This is the only thing that makes junior programmers worthwhile. Any task will take longer and probably be more work for me if I give it to a junior programmer vs just doing it myself. The reason I give tasks to junior programmers is so that they eventually become less junior, and can actually be useful.
Having a junior programmer assistant who never gets better sounds like hell.
The tech might get better eventually, it has gotten better rapidly to this point and everyone working on the models are aware of these problems. Strong incentive to figure something out.
If the problem is that not many people read SF, how can popular SF books be part of the problem? Are you supposing that if not for popular books like Dune, people would read a wider variety of other SF works? I don't think that's how it works.
I think popular SF books are important for bringing the genre to a wider audience. Someone who is not familiar with the genre might pick up Dune because of the films, and sure, maybe that's all they'll read, but maybe they'll enjoy it and pick up some more.
As a kid I read a Tom Swift book than read all of them, and then started reading Asimov and many other authors. I don’t know what it is but people who read Dune and Hitchhiker just don’t move on to other books and authors.
And it’s just those two series. I can look down on Xanth but people I’ve met who’ve read that have read other fantasy books like the Deryni books or the Narnia books.
I think it is that people feel socially pressured to read Dune and Hitchhiker and come to conclusions like “reading science fiction is like watching protons decay” or “reading science fiction is being compelled to laugh at jokes that aren’t really funny”.
> It has been suggested that Dave Cutler intended the initialism "WNT" as a play on VMS, incrementing each letter by one. However, the project was originally intended as a follow-on to OS/2 and was referred to as "NT OS/2" before receiving the Windows brand. One of the original NT developers, Mark Lucovsky, states that the name was taken from the original target processor—the Intel i860, code-named N10 ("N-Ten").
I can't figure out what this is referring to, though. Maybe you can do better.
I'm guessing you didn't actually read the article, just commented from the headline, because I think disability is a pretty good excuse to use pre-prepared ingredients.
in this case there's no reason to believe he changed his mind
it's much more likely that one of the two views was simply him expressing what he thought was the most politically opportunistic opinion to express at the time
I grew up in Suffolk, where I knew of several examples, and I never realised that they were a particularly Suffolk-specific thing: according to the article, twice as many in the county as the rest of the UK. I would be interested to know why.
Yes, it is indicative of societal issues that women outnumber men in lower pay, lower status careers like teaching and nursing whereas men outnumber women in higher pay, higher status careers like tech.
I would take strong exception your comment that teaching and nursing are "lower status" careers. My mother, grandmother, and grandfather all taught their entire lives and contributed greatly to society over the course of their lifetimes, and a college professor is a high status position by any objective measure. It's a position I would like to attain but never will because I simply don't have the time to put into it, and even though I have a good career in tech I wish I could follow in their footsteps at times.
Nursing also pays quite well -- perhaps not quite the level of FAANG salaries, but six figure salaries in nursing are not at all uncommon, and relative to the education required to get into that career it is a very good return on investment. Also, nursing is absolutely not a low status career by any metric I know of either.
You're trying to make a point, I get that -- and perhaps you could use other career fields to make it more legitimately, but the previous poster has a very good point as well. People gravitate towards careers that interest them -- my mother was never going to write software because she has no interest in that field, but she loved to teach and chose to do so her entire life. I love to teach as well, but I don't have the aptitude for dealing with an academic career.
To be clear, by lower status (and I said "lower", not "low", very specifically) I was not saying anything negative about those professions or the people who work in them. I was only referring to their status within society at the moment, in that they are not accorded great power or influence, or feted in the same way as e.g. tech entrepreneurs, doctors, or lawyers are. I think that nursing and teaching should be much higher status jobs than they currently are and I think their importance is undervalued, which frequently tends to be the case for professions dominated by women.
You mention college professor as a high status position, which I think supports the point I was making, as whilst the majority of school teachers are women, the majority of professors are men.
As to people gravitating towards careers that interest them, I think that is begging the question a bit, as it avoids considering why people gravitate towards the positions that they do. Are women more likely to go into nursing than into tech because of some intrinsic preference, or because nursing is much more frequently presented as an appropriate career path for them than tech, and they can currently see a lot more women doing that than applying to YC or whatever? I would suspect the latter.
Depends on the field. Many fields have more women as professors than men -- just anecdotally in my (admittedly small sample size) family more women have been professors than men.
Nursing, to me, is a relatively high status field that offers a good salary and a great deal of flexibility.
