It's a university.. there are a broad array of departments and courses, and I am saying that a handful of them at a multitude of universities have the potential to close minds and lead to more ignorance - this broad statement isn't too controversial - witnessed by the very vocal debate about it. I am not going to jump into the pit of the specifics of that debate though.
> Anything you study has the potential to make you a better, more well rounded, knowledgeable and less ignorant person.
This is a pretty meaningless sentiment. There are plenty of things one can study that will lead to more ignorance and less well-roundedness. In the extreme, this is pretty much how cults can operate.
I believe it also applies to a number of subjects in mainstream universities, but I am not going to hop into that fire pit.
You are not the only one. "Says more about you then it..." blah, blah, blah. The fact is, Asciicker is not a word, is absolutely weird phonetically and asslicker is a close appearing viable compound word. Good for those so pure of mind they do not see it.
I say it is disingenous because it is completely counter to what can be found on something as mainstream as the wikipedia page.. one does not have to dig deep.
If you want to dig deeper, the mailing list archives are available for all, and I think given the contribution KHTML made to Webkit initially it is poor form to diminish its role.
"Blink started at Google". It's all context. As someone mentioned, it's technically correct but in the context of this discussion thread which is about open-source origins and contributions, saying Blink "started at Google" comes across as dishonest. Blink started at google with a fork of Webkit, which itself was not created in a vacuum at Apple.
> Does anyone know why GitLab hasn't taken off so much amongst open source projects?
The marketing is pretty bad for one. Go to gitlab.com and you see a site that is mostly extolling the virtues of their commercial product and pricing. There is a "try gitlab for free" but it is aimed very much as a try-before-you-buy for businesses. That's all good and fine, but it is the polar opposite of how github went about acquiring their network. github was marketed heavily as a social site, their marketing was viral.
I don't think it is wrong, but if gitlab is trying to convey messaging that they are "social coding" platform or even an open-source project host, and not just b2b, they are doing a pretty poor job of it.
This is an extremely disingenuous statement. WebKit was forked from KHTML and everybody knows this. It "certainly" sounds like you're trying to rewrite history (and you make a similar assertion elsewhere in this thread)..
There's nothing there that indicating mood disorders, waking hours, or screen time even are wildly outside the norm for the middle class working population.
Anyways, I don't care about this fact too much. I'm going to continue believing that the majority of software engineers have fairly typical social lives, and my own observations don't conflict with this.
I don't care much about this, because the point I was making was that categorizing oneself in buckets like "software engineer" to justify one's misery is counterproductive, and even if 95% of software engineers were miserable I still think it be worth working towards that 5% rather than worrying about stereotypes.
Heh, well I read it through, and I totally see what you're saying. It comes across a bit thoughtless if read as a direct reply to the statement rather than as part of the larger post below (which is totally sensible to read it that way). Unfortunately I can't edit it now, but the intent was to make a point that even for a software engineer: depression, social anxiety and isolation, etc are not "normal" and one should not resign themselves to that view regardless of stereotypes or perceptions. That statement isn't that important, I should have omitted it.
Nah, I have evidence. I just have no need to post it here when anyone that truly cares about "good faith" could confirm it with minimal research. To me, the notion that more than 50% of software engineers have mood or personality disorders is the extraordinary one.
Also, I'm not sure how badgering me with calls for "supporting evidence" after countering with appeals to personal experience (which I also don't care, I'm not here to make a federal case) is not supposed to breed resentment.
> It "could" be any number of things but only one perspective is being addressed. Implying that someone's failure to conform to our ever changing, opinionated and perceived social "norm" is the cause of their issues and concerns is not helping anyone.
Uhh.. no I mentioned: "It is possible (maybe less likely) that you have little interest in deep social connections."
Listen bud, a person that is well-adjusted in their social life whether that is gregarious or solitude doesn't post a complaint of this nature to an online forum. Something is wrong, whether it is the way the individual attempts to make social connections or their own acceptance of their needs and letting go of perceptions of what people think. And not all of that can be blamed on others. I didn't claim to know or judge which one it was.
And yes, most software engineers have a healthy social life, because software engineers as a population are not really that different from the norm.
> I don't feel generalizing the issue in a blanket statement that the problem is specific to the individual in question and somehow not related to circumstances beyond that individual's control is beneficial to the OP and anyone dealing with similar issues.
Problems that are beyond an individual's control are worth acknowledging but are otherwise irrelevant since there is nothing that can be done about them. Identifying problems that are within one's control are the first and only step to improving one's circumstances.
There were plenty of people here replying that: oh it's just other people, it's not you. Well that is partly true, but that's also bullshit and not helpful. I refuse to believe that someone complaining on an Internet forum about their social problems has exhausted all options for personal growth.
