motherfuckingwebsite is pretty old at this point. I remember seeing it on Reddit like 10 years ago. Parallax was all the rage back then, when we called “hero” images “jumbotrons” (because Bootstrap called it that, I think?)
Isn’t this the asian guy who doesn’t understand that white supremacists only like white people and claimed to be suing the CEO of Antifa for damages that never actually happened?
I’m guessing that means this is also the dude who claimed people threw cement at him, when it was a milk shake.
Then they claimed the milkshake had cement in it, so people pointed out things like sugar would keep cement from hardening.
Then the cops said they had no reason to assume it was concrete, and no one suggested it was, despite them and the guy being the ones who said it was concrete.
Eyup, that’s the guy. It was also around the time others on the right claimed that people were pouring gasoline into bags in order to make “Makeshift Molotv Cocktails”
When
the whole point of a Molotov Cocktail is that it’s a makeshift weapon that the proletariat will always have access to as it’s just alcohol and fire
B) A plastic bag wouldn’t make for a good molotov cocktail as it would just fucking disintegrate and couldn’t be thrown that far of a distance, if any at all
There are many windows machines that never run any game (corporate issued work laptop for example). What this says is that Linux machines are more likely to be personal machines in which you can play games.
What this says is that Linux machines are more likely to be personal machines in which you can play games.
What this says is that among gamers using Steam, Linux is at 1.9%, that’s all. Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you said but I don’t see how you draw your conclusion.
As far as people using steam on linux, who participated in the steam hardware survey?
Presumably, since the percentages for the displayed 4 Distros don’t add up to the total usage. Which means there are two conclusions. survey results are bugged, or they are only displaying the top 4 distros only, and all the other distros (like me on Nobara) don’t make some arbitrary cuttoff for listing. Which makes since, since Manjaro and Linux are at the bottom of the display with only .07%.
Well, that means that it’s also a C++ thing, but streams are an even slicker concept that aren’t a C thing, making higher-level code look nice and shiny - and abstracting away loads of I/O pain points while encapsulating useful features.
C++ streams are ugly in their own right, but C++ preferred practice these days is to treat it as its own language rather than as a C superset. That is, lots of crufty old C stuff still works in C++ for legacy reasons, but using it when you don’t have to is considered inappropriate.
Yeah, streams are old and crusty and horrific on the inside (don’t ask about the time I implemented a socket layer with streams), but still less clunky than the C standard library (unless you’re really into being a memory Nazi).
I was kindof chief architect for a project where I worked. I decided on (and got my team on board with the idea of) making it an SPA. Open-in-new-tab worked perfectly.
(One really nice thing about it was that we just made the backend a RESTful API that would be usable by both the JS front-end and any automated processes that needed to communicate with it. We developed a two-pronged permissions system that supported human-using-browser-logs-in-on-login-page-and-gets-cookie-with-session-id authentication and shared-secret-hashing-strategy authentication. We had role-based permissions on all the endpoints. And most of the API endpoints were used by both the JS front-end and other clients. Pretty nice.)
I quit that job and went somewhere else. And then 5 years later I reapplied and came back to basically the exact same position in charge of the same application. And when I came back, open-in-new-tab was broken. A couple of years later, it’s not fixed yet, but Imma start pushing harder for getting it fixed.
not sure what the censoring of the plate does. That truck is visible and identifiable for a five mile radius, and I guarantee you can hear it for more than that
There is equity, and there is equality, and those are different things. I do think that forceful push to maintain percentages in various aspects of life to correspond to percentages of population often is actually unjust. For example, to insist that it should be strictly 50/50 percentage (or whatever it is) between men and women in all professions e.g. police, school teachers, etc. and actually stop hiring a particular gender until this 50/50 distribution is established is not good.
The little guy should be hurt in the 3rd panel as well for the sake of accuracy.
I find that equity tends to create the illusion of opportunity rather than providing the actual support needed to allow the disadvantaged parties to properly take advantage of the opportunities, thus backfiring and hurting all parties.
For example, giving college spots to those who are unable to pass the entry bar rather than giving them the actual support they need to pass the bar in the first place, which ends up with the disadvantaged parties falling behind and taking opportunities away from those who did pass the bar. In the end, nothing gets solved.
See Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Sure it is, but folks fight it tooth and nail, so you end up settling for equity.
Frankly, I find the folks who think equity looks like your image and description are usually the folks we’re also having to fight against for justice. I’m a little surprised to see you supporting the fence analogy while also tearing down the boxes one. (Maybe we have different ideas about what the fence is?)
Personally I disagree that your third panel is accurate, and IME the occurrence of that outcome (and your “college spots” example) is a theoretical worst case, and detractors of equity-focused solutions claim it to be much more common it than it ever is.
