cybrexalpha

Rowling is a bigot and it's unethical to promote her works, even indirectly.

She uses her wealth and fame, legitimized by continued engagement and spending with the Harry Potter IP, to attack, demonize, and spread hatred about entire groups of LGBT+ people.

This isn't a branded product, and I know no money directly ends up in a bigot's pocket because of this, but every time her works are referenced it endorses her hatred.

The visibility is a huge part of it. It signals "it's okay to be yourself here" when most professional life, even in tech, is dominated by keeping up "professional" appearances.

You can't compare a decision made in possession of all of the facts in a calm environment with full hindsight, with decision made in the moment with limited information and hundreds of lives on the line.

Go's module system got a lot right, but it's a complete nightmare to work with. The author actually highlighted one of it's very worst traits:

> Go got it right from the beginning and didn't use a centralized package registry to manage dependencies, but instead you have to directly point to the source code of the packages.

Directly coupling the identity of a package to its location means that you can't change one without the other. Need to rename to a fork of a dependency? You'll have to touch every single file that imports it. Need to use a organisational local cache for deps? It better be a transparent proxy or you can't do that. The only support for this is replace statements in go.mod files, but those tie you even further in knots when you need to pull in a dependency that has a replace statement in it.

It's even worse on the maintainer side. If you want to rename a git repository, rename a GitHub organisation, migrate a repo to a different owner, or even move git hosting providers then you risk breaking every single downstream. The only solution is to host a proxy for your packages on a custom URL that redirects to the backend hosting provider, and set your Go module's name to be on that custom URL. Which requires you to do this ahead of time before the package is widely used.

Cargo and crates.io could be better but Go is the worst place to draw inspiration from as it's full of ideas that seem clean, work at first, and break in hard to fix ways once you do anything complex.

The big thing is that dealerships do not have new cars sat around on the lot waiting to be sold. They usually have second-hand cars available, but new cars are always built to order.

Ignore the advice of anyone who doesn't have ADHD, or a medical degree with a speciality in ADHD treatment. Anyone that tells you that you just need to try one "trick", a planner, a mindset change, default mode networks, "try sleeping more", whatever, can either never understand what it's like or is trying to sell you something. Or both. If someone neurotypical gives you advice, just smile and nod, and ignore it. If someone tells you ADHD is a "superpower" promptly ignore them. Unfortunately, this often applies to generalist doctors who don't specialise in ADHD.

The reality is that there is no single thing that will help. You'll have to try shit and see what works for you. What one person swears "fixed" them might do nothing for you.

That said, the one thing that is the most likely to work out is medication. Get yourself a diagnosis, try the meds, see if it helps. Caffeine is fine, but it's no substitute for the real stuff.

The feature doesn't exist yet. Ring have said it'll be user consent, but we don't know that for sure. My point is that Ring can change their minds about this at any time without informing you, so it doesn't matter how they say it will work if this possibility is still there.

The two are very different.

If you are subpoenaed then you're obligated to respond, and the same is true for Ring. But that's not what we're talking about here. This is law enforcement requesting access, and Ring doesn't require a formal subpoena or warrant. They can decide to comply to nothing more than "someone from a .gov email asked nicely".

It's written out in their terms of service:

> you also acknowledge and agree that Ring may access, use, preserve and/or disclose your Content to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties, if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: > > (a) comply with applicable law, regulation, legal process or reasonable preservation request; (b) enforce these Terms, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Ring, its users, a third party, or the public as required or permitted by law.

So Ring is quite happy to hand over your footage to anyone so long as Ring believes it's "reasonably necessary" to protect the rights or property of anyone.

This isn't about Ring complying with a legal request. This is about Ring undermining the fourth amendment entirely by saying "we'll give law enforcement whatever they want".

Yes, but they have to subpoena you. That means process, that means getting a judge to sign it, and it means you can limit scope (i.e., if the incident under investigation occurred outside your home, you're not going to need to provide any footage from inside).

> Do you have some political goal?

Again, what political goal or agenda do you think I’m pushing?

> Changing does not bring any advantages.

Sometimes, progress requires fundamental change.

> So why waste any time with them?

Can you not envision a business model that is not a high-growth startup?

> What is your real motivation? You seem more focused on some political agenda than you are focused on making a profit.

What agenda do you think I'm focused on?

I disagree with the implication that flat structures "don't scale" or can never work. To be effective in a flat environment requires a fundamental shift in perspective. Hierarchy is so baked in to every other company, organization, and education system that people just don't know how to operate absent it.

ICs will need time to adjust to a flat structure, and some people will do anything to fight the absence of the restrictions they've always known. Hiring a bunch of senior ICs from traditional industry roles and saying "we're not going to have managers!" is always going to fail.

For a CTO/founder it's even easier: If you're building a VC-funded start-up where the plan is to grow fast exit in a few years — what's the point? Why invest the effort and energy to making flat work when the moment you get bought out the hierarchy is back anyway.

There are examples of stable large companies with flat org charts that do work, they're just not the hypergrowth scale-ups. The book "Reinventing Organizations" covers several in depth, and is a good intro to the topic. So my objection is the implication that a flat structure can never work, or that there is something fundamental about a flat org and human nature that means it's unstable. It is simply that it requires long-term investment to get right, and the market isn't setup to reward long-term investment.

Yes.

H. P. Lovecraft is a good example from literature. He was profoundly racist, even beyond the cultural norms of his time. However, as he has long since passed away buying and amplifying his works do not further his views and causes.

A modern counterexample would be J. K. Rowling. Where supporting her works and properties does directly contribute to furthering her prejudices in a very real way.