ben0x539

36 ms·

421.
by ben0x539 6y ago
Professionals should act professionally, but it is not rational to ignore that human beings are subject to emotions. Taking emotions into account is necessary to maintain an environment where emotions don't get in the way.
422.
by ben0x539 6y ago
> and the owners will add a notice to a page documenting the sanction and rationale I mean, that's basically a CoC-by-example. I don't really disagree with that modulo some surmountable reservations about giving too much attent
423.
by ben0x539 6y ago
You don't need to codify all expected social norms because the CoC is applied by and for people, who can extrapolate to fill the gaps. You do need to give them a starting point, and since there is no obvious universal definition of &qu
424.
by ben0x539 6y ago
If you can't understand human beings as emotional creatures, how can you manage them rationally?
425.
by ben0x539 6y ago
Why are you trying to catch them being hypocritical? A hypothetical situation where multiple talks violated the CoC but attendants only reported one talk and so the conference only took action against one speaker doesn't seem like a hu
426.
by ben0x539 6y ago
I stopped reading at the end of the article. Hope this helps.
427.
by ben0x539 6y ago
I'm not familiar with the people involved, what's the hierarchy in this incident?
428.
by ben0x539 6y ago
It doesn't communicate what you consider to be dickhead behavior, so it invites fear, uncertainty and doubt both in whether my behavior is okay, and in what behavior of other participants I can expect to be "protected" from.
429.
by ben0x539 6y ago
I'm not saying it was harassment, I'm using an extreme example to make the point that "the supposedly aggrieved party says it was fine" shouldn't by itself be considered sufficient evidence that the CoC wasn't
430.
by ben0x539 6y ago
No, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm trying to say that what happened _wouldn't_ have been fine _even if_ OP had committed a grave misdeed. If communication had been better, I bet they could have talked this through w
431.
by ben0x539 6y ago
> The hilarious is that Joel Grus didn't care It's probably not the case here, but imo it's a feature of CoCs that they protect people who can't publicly object themselves for whatever reason. Like, for an extreme exa
432.
by ben0x539 6y ago
Well, maybe don't do that then. You could address the ideas from that talk instead of the talk specifically, and have a slide, like, "My talk is a response to this other talk by this person and I encourage you to check it out&quot
433.
by ben0x539 6y ago
Leaving aside whether this'd be a good policy for a conference, this argument doesn't really check out for me. You can exchange ideas without making judgements on other ideas. Like, let your ideas speak for themselves, marketplace
434.
by ben0x539 6y ago
Even if OP were to have committed a horrible sin in the talk, this isn't the outcome anyone was hoping for. Hence the actual talk is very much a side issue.
435.
by ben0x539 6y ago
I think you're wrong: This isn't about whether voicing critique is acceptable, it's that a breakdown in communication caused a relatively harmless situation to cause much anguish.
436.
by ben0x539 6y ago
There are a lot more people on the internet nowadays. This is a good thing.
437.
by ben0x539 6y ago
It really seems this is overwhelmingly about communication, not about CoCs or the norms specified in a given CoC. It's not even "I violated the Code of Conduct, so I got banned from the conference", we didn't even get th
438.
by ben0x539 6y ago
You'd think Wikimedia in particular has experience with the issue of spam bots polluting the site's search result.
439.
by ben0x539 6y ago
I've only ever used it for that! For files there's `File.open`! ;)
440.
by ben0x539 6y ago
If we lived in a world where drive-by arson was a common pastime, we'd blame hospital operators for building hospitals that aren't really hard to set on fire.
441.
by ben0x539 6y ago
Short variable names can be easier to read, too. Having people decode meaning from the name, rather than keeping track of the meaning separately and associating it with a symbolic name, doesn't always feel like a good use of cognitive
442.
by ben0x539 6y ago
> That's a tautology though :) Of course any language designer will design a language according to the properties he/she desires. Eh, you can just fail, too, no? Like I could sit down and set myself the goal of designing a lang
443.
by ben0x539 6y ago
I'm not really sure about this. I think the language they designed has the properties they desired, in that they consciously forewent a lot of potential benefits because some notion of simplicity is more important to them. So in that s
444.
by ben0x539 6y ago
I think that's just "easy"/"not easy" from a different baseline, not a comparison of C# vs Go. C# async/await is easy compared to something like callback-based asynchronous IO. Go concurrency is "not
445.
by ben0x539 6y ago
Maybe make `concurrencyProcesses` configurable and test with a bunch of different values relative to the input size?
446.
by ben0x539 6y ago
I think Go invites mistakes like this being made over and over, because (in my subjective opinion as someone who writes a lot of Go at work but isn't extremely happy about that) you have to write out the basic low-level concurrency pat
447.
by ben0x539 6y ago
This roughly detects data races, not all race conditions.
448.
by ben0x539 6y ago
Yes, that's the whole point, but it's completely broken. I've certainly made the same mistake. :D
449.
by ben0x539 6y ago
We're blocking in `limitCh <- struct{}{}` if we're trying to spawn more goroutines (because `pss` is big, representing there being a lot of processes we're inspecting, not many go processes) than there is room in `limitC
450.
by ben0x539 6y ago
Sounds like the post you're responding to is complaining that so many keyboards are at 30ms and not the 5ms/8ms you're seeing. :)

More ›