Maybe in the 50's we were telling women they could only be nurses or teachers, but that's really not been an issue for a lot of years. There are plenty of women entrepreneurs, and I know plenty of women engineers -- I've worked with them and for them, and they've worked for me over the years. While this doesn't fit the new narrative, I haven't seen anybody telling women they can't be engineers or whatever else they want to be for a long time now.
Low status isn't the same thing as low value. One of our big problems as a society is that educators don't get half the respect their position deserves.
I agree with you completely on that -- but even to call them low status is in my opinion simply inaccurate. Even teachers who aren't paid well are still not "low status" like a bartender or custodian or something that would more commonly (not saying I agree because I'm not a fan of such labels..) be considered a "low status" occupation.
One of the things I appreciate about Japanese society is the fact that pretty much anyone who has a profession is proud of their profession, is paid well for it, and it's generally not considered proper to look down on someone for their position. Everyone contributes to society and that's how it should be.
I think men dominate over both ends of the job market - the best and the worst jobs.
Men dominate fields that require physical labour (farm work, construction work), risk taking (soldier, fireman, policeman, professional driver), bad working conditions (mining, waste disposal), long separation from home (sailor, travelling salesmen).
Why are comparisons made only to the most desirable jobs while forgetting about the rest? I think feminists only have an issue with the top 1% of men, only care about equality with them.
Nursing is a high-pay job for its education and risk bracket. It's low pay compared to doctor, but there are other confounders like education required do get an MD license.
I think the reason that solely skills-based institutions never flourished is due to the kind of cronyism and old boy networks that the article strangely seems to see as one aspect of the current system that is worth preserving.
The difficulty is in persuading those people who are hiring, who went to university, to value qualifications from skills-based courses, rather than assuming that the people who obtain them are lower class and too thick to go to university.
"A review might consider whether it is befitting for the world's sixth largest economy to manage critical national infrastructure via a Yahoo group but we would hope that is obvious."
The article says Labour doesn't have an anti-semitism problem and therefore it doesn't?
And yes, I checked the references, and they are not wholly convincing. A statement that only 0.06% of the Labour membership have been investigated for anti-semitism (which firstly still seems kind of high to me, and secondly obviously not being investigated for anti-semitism does not mean one is not anti-semitic) and an independent inquiry by the person who was subsequently made Labour's shadow attorney general?
I'm not saying Labour is overrun by anti-semitism but let's try not to just believe the last thing we read, ok?
Mo, the facts say that Labour doesn't have an anti-semitism problem.
There has been absolutely no evidence provided by any source to prove institutional anti-semitism.
There is really no evidence at all that stands up to even the most basic common sense assessment.
For example - if Corbyn is an anti-Semite, he's been remarkably quiet about it. In fact he has somehow managed to stay friends with various Jewish individuals and organisations in spite of his alleged burning hatred for them. Perhaps someone should let them know?
If you compare Labour's record of "anti-semitism" with the many easy-to-find examples of outright unapologetic racism of the British (and US) Right, there's no comparison.
There have however been public statements by Israeli diplomats explaining that "anti-semitism" is used in a calculated and cynical way to undermine politicians who do not support Israeli nationalism. And also evidence of Israeli influencers working to "take down" - their words - British MPs.
Meanwhile the Labour MPs making the most noise about anti-semitism also happen to be the old Blairites who were horrified when Corbyn was elected leader.
As you say - let's try not to just believe everything we read on this topic, ok?
When corbyn's facebook profile was first linked to some AS post, a party that was functioning would have gone through all the groups he's a member of, and all past comments and removed anything that would ahve potentially been a problem.
They did not. After the first incident where he was tagged in a some post raving on about the "banking elite" or some other trope, there was at least a 6month time lapse before the press discovered his comment on the famous banking mural.
Add that to the backdrop of Livingston being a total tool, and not being censured at any speed, you begin to form a narrative.
mix in the total lack of press control, planning or indeed engagement, you get this mess. Thats without the total perversion of the discipline system (where you can be Richard Burgon, caught lying on national TV about what you said about Zionism, and not be disciplined, but admit you voted for another party and you are instantly expelled.)
All of this could have been managed, if the corbyn "brain trust" had actually bothered to think about the outside world.
Now, Let us not for a moment think that labour are alone in having a *ism problem. The conservative can't stand islam, anyone with an accent, or someone with a "whiff of the colonies". The Libdems can't abide gay marriage (which is deeply ironic)
Look, I voted corbyn the first time, because I thought he was actually competent. He however is not, has shrank back from the press, surrounded himself with posh boys who think they are working class, or dinosaurs from the 80s.