It’s like all those 70’s cartoons where quicksand was a likely threat. Sure, quicksand exists. Are you likely to encounter it? No. Any entity that is supposedly taking unqualified candidates for any position based on equity programs would bring other harm to itself by doing so. I think there’s a reasonable debate to be had about things that fall under the broad umbrella of affirmative action, but I don’t think a reasonable debate includes the assertion that it routinely creates outcomes that result in hiring unqualified candidates.
It’s far easier to find cases of those programs doing exactly what they should than to find them doing harm.
The problem with equity is that we live under a government in which doesn’t give a rats ass about providing boxes in the first place and so rather chooses the appeasement route that takes the least amount of effort.
They don’t actually want to do anything, just appear like they are.
Making the comparison to the homeless crisis, it becomes more clear.
Instead of building more housing and providing a mechanism to help the homeless, they go with hostile architecture that forces the homeless out into dangerous and deadly environments.
They want the illusion of solving the problem while doing the most minimal amount of effort. If you didn’t know any better & saw fewer homeless people, you’d probably think that “maybe they are solving the homeless problem” when in reality they were solving “the homeless people problem” by creating an environment where the homeless either leaves or dies.
and your “college spots” example is a theoretical worst case…
It’s not as theoretical as you think, as there’s plenty of real world examples of the scenario I described.
Infact, Harvard; one of the most acclaimed colleges in the world let alone the US; was doing exactly what I described prior to the Supreme Court ruling that the practice was unconstitutional, see Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Many colleges, do infact still engage in this practice sighting state level laws.
So that makes it a continuing goal and imperfect solution that we should continue to improve while working on the much bigger and longer problem of taking down the fence.
Yes, it’s implementation is imperfect. We’re on exactly the same page.
If equity or rather politicians focused on providing necessary supports in the first place rather than taking shortcuts, the fence would’ve already been down by now.
Please note, that I’m neither “right” or “left”. I hold beliefs that fall on either end as well a neither.
I’m mearly a rights advocate that looks for the truth & most effective solutions and in doing so, I believe we must look at the shortcomings of the supposed solution to patch out the jank so it can actually be a solution rather than the illusion of one.
People often look at the solutions their side proposes through rose colored glasses and solutions proposed by the opposition through a circus mirror. As is the nature of the “us vs. them” mindset the vast majority of people take when anything political is discussed. Hopefully I helped bridge that gap by bringing an alternative more neutral perspective.
The problem with this graphics is that this is absolutely not what equity proponents are doing. What is shown here is individual approach. What equity supporters want to do is to group you according by things like skin color or gender, and provide support according that grouping.
For example, equality in income distribution is when help is given based on income of the individual. Equity is when help is given based on skin color to make average income of all skin colors the same.
There’s also a conflict of interest that informs these notions, namely that “equality,” especially in the economic sense, the one that was invoked by MLK Jr and popular in the Civil Rights era, represents a threat to economic arrangements. Those same arrangements, like employers who purchase services from the diversity industry, inform the type of content that will be most marketable for diversity consultants. A company isn’t going to invoke notions of these things that would impact their bottom line. That’s why disparity frameworks are the most readily adopted by capital, because the arrangement of individuals in the system doesn’t alter or threaten the position of capital. The inverse example of this notion of equity would be, “everyone should struggle for a decent job and quality of life equally.” You can even bring this framework to the Antebellum south where, “if we had more black slave owners…”
So I always raise this “yes, and” approach to this subject matter, because it’s in the history of this racial order where the more radical and satisfying answers to it are.
Perfect intersectionality is a goal, an ideal that we can be measured against, but there must be a transition to it because we are not there in many ways. Places holding themselves to a strict or impossible standard are probably hurting themselves in the short term, but I still think that it is a good goal to work toward.
A great point! I feel like the overarching end goal is a meritocracy - people are rewarded for their talents and hard work. I’d wager most people agree with this goal.
The problem becomes disentangling history and circumstance from our ability to measure talent and hard work. The only way we know to break some social norms that hinder a true meritocracy is to unfairly manipulate the playing field in the short term, which in itself does not follow a meritocracy.
I think there are a few main obstacles:
Perceived talent and hard work that was actually the result of circumstance - those that think the system is currently working and therefore their position is justified.
Lack of acceptance that the goal is long term / generational. Those that are unwilling to accept a temporary ‘manipulated meritocracy’ in the short term that would allow a better one in the future.
Seen it too many times. The biggest guy on the team grabs the biggest wrench he can find for the smallest fastener on the assembly. Maybe the wrench bends, maybe the head snaps, I’ve seriously considered getting torque limited Allan wrenches.
I recently had someone complain about a bolt getting hot while they were wrenching it. they created enough friction to notice it heating up. and then kept wrenching it.
also, I’ve started replacing normal bolts with rounded hand-bolts, which are nearly impossible to over-torque, so long as they don’t take a pair of pliers to them.
lemmy.ml
Active