The first rule is that you don't break userspace, not that you don't make mistakes. Commits go through a process before being put into the kernel, and if yours is going to break userspace, it won't get in, so don't expect it to. You can make mistakes, but if they're found, you're expected not to say "well, commit it anyway". It's not the mistake that the violation of the rule, but the cavalier attitude.
You need to work in a wider variety of workplaces, if you genuinely believe that. Perhaps put another way: were Jobs or Ballmer ever escorted out for their obnoxious behaviours?
The events of the past few weeks should serve as a reminder that what's historically been considered 'normal' behaviour in a workplace just because people have gotten away with it doesn't mean it's morally, ethically or legally justifiable.
When you create something and someone else comes and tries to improve it but fucks up and then tries to fix that by breaking some of the use cases for which you'd created your something in the first place, I'm going to cut you some slack if you go on a rant about what the correct solution is for your product.
I would expect you to do the same for Linus and his Linux, just as so many people do (did) for Steve Jobs and his Apple products.
What's always missing from these discussions is that that patronising mockery and outright dismissal is how atheists and agnostics have always been treated by the religious - it wasn't until atheists started really kicking and screaming about the injustice that people started to take note. One the one hand you have folks like this complaining of atheists merely being (gasp) rude!, and on the other hand you have things like some states in the US still not allowing atheists to hold office, by articles in their consitutions[1].
It's exactly the same with women's rights and minority civil rights: "Really, people would listen to them more if they just toned down and spoke politely". We already know that that doesn't work and just gets you ignored.
Given that Catholicism (like other religions) has wholly retreated to and now lives only in the area of "questions that have no answer", yes, it has no basis in reality. Nothing in Catholic dogma is independently verifiable. For example, the justifications around the eucharist literally being the blood and body of christ require some truly incredible mental gymnastics, and this transubstantiation is a core element of the faith. Yet strangely, the bread and doesn't literally change into the flesh and blood for the Protestants...
So where does the 'useful dialogue' start? I think it starts well before we just give moral authority to a bunch of very old men arguing about rules that only they made up. They should give us a better chain of authority than "since time immemorial".
No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise.
I also would not quite agree that religion has retreated to "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps", i.e. the creation, consciousness etc. These are very large gaps in scientific understanding, but of course this does not mean we need supernatural explanations for them, and it would be reasonable to expect science to fill these gaps eventually. But then again there might be limits to what can explain.
Yes they do. To understand transubstantiation you need to understand the philosophy behind it. Aristotle made a distinction between the substance of a thing, the core, essential properties that "form" it, and the accidental properties which will differ between any particular instance of the thing. Dogs can be quite different, but they share a fundamental dogness.
So using this way of thinking the body and bread are one in substance, but differ in accidental properties. The bread still looks and tastes like bread but an indiscernible change has occurred in its substance. Thomas says:
> I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
* caveat: I'm neither a philosopher nor a believer in transubstantiation
You misunderstand me. When I said "no one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh" I meant that no one believed it changed physically as opposed to in some spiritual, philosophical way.
But that is what they believe, or at least what the doctrine says. It literally turns into blood and flesh. It's just that all its empirically observable properties remain those of bread and wine. If you think that that is theological gibberish, sure, obviously it is, but it's still what they believe.
We are in then agreement then because when I am said that no one ever believed that there is a literal change I meant that no one believed the "observable properties" change.
Plenty of people have believed it historically. Scroll down to the Catholic section and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics I talked about to claim it in modern times.
Protestants don't believe in literal transubstantiation; I'd say they probably trust their taste-buds more, but then again, compare Protestant/Anglo-German food against Catholic/Franco-Italo-Spanish food :)
> "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps"
I don't personally see a difference between these terms - they both mean claiming to have an answer for something that is unanswerable. If you have an answer for which the only proof is basically "just trust me", then it's not much of an answer. Russell's Teapot is a pretty clear example of this.
Where in the link does it say that people thought there is a physical change as opposed to a spiritual one, "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."
There is a big difference between something that cannot have an answer and a "gap". We currently do not understand consciousness, which leaves a gap for religions to postulate about souls. But it is very likely that in the future science will be able to answer to question of how consciousnesses arises in the brain. It is not an unanswerable question.