To blame this AS stuff on Isreal is just peak bullshit. If they had simply audited Corbyn's facebook pages, and kicked out the noisy unhinged twats banging on about the jews, we'd never have got here.
Anti-semitism (and prejudice in general) exists on a much wider spectrum than just "burning hatred", and it is entirely possible to be friendly with members of a group that you are prejudiced against. If, perhaps, you believe that Jewish people do not integrate fully and are not "properly British", it does not prevent you from also getting on perfectly well with your Jewish next door neighbour, but you're still anti-semitic.
And just as a tip, claiming that accusations of anti-semitism are a Zionist conspiracy is somewhat self-defeating.
43% of tory party members wouldn't vote for a Muslim leader. That's endemic institutional racism. Labour party members have no such issue with Jews. The anti semitism accusations are purely about the Israel lobby throwing a fit.
That and the number of Labour members prepared to insist every Jewish person complaining about their treatment or objecting to the disciplinary body ruling holocaust denial memes OK is part of the "Israel lobby throwing a fit"...
Most of the ones whose complaints get into the media have links. E.g. members of Labour Friends of Israel like Margaret Hodge who went on a junket to Israel specifically to apologize to Isaac Herzog (he who said "race mixing between Jews and non Jews is a 'tragedy'") about the UK Labour party's "anti semitism issues".
It's frankly quite disgusting the level of Islamophobia some of these people are endorsing simply because they consider it politically expedient to throw their support behind a foreign government.
It's not that anti semitism doesn't exist at all in the Labour party. It's just vanishingly rare and literally nobody - NEVER MIND a leader - has said anything close to as disgusting as what Isaac Herzog or Boris Johnson has said.
Newspapers have also covered unambiguously factual stuff such as heads of disciplinary panels writing emails excusing the posting of holocaust denial memes from far right websites as "out of context", whilst Labour's own investigation looked at university kids being bullied - did they all have "links" too?
When your first resort upon hearing people complaining about a particular form of racism is to search for dirt on some of the more prominent members of that minority, I don't think you're in any position to lecture others on endorsing disgusting levels of racism...
Digging up memes shared by nobodies and reinterpreting them as racist (seen this a few times now) is used as a means of deflecting criticism of obvious Islamophobia by prominent leaders like Herzog. That's the worst part of this pseudo scandal: it's trumped up for and on behalf of islamophobes.
like I said: it's not like anti semitism doesn't exist in the labour party. it's just that the boy cried wolf countless times, and they cried wolf to protect racists.
this is quite apart from the time members of this community decided that they spoke for all Jews when they attacked a Holocaust survivor.
Nobody in the UK cares about "protecting" rarely-discussed foreign opposition politicians like Herzog - they're utterly irrelevant to people objecting to heads of disciplinary panels defending unambiguously racist stuff like this[1] as "out of context" and demanding their reinstatement to run for public office
Nothing demonstrates the nature of racism problem the Labour Party has quite as much as arguments such as yours that objecting to stuff like this is "reinterpretation" as part of a shadowy Israeli conspiracy to protect Islamophobes
> And just as a tip, claiming that accusations of anti-semitism are a Zionist conspiracy is somewhat self-defeating.
"Israel is a country that lobbies loudly for its own benefit, as many countries do." is pretty far from a conspiracy theory. And they use the most effective tools available.
I beg you, do not conflate the existence of Israel with the current government of Israel.
When you have ~500,000 registered members there are bound to be a few nutters. Especially when Twitter is involved. Which is where many of the reported instances of antisemitism come from.
Corbyn himself liked a couple of suspect images on Facebook and has been critical of Israel. While still keeping the support of leftwing Jewish organisations (Marx was a Jew after all).
Obviously racism should be called out and dealt with when it is found. To me, over the ~4 years this has been a storey in the press the Labour Party have sufficiently answered all questions.
When you get popular enough with a political movement that threatens the rich elite of any race or religion, the attacks start. It just happened that Corbyn was pretty boring in his personal life, attacking his views on Israel was the only option.
> The article says Labour doesn't have an anti-semitism problem and therefore it doesn't?
One of the charges against Corbyn is that he co-hosted a talk in 2010 in which a Jewish holocaust survivor compared Israel's practices with those of Nazi Germany. I mean, can it get more ridiculous than that? You're accused of being an anti-semite because you allowed a Jewish holocaust survivor to criticise Israel?
Having a junior programmer assistant who never gets better sounds like hell.