5 ms·

I could substitute it for child, another group of people who are broadly less likely to know where the setting is, and it wouldn't be offensive that way either.

by aigo 5y ago

chiph 5y ago
As someone who was born before the moon landing and saw one of the last IMPs get installed on the ARPANET, yeah that was offensive. You should apologize. Knowing to silence your phone in meetings is a matter of having manners, not age.
- aigo 5y ago
  Just as no-one would begrudge a dominated race from poking fun at the dominant race, I don't see why you are so on your high horse about the dominant age group getting the same. 'Punching up' is fair game where I come from. I'm afraid I just don't get your outrage at an innocent comment poking fun at the most dominant section of society. But, as you're the second person to have taken offence, I'm going to delete it anyway.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    First of all, I'm not a particularly big fan of generational stereotypes in general, especially on a board like this that aims to do better. If I made a comment to the effect of "Zommers are the most entitled group I have ever seen," I would be (rightly) most likely downvoted to oblivion. Secondly, I have never encountered it as a problem--at least in a way that affected me (never could really get into a dot-com company but we know how that mostly ended up). But that's mostly because I've had various roles where experience really trumped other things. But ageism is clearly an issue in tech broadly so I take issue with with the justification that it's OK to make casual cracks with the justification that it's punching up. To say nothing that it added absolutely nothing to your comment. Rude interviewers are the issue. Not some imagined inability for older individuals to silence their phones. Finally, I'm not sure doubling down on the oppressed race thing helps your argument--especially given what the age breakdown in tech looks like.
  - justin66 5y ago
    Ah yes, racial humor. That will never fail you in business provided you deliver it the appropriate way. Good luck with your interviews, you’re going to do great!
  - justsaying9 5y ago
    > 'I'm afraid I just don't get it.' Personally, I'm not afraid of your lack of tact or humility, just disgusted by it. I'm a Millenial, btw.
- justsaying9 5y ago
  > 'As someone who was born before the moon landing' That would include any and all of us in this thread. No man has ever come anywhere near the moon. Unless, of course, you happen to know of some kind of magical (presumably still classified) rocket nozzle tech that would somehow avoid leaving a crater in the soft 'lunar dirt' as the 1960s tin can touched down on the 'lunar surface.' Not to mention an actual solution to various other hard technological problems of space travel, like radiation shielding, heat rejection (no, space isn't 'cold'), battery power, lack of any visible stars, workings of a camera in a high radiation environment, etc, etc. And how about that lunar module 'computer'? Anyone ever replicated that 1960s technological wonder? Oh, the schematics and tech were all 'lost'. Someone accidentally recorded over the original telemetry tapes with Gilligan's Island reruns. I see. What a terrible accident. Not to detract from your main point, of course; tye interviewer was terribly rude. Selfish. Just like the liars who faked the 'moon landing' in the Nevada desert, near Indian Springs.
  - chiph 5y ago
    See the capacitor in this closeup that kens took of a power supply module in the Apollo Guidance Computer? My dad's company made it. You are telling the wrong person that the landing was faked. https://static.righto.com/images/agc-power/transistor-closeup.jpg https://static.righto.com/images/agc-power/transistor-closeu...
    - justsaying9 5y ago
      Yes, everyone has got an uncle or a cousin or a buddy they knew once who was involved in some ancillary way on the outskirts of the Apollo Simulation, which they take as being absolute proof that it was 100% real. They even angrily call me names, and of course, absolutely refuse to review any of the concrete evidence that the whole thing was, in fact, a fraud. Just like you did, just now. I still haven't heard your explanation of how a large diameter rocket nozzle, which we are told was firing for the entire descent, with 10 psi of hot gases escaping from its large volume, failed to disturb so much as a speck of dust underneath the 'lander.' That's only the most obvious of many glaring plot holes in the script. If you were to, say, enter 'evidence that the moon landing was fakee' into any search engine, naively thinking such evidence would be presented to you, instead you would get only page after page of laughter, ridicule, and condescension--and none of the actual evidence. Certainly you would never, ever be presented with the name of the very first book on the subject, which launched moon landing skepticism into the mainstream in the early 70s. Nowhere in the first ten pages of results is this man or his book mentioned. The book is called We Never Went To The Moon by Bill Kaysing, who was a technical writer for the Saturn V rocket program at Rocketdyne. Wouldn't you think a man with such a background would be worth listening to? Google doesn't think so. Another book of interest is NASA Mooned America, by Ralph Rene. This one is more technical in nature, and drives the final nails in the coffin. Google also pretends this one doesn't exist. If you type the author and name of the book into Google followed by the keyword 'pdf' however, it will take you right to it on the first page. At least it did as of a year ago. Funny how that works. Read those books, then come back and tell me again how sure you are. When you find out how fake and full of lies the world really is, you're going to be pissed.
ghaff 5y ago
Yeah. Go ahead and double down. If you don't see the difference you're just the sort of person who I wish would just get out of tech.