> Obviously very few, but it would be inaccurate and irresponsible to lay blame on an astronaut if they feel socially isolated as a result.
No, I say it is fully responsible to blame (I hate this word, but I'm trying not to be weasley) the astronaut if they feel socially isolated. Ultimately the only one responsible for their happiness and fulfillment is them alone. Sure they can blame the plebes that don't "get it" and wallow in permanent victimhood, but that doesn't do any favors for their psyche.
A lot of people, including astronauts are able to find joy in other things than space travel that they can then relate with a broader array of people (this may be "pedestrian" sports, or this may more like joining the demoscene for the Atari 2600). The thing that you and others seem to miss is that efforted development of broader interests can be an ends justifying means to counter social isolation. It's a responsible and mature thing to do.
> But you made the original claim, therefore the burden is on you to provide supporting evidence.
Not really. This is not some magical incantation that compels me to do anything, nor does it make what I said wrong. And tip if you want to win at online forum logic argument wankery (not with me though), perhaps appeals to "stereotypes" and "personal experience" are not the best place to start.
This is confirmation bias. I don't think the stereotypes are as generally popular as you claim. My own observational bias is the countless "learn to code", "anyone can code" promotions targeted at youth that make no mention of social limitations.
Depression and anxiety are common in the general population. Social maladaptation is also common, though less so. It is unsurprisingly true that these traits are a bit overrepresented in the tech professions. But tech is not unique in this, the healthcare professions also overrepresent depression, for instance.
In either case, it is not even close to a majority.
People that tend to be in these minority groups though by very nature isolate themselves and tend to only see that minority. At worst, online these can lead to some very troublesome echo chambers.
> I hate the mild feeling of discomfort I get when I tell most people I'm a software engineer.
Most software engineers have a healthy circle of friends and social life.
> I hate having eclectic or traditional "nerdy" interests and getting a similar reaction.
It's not any different when an electrician, lawyer or a doctor wants to talk shop. Most people you will interact with don't have the same interests as you.
> I have no interest in turning off that part of my brain so I can fit into the sportsfan stereotype
Virtually no one fits cleanly into stereotypes. Stereotypes are useful for generalizing groups, not individuals. "Sportsfanning" is highly correlated with a rich social life, but you are confusing cause and effect.
> That I have nothing to look forward to but more of the same of this, and the few people I have contact with disappear in one way or the other. Sometimes I ask, why bother?
All of the rationalization about software engineering, "nerdy" interests is leading you astray. None of those are barriers to a fulfilling social life. Your social life issues are due to any number of problems. It could be depression, anxiety, it could be poor social skills. It is possible (maybe less likely) that you have little interest in deep social connections, but you have to evaluate carefully whether you are really unhappy with just a small online circle, or are you just worried because you appear away from the norm.
In any event I encourage you to think deeply about your situation. If you want to change anything, quitting software engineering won't help. It will most likely require a great deal of struggle. Depression and anxiety are not easily shaken off. Learning social skills like most things is harder later in life. I can assure you people in your position have improved, but only after taking stock of what is holding them back and seeking appropriate assistance.
I agree with the gp, the quote makes little sense. It seems to take a bunch of facts from the product marketing but words them in such a way that is highly tortured and just doesn't make sense. Apparently you didn't parse it correctly either: More bandwidth? Even 802.11b had greater bandwidth. 6.8 Mbps is not more bandwidth than WiFi. What the quote is most likely trying to convey is that the radio has much better positional accuracy, which you didn't seem to glean in your paraphrase.
100x accuracy seems to imply that the data transmission is 100x more accurate which is not the cae. The product has high positioning accuracy. "can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth." is a very bizarre way of saying that to be charitable.
"It can reach 290 meters of distance with a very minimal power requirement"
Very minimal? What is "very". Also in practice, the distance achieved is going to be dependent on power. So you can't get these maximum distances with minimal power. Also a bit misleading, as for non-positioning Bluetooth LE is superior.
"with a 50x faster speed compared to standard GPS latency."
This is a tortured way of saying that position acquisition is 50 times faster than GPS.
In practice, the laws of physics also apply. You're not getting 290m of 6.8 Mbps through any walls with minimal power.
1. The living costs of NYC are not triple what they are in Dallas (obviously there is some choice to this), but triple is grossly exaggerating the difference.
2. Even if triple was correct, since the living expenses are not 100% of your pay in either case - you're still better off living in NYC in terms of savings - I hope you can do the math to see this.
It's a university.. there are a broad array of departments and courses, and I am saying that a handful of them at a multitude of universities have the potential to close minds and lead to more ignorance - this broad statement isn't too controversial - witnessed by the very vocal debate about it. I am not going to jump into the pit of the specifics of that debate though.