements to communicate confidence that my view is correct without offending ("This docstring implies that the blonker is a plumbus. Clarify that it's a blorp"). Conversely, I'll use less assertive language for suggestions that are ambiguous or subjective: "Hm, I think it might be cleaner if we move the foobar into the bazqux. Wdyt?"
I don't think any of this implies that they are turning off their brain and deferring to me; I think it's just a shared prior that my suggestions are likely to be correct and that they will agree with them on sight. I do my best to add brief reasoning to shorten the number of roundtrips due to disagreements or gaps in understanding, and I'll occasionally say, "If you still disagree, I don't feel too strongly about this".
> Thinking back on your experience would you say that the extra friction comes from time constraints?
IMO it comes purely from the aforementioned unhandled self-esteem issues. It's not been generally applicable to my current colleagues, whom all have my deepest respect. It's a relief and a reduction in mental load to be able to communicate directly, but using flowery language doesn't actually cost much walltime.
> People who wake up "ready to go" seem to be pretty rare.
I know this is a complete tangent, but do you find this to be true specifically of habitual coffee drinkers? I have a pretty horrid history with a sleep disorder, and while I'm a little slow after waking up, I don't think my mood is especially worse. I wonder if it's simply because I don't have a stimulant addiction like most people do.
> It's a massive chore to have a teammate that causes stuff like this and I don't envy your teammates or lead (even worse if you're the lead, obviously).
It gets tricky. I haven't had to deal with this friction for many years, but it's not because I entirely avoid the type of directness described in OP's last two examples. It's because I'm careful about who I'm direct with, and because I've ended up in environments that are increasingly devoid of the emotionally-fragile.
I start out with a baseline of assuming that people are as fragile and childish as what your comment alludes to. In many companies, I'm sure this is actually the case. But as I get to know a coworker, it's very often the case that they have the talent, maturity, and emotional stability to handle direct communication (in both directions) without spiraling into an episode.
In my early career, I joined a company with an awful hiring pipeline as the first employee. That was my first introduction to the idea that a lot of people react violently to being treated with respect if they think they don't deserve it. I quickly started treating them like children as you suggest, and the problem immediately vanished.
But as I've progressed in my career, the amount of time I spend around mediocrities has plummeted, and my prior that the person I'm communicating with is a mental adult has risen. I've found that high-productivity professional contexts weed out the emotionally-unstable in the same way they weed out (eg) the disorganized; the value of good-faith efficient communication without mental breakdowns is simply too high.
Fwiw, I used to use respect-by-default until I encountered (multiple times) people who were too emotionally unhealthy and insecure about their abilities to handle it.
I literally had someone write me an impassioned email claiming that questions about why he made a design choice "served only to humiliate him, not an interrogative purpose", and that "when he did something wrong, I should just tell him what to do instead of asking him why he made that choice". This was beyond insane to me: I would hate it if someone spent 15m reviewing a design I had spent days on, and left no space for the possibility that they missed something.
Sometimes there really is a well-established relationship in which both people are aware that one person has much stronger knowledge of how to write healthy code than the other. While my instinct was to still approach the other person as a peer, experience has taught me that it often causes much _more_ friction to maintain this pretense.
The comment's advice isn't especially intuitive, and as such it's not at all blameworthy to have failed to follow it; I'd likely have done the same thing the victims did. On top of that, they didn't say what the victims "should have" done, and left out the subject of "should". This is easily interpreted as broader advice, instead of criticism of the victims' actions.
The comment is completely consistent with the interpretation: "it's unintuitive and thus understandable that the victims didn't do this, but one should eat the cost of devices with unremovable sensitive data instead of sending it anywhere".
> If you can't see that, you need to reboot, install updates, and look again
I think I'm good with the version I'm running. Apparently it allows me to have enough going on in my life that I don't have the desperate impulse to get a dose of morning outrage from interpreting everything in the least charitable light.
Where do you see blame in this comment? I see advice so others can learn from this unfortunate incident. Hell, she doesn't even use the phrase "should have".
I really wish the masses had never heard the term "victim blaming". 95% of the time i see it used, it's nonsensical pearl-clutching insisting that no one can ever take steps to protect themselves.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool i3 (now sway) user. I don't even use floating windows. Wayland has still been an awful experience, broke a bunch of workflows for me