jongraehl

'You probably don't have a choice ...' is a reach. The rest is well-argued.

Anyway the most telling point is if OP gets his wish, then next time a bunch of people burn to death the public will clamor again for mandatory fire escapes, inevitably. We aren't the sort of people he wishes we were.

"progress"

You think progress should be achieved by changing the interpretation of existing law? Odd view.

splitting the lane for a right turn is common in CA (assume legal too). but you'd best be sure you can make it without having to cut someone off. if a human did this the result might be the same. tough problem. there's a chance that if the google car went faster than 2mph it might have gotten some respect (or around the sandbags before getting hit, if there was room in front)

For regular contributors, women appear* to accept a man's work (slightly) more than they will a woman's, and men appear to accept a woman's work more than they will a man's. Since there are more men than women, this means that on the whole women are privileged.

* appear: maybe men or women have a different internal bar for how polished they'll make a pull request (how afraid they are of rejection, etc). the study looks at profiles that are closeted vs out as a gender. If you reveal gender on purpose, this tells us something about you, presumably, but for convenience the difference between closeted and out is taken to signify "bias against [out] men/women". Much of this is not statistically significant, probably (study doesn't give enough info, and suspiciously did an "insider" vs "outsider" analysis rather than a pooled analysis, suggesting they didn't like what they found until they split into two pools).

For unsolicited outside contributions, closeted men seem to get rejected more than closeted women (men's bar is lower?). Out men get rejected more than closeted men or women. Out women get rejected more than closeted men or women. The key is: for this category, people appear to be less biased against out men than out women (but somehow people prefer contributions from hidden-gender folks?).

Anyway, this is interesting stuff but I'm not sure what to take from it. I do expect more low-quality outside-team submissions from men than women, and I might judge them unfairly if they were out men, but this is just a random hunch and I doubt it would affect me much (probably I wouldn't notice).

if we think some pattern should be called "censorship", then it is called that. if your interlocutor refuses to move beyond "argument about definition of words" and you still want to communicate, you then have to taboo the word, which slows your thinking+communication down a bit, but so be it.

Every one of his complaints has a good solution, albeit some not widely known. Except compile time, single source file or otherwise - the compiler is using lots of smarts and lots of library headers on your behalf.

That said, author has done a good job explaining his thought process in taking the rewarding-at-every-step path, given he's not a C++-wrangling junkie.

clang-format is better

I prefer mandatory static types + type inference. It is a productivity boost if you're allowed to skip entering type names for local vars. If you ever want to change anything meaningful in a large system, you better have meaningful compile-time checks. The only downside is longer build times, but tools are improving. Outside of legacy projects (Linus loves C! and fantastic library ecosystems for scripting languages) I don't see any future for languages without static typing + inference.

Get tolerant or get wrecked sounds great until you look at the details (especially the asymmetric-nuclear-etc ones). Still, well said (not sure on "we need differences" - that's conveniently kumbaya; I'll settle for "eradicating all differences = monstrous bloodshed so don't do it").

I like your line of thought, but this is no refutation of IIFYM or "eat less if you're fat" unless they performed this substitution isocalorically. Eating fast sugars instead of equivalent slow starches makes me crave more sooner, and eat more.

Unsurprisingly, your version-2 story is as close as possible to version-1 and the demonstrated proof of version-1's lies. This is why it's nice to hold in reserve some additional evidence when you expose a liar - so you can catch them lying in version-2 and completely destroy their public credibility.

I hope this doesn't happen to you, but in my experience version-2 is usually only a partial confession.

Good luck recovering from this with a lesson learned: you don't look bad when you shared credit and honestly represent your contributions. People will already associate you with the good thing you brought to their attention, deployed and customized for them, etc.

Public shaming is an appropriate reaction to demonstrable theft of credit, and works by like mechanisms as the original offense. The threat of being exposed for building a fake reputation can preserve the (relative) reliability of "judge me by my portfolio" by making the expected reputational gain from plagiarism neutral or negative.

Really clear writing. Sweet story.

I'm not a fan of "protected category" hiring rules in any case. If good old people are underpaid, then let your company profit by hiring them. I suppose a tempting compromise is to not allow companies to solicit disclosure of age etc (so people can leave the year off their degree, show only most recent experience, etc), but honestly I think it might be better if those companies that really will only hire young would advertise the fact and save everyone some time.

Starting from only a very small real disadvantage in ability, any externally distinctive group can quickly seem a 'market for lemons' - for example, maybe the oldsters you've seen so far across the interview table are unrepresentatively bad, because the good ones are working and not interviewing. So don't think because you've seen 4 weak candidates of 50+ years old that it's not worth looking at the next.