... the very first paragraph after the table of contents?
If you check out the Middle Ages section, it shows that the theological debate that it wasn't physical alteration started... at a date that is closer to us than the birth of jesus.
Check out Stercoranism [1] as well (which contributed to the above debate), whose whole basis is that the doctrine of physical change must lead towards normal digestive processes happening, and wondering if this turns the eucharist into, literally, holy shit.
At the end of that article is a bit of modern apologia stating that christ probably leaves as soon as the cracker hits your stomach ('but nobody knows precisely when'[2]). :)
Well, here you offer a prime example of the power of religion: you are being wilfully ignorant because you don't want something to be a certain way.
You won't be satisfied unless the actual word 'literal' appears? It appears in the first paragraph of the Stercoranism link, and again in the second paragraph.
"the 9th century Carolingian theologian Paschasius Radbertus... wrote an influential tract around 832 upholding the literal interpretation of Christ in the Eucharist". He supported the literal change, but said that the holy bits dissolved before becoming poo.
The first year of someone's term is very rarely affected by their policies. My particular pet hate is when politicians start bragging about how their policies are responsible for good economic news when they're still in the first three months.
Truth is that economies change slowly, and politicians have much less control over it than we all like to believe.
> Truth is that economies change slowly, and politicians have much less control over it than we all like to believe.
I dont know why you are being downvoted, this is a very sensible comment. Changes in society are slow and progressive, except in very specific circumstances.
I think in general you're right, but with a some exceptions. Like say it depends on what part of economy we are talking about. If inflation, GDP numbers and so on, then those move slower. But stock market can react pretty quickly it seems. For example it can react to getting a hint of a possibly changing regulatory environments. A crashing or rapidly rising stock market will affect the economy quite a bit, especially if it is sustained long enough.
War can change things, disasters, foreign economic threats (say a trade war with a major superpower). Those can have rapid effects as well.
Well, disasters and foreign economic threats aren't due to a politician's policy, and the regulatory environment usually doesn't change straight away (that requires legislation, not just a policy manifesto). War is a rare event as well, and it doesn't necessarily affect the wider economy - the war in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't affected the US economy much, which quite happily went through a boom time in the early years of the war, then crashed for reasons unrelated to the war. Of course, the economy of Iraq got soundly fucked by war, but that wasn't due to the economic policies of the politician in charge.
The war had enormous implications for the economy. Commodity prices were driven extremely high due to investor uncertainty about the Middle East oil supply. It got so bad that Congress had to pressure traders to stop hoarding massive amounts of crude oil in the hopes that the supply would be disrupted and the price would escalate. These commodity price rises fueled speculation into other asset classes, such as housing and loans.
As always there were some short-term positive Keynesian stimulative effects by increased government spending, but a massive run-up of the deficit did increase the cost of servicing the national debt, which might otherwise have been directed into productive enterprises, rather than the wasteful Iraq war which achieved negative progress.
The stock market is a prediction of future returns, so it is in fact a signal of what people think about the what the new politician's effect on certain companies' income.
Because npm 5 was a pretty big update that fundamentally changed how a lot of npm portions work, in order to close the gap between it and Yarn, a competing package manager. The 5.0 release was super rushed IMO (I personally hit several bugs), but if you stuck to node LTS you skipped over most of the v5 breakage (now it works 99.99% of the time again, and when it doesn't work deleting node_modules usually does the trick)
npm v5 is still deleting private packages - the issue has been open, accepted and replicable since npm v5 was released - see https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/17929 nad various related issued linked from that page. This sucks if you use a monorepo.
package management is a harder problem than most people seem to want to admit. I've run into tons of issues with every package management system you can think of: rpm does some extremely dodgy caching stuff at times, navigating maven dependency trees to identify the offending version of slf4j that is harshing the vibe, etc.
I can't think of a single package management system that works well and people seem to love.
Major version numbers in Javascript are defined using SEMVER. What this means is that a major version only implies that a breaking change was included (e.g. the API contract is different). It doesn't really have anything to do with a classic pattern where V2 is seen as the second phase, and V5 is seen as the fifth phase, etc, of a project.
Think Different.