I could substitute it for child, another group of people who are broadly less likely to know where the setting is, and it wouldn't be offensive that way either.

by aigo 5y ago

I could substitute it for child, another group of people who are broadly less likely to know where the setting is, and it wouldn't be offensive that way either.

chiph 5y ago

As someone who was born before the moon landing and saw one of the last IMPs get installed on the ARPANET, yeah that was offensive. You should apologize. Knowing to silence your phone in meetings is a matter of having manners, not age.

aigo 5y ago
Just as no-one would begrudge a dominated race from poking fun at the dominant race, I don't see why you are so on your high horse about the dominant age group getting the same. 'Punching up' is fair game where I come from. I'm afraid I just don't get your outrage at an innocent comment poking fun at the most dominant section of society. But, as you're the second person to have taken offence, I'm going to delete it anyway.
- ghaff 5y ago
  First of all, I'm not a particularly big fan of generational stereotypes in general, especially on a board like this that aims to do better. If I made a comment to the effect of "Zommers are the most entitled group I have ever seen," I would be (rightly) most likely downvoted to oblivion. Secondly, I have never encountered it as a problem--at least in a way that affected me (never could really get into a dot-com company but we know how that mostly ended up). But that's mostly because I've had various roles where experience really trumped other things. But ageism is clearly an issue in tech broadly so I take issue with with the justification that it's OK to make casual cracks with the justification that it's punching up. To say nothing that it added absolutely nothing to your comment. Rude interviewers are the issue. Not some imagined inability for older individuals to silence their phones. Finally, I'm not sure doubling down on the oppressed race thing helps your argument--especially given what the age breakdown in tech looks like.
- justin66 5y ago
  Ah yes, racial humor. That will never fail you in business provided you deliver it the appropriate way. Good luck with your interviews, you’re going to do great!
- justsaying9 5y ago
  > 'I'm afraid I just don't get it.' Personally, I'm not afraid of your lack of tact or humility, just disgusted by it. I'm a Millenial, btw.
justsaying9 5y ago
> 'As someone who was born before the moon landing' That would include any and all of us in this thread. No man has ever come anywhere near the moon. Unless, of course, you happen to know of some kind of magical (presumably still classified) rocket nozzle tech that would somehow avoid leaving a crater in the soft 'lunar dirt' as the 1960s tin can touched down on the 'lunar surface.' Not to mention an actual solution to various other hard technological problems of space travel, like radiation shielding, heat rejection (no, space isn't 'cold'), battery power, lack of any visible stars, workings of a camera in a high radiation environment, etc, etc. And how about that lunar module 'computer'? Anyone ever replicated that 1960s technological wonder? Oh, the schematics and tech were all 'lost'. Someone accidentally recorded over the original telemetry tapes with Gilligan's Island reruns. I see. What a terrible accident. Not to detract from your main point, of course; tye interviewer was terribly rude. Selfish. Just like the liars who faked the 'moon landing' in the Nevada desert, near Indian Springs.
- chiph 5y ago
  See the capacitor in this closeup that kens took of a power supply module in the Apollo Guidance Computer? My dad's company made it. You are telling the wrong person that the landing was faked. https://static.righto.com/images/agc-power/transistor-closeup.jpg https://static.righto.com/images/agc-power/transistor-closeu...
  - justsaying9 5y ago
    Yes, everyone has got an uncle or a cousin or a buddy they knew once who was involved in some ancillary way on the outskirts of the Apollo Simulation, which they take as being absolute proof that it was 100% real. They even angrily call me names, and of course, absolutely refuse to review any of the concrete evidence that the whole thing was, in fact, a fraud. Just like you did, just now. I still haven't heard your explanation of how a large diameter rocket nozzle, which we are told was firing for the entire descent, with 10 psi of hot gases escaping from its large volume, failed to disturb so much as a speck of dust underneath the 'lander.' That's only the most obvious of many glaring plot holes in the script. If you were to, say, enter 'evidence that the moon landing was fakee' into any search engine, naively thinking such evidence would be presented to you, instead you would get only page after page of laughter, ridicule, and condescension--and none of the actual evidence. Certainly you would never, ever be presented with the name of the very first book on the subject, which launched moon landing skepticism into the mainstream in the early 70s. Nowhere in the first ten pages of results is this man or his book mentioned. The book is called We Never Went To The Moon by Bill Kaysing, who was a technical writer for the Saturn V rocket program at Rocketdyne. Wouldn't you think a man with such a background would be worth listening to? Google doesn't think so. Another book of interest is NASA Mooned America, by Ralph Rene. This one is more technical in nature, and drives the final nails in the coffin. Google also pretends this one doesn't exist. If you type the author and name of the book into Google followed by the keyword 'pdf' however, it will take you right to it on the first page. At least it did as of a year ago. Funny how that works. Read those books, then come back and tell me again how sure you are. When you find out how fake and full of lies the world really is, you're going to be pissed.

ghaff 5y ago

Yeah. Go ahead and double down. If you don't see the difference you're just the sort of person who I wish would just get out of tech.