etripe

How many scenarios are there where the rename both matters (beyond taste and philosophy) and is across interface boundaries?

Surely if it is an advantage to rename once in a ginormous, single code base there must also be leaky abstractions, poorly defined interfaces, god objects, etc present at the same time?

Whenever I find I need to rename anything across domains, it's a matter of updating the "core" repository and then just pulling the newest version.

You said you weren't a software development team. What kind of functions do you have?

For me, and most people I've worked with, having an all-day meeting specifically to mimic the open office is not something we'd ever propose ourselves. Was it a bottom-up or a top-down decision? Is everyone happy with it?

This isn't about architecture so much as implementation, though. Would you prefer to look at a sequence diagram there, or actual code?

To me, only the code is real because it can be run and is the product. UML is great for niche cases, but it doesn't represent the truth well, and is usually at least one time increment out of sync with reality.

> Also abusable are the new GDPR requests.

How? Seems to me that if they're storing (and handing over) data that allows trivial account takeover, they have a broken security process to begin with.

Five hours a week is no small investment. Focusing on calories/kJ in < out is much easier as it can be done incrementally, such as by not eating past a certain time of day, leaving out especially high sugar snacks, etc. There is no getting around obesity being a dietary issue.

That said, it's definitely not an either/or situation.

What you're describing is leadership, just not the popular style. To put terms to it, you weren't doing Taylorist command and control, you were doing servant leadership.

In my opinion, yours is the only sane way to lead. With command and control, all you would be doing is creating the illusion of control, providing no actual added value. If your leadership style is adversarial, you're stimulating your employees to see you as a liability.

Mostly, yes, but it comes down to moderation and subreddit culture. Reddit - as a company - doesn't take moderation seriously, as evidenced by it being left to unpaid volunteers.

> I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere

The legal follow-up could be better. The exacted fines should actually follow the law instead of being softened. With at least 4% of gross revenue in every instance, it would have bite and act to curb the excesses, thereby tackling the root problem. After all, it was never meant to outlaw data collection, just excessive surveillance.

> The annoying cookie banners

The GDPR isn't unclear about what companies can collect, what consent should be asked and how. Those banners are malicious compliance or non-compliance. They're purposefully built that way to get you as a potential consumer riled up about the regulation. And it's working: instead of talking about the companies trying to abuse your data and implementing horrible popups that don't do what the law says they should, you're now upset at the regulators. Classic case of "Don't like what they're saying? Change the narrative".

I think they might be referring to the dark pattern where there are two sets of "Legitimate Purposes":

1. Actual legitimate purposes for core functionality

2. A toggleable "legitimate purposes" under the ads section

Presenting the second option could be construed as malicious compliance or just dishonesty.

On sites where I've seen this, there is no one-click option to disable those, which should make them non-compliant with GDPR.

> except for the extremely strong willed, [...] addicting

Addiction isn't about willpower so much as psychopathology and genetics. It's a coping mechanism.

> getting used to a serene state of mind is [...] kind of counter productive

What is suspect about serenity? Is religion equally problematic as a source? How is it counterproductive?

> such substances are not natural and

A naturalist argument is usually invalid. We can't expand upon the rules of the universe. Plastics are just as natural as anything else. Cannabis also doesn't induce any foreign states in our brains.

Even using the narrow definition of "can't be found in the wild": cannabis is a plant, so it very much does exist in the wild. So do alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, psilocybin ("magic mushrooms") or ergotamine (LSD).

When applied to brain chemistry: to my knowledge, drugs don't do novel things to our brains. They promote infrequent states, but that doesn't make them unnatural. Especially not if you consider how alien dream states, meditative and transcendental experiences feel.

> with unchecked use, might put a whole society in danger

Adding a slippery slope to it doesn't improve your line of reasoning. It does tend to whip the masses into a frenzy, like its cousins "Won't somebody think of the children" and "Why should we help those who won't help themselves?".

It also doesn't conform to reality. Have California or Colorado collapsed because weed was legalised? Have the Netherlands?

> I am ambivalent about the whole movement to legalize it

Decriminalisation seems obvious to me as a solution, if coupled with a sorely needed investment in mental healthcare (across the West). The latter is necessary regardless of how we consider drugs - see homelessness, domestic violence, suicide, burnouts, etc. Decriminalisation works (cf Portugal's results), dries up income sources for the cartels, allows quality controls to be put in place, reduces stigmatisation for users, lowers the threshold for seeking therapy, keeps people out of prison for victimless crimes, creates a revenue source for the government through sales and other taxes...

The alternative to decriminalisation is telling the population "we know best". Looking at the so-called war on drugs globally, it's also an endeavour that's bound to fail, strengthen drug cartels, escalate violence and cause more damage than it prevents.

I've just listened to the original version for the first time. What leads you to the conclusion that it's "pretty clear that respect means sex"?

To me, he could mean she gets used to living without him when he's on the road and treats it like her home when he gets there, instead of theirs. If he's going to give her most of his money, at least she could make nice.

I think we're basically in agreement: neither of us thinks we should be naive about these agencies, as they definitely aren't. Intelligence/security agencies have a purpose, but shouldn't become zealots. And they should be trusted, but verified as the KGB used to say.

> Stay involved in local / state / federal politics.

Not an option for me - I'm geographically challenged. One thing to be envious of with the American system is you guys can affect a great deal, from judge and sheriff appointments to the president. Your post is a good reminder not to take it for granted.

> The Security Services has to protect a country

Implied is the statement that the end justifies the means. But how do you weigh the proportionality of measures taken? Do you adopt a utilitarian point of view, looking at, say, deaths prevented? Is anything game, or should agencies be expected to uphold a code of conduct, bill of rights or exclude entire categories of information? How do you assess what is or isn't a threat to a country and thereby something it needs to be protected from? What is a country - the president, the party, the government, its citizenry, businesses?

Second, with the popularity of invoking "national security" as an authority argument, how can these agencies ever be accountable? Who watches the watchmen? Are we to trust agencies reporting on the number of e.g. terrorist incidents prevented, especially if the information sources are opaque and there's an obvious conflict of interest?

Third, given the existence of programs like MK Ultra and Cointelpro, is it really safe to say agencies won't try to overreach? With examples like the Stargate program ("Men Who Stare At Goats"), should we have faith they know what they're doing?

To be clear, I wasn't putting the blame with IVRs or their designers. I was specifically speaking to the UX that results from businesses programming them and the menu options they set up. Like you say, those are constrained by what the business itself wants, which in turn is constrained by cost management philosophy.

Aside from the usual Guardian dalliance with identity politics, this article comes across as either nihilistic, or making the case for contentment with what we've got rather than to strive to improve oneself. The latter is perhaps what we collectively need to hear as an alternative to the productivity porn, but it's a depressingly low bar to me.

All of these can be true at the same time:

* holding yourself to a standard

* striving to better yourself

* caring about your own mental health

* giving yourself time to rest/recover

* being kind to yourself when it comes to past failures

The article goes a bit too far with lowering expectations.