“Antiracist” doesn’t mean “not racist”; it’s a Marxist ideology focusing on racial identities and purposeful systemic racism to “balance” the power between racial tribes.
It’s extremely racist.
Anti-Asian racism will become normalized as long as “antiracism” is part of the Democratic agenda. They’re literally fighting to overturn civil rights laws in CA and WA so the government can discriminate based on race again.
> “Antiracist” doesn’t mean “not racist”; it’s a Marxist ideology focusing on racial identities and purposeful systemic racism to “balance” the power between racial tribes.
Why do you say this is "Marxist ideology"? What makes it Marxist, precisely?
“Antiracism” is another name for “critical race theory” which inherits from the general Marxist body of philosophy, of which “critical blah theory” tends to be a common name. Like “people’s republic” — it’s a fashion thing.
In sociology and political philosophy, "Critical Theory" means the Western-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, developed in Germany in the 1930s and drawing on the ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Though a "critical theory" or a "critical social theory" may have similar elements of thought, capitalizing Critical Theory as if it were a proper noun stresses the intellectual lineage specific to the Frankfurt School.
This is true, antiracism is active in the presence of racism, “not racist” may or may not be.
> it’s a Marxist ideology
No, it's not. I suppose if you met “Marxist” metaphorically in that, like Marxism, it posits the existence of a status quo struggle, and calls for consciousness of that struggle and activity within it rather than indifference to it or denial of it, it would be accurate, but that's kind of a weak basis for such an emotionally-loaded metaphor.
> purposeful systemic racism to “balance” the power between racial tribes.
Antiracism does not call for “purposeful systemic racism” for any purpose.
>They’re literally fighting to overturn civil rights laws in CA and WA so the government can discriminate based on race again.
Source? From a reputable location, the only ones I'm finding are sites with headlines like:
“If I wanted America to fail”
Capitalism Explained
George Soros
Honest News
How Do You Kill 11 Million People?
Joe Biden in Five Minutes
Lara Logan’s Warning to America
Make Mine Freedom
Obama Admin Caught Sending Guns to Drug Cartels
Rules for Radicals
SCOTUS: Government Can Force You to Buy Anything
The Iron Lady
The Socialist’s Camoflage
Trump Admin Accomplishments
Vote Fraud
What is a Constitutional Moderate?
and even Breitbart says
Prop 209 prevents race-based affirmative action in state contracts, government jobs, and university admissions
Running a cluster across your IOT fleet (1k+ devices; 5-10 apps each) gives a nice interface for pushing out tasks, choosing applications for a device, configuring supervisor-device relationships, etc. It turns out from scratch Docker containers on ARM are very portable.
I think you’re being dramatic — embedded is notorious for crazy builds of weird config flags to even get “hello world” to compile, and you’re waving your arms pretending that concepts from Erlang abstracted away from the language are too much.
Docker is just cgroups and namespaces, with a zip file of code. More or less literally.
Orchestration is the same mess it’s always been — back to at least the telephone days, when Erlang used the same concepts.
GP was talking about projects that had revenue, and about "hiring someone" past a single instance.
I replied that beyond a single instance, you can probably get away with not hiring a K8s devops person and just spinning another instance. I'm not sure you've read this whole thing right.
And yes, I certainly wouldn't mind paying an additional $720 / yr for a project that had revenue; I almost certainly wouldn't want to spend money hiring a specialist, or spend time hyperoptimizing that myself - I make that in about a dozen hours of work, so counting how far one can go down the rabbit hole of optimizing server costs, and the associated cost of opportunity, the economics are crystal clear.
I don't have any successful personal projects but I have significant experience working with clients, and they are sold on the reasoning pretty much every single time ("I can charge you $3,000 for developing this feature, or we can use a paid service for $720 a year").
I also don't see how Docker is going to save you that much money; if you need a certain amount of compute, you need a certain amount of compute. AWS ElasticBeanstalk for instance charges nothing for spinning up an additional instance compared to EC2; there is no overhead for the PaaS aspect of it, like there would be in Heroku. Digital Ocean app platform is the same as EB, AFAIK.
GP talked about using Docker to do complex single host deployments until they needed horizontal scaling, which given max VM power, is after they can afford someone to manage it for them.
That makes me think they have multiple services of variable workload packed onto a single host, eg web server, async, and DB all on a single host via Docker.
That’s the antithesis of EB, which can only do horizontal scaling. Docker provides a way to replicate those multiple services in a deployment configuration when you want to set up a host image.
Not using Docker as an easy way to pack it all onto a single box as long as they can is just wasted expense.
Younger workers have less to lose, so tend to leave more — but they’re also less experienced and tend to have lower expectations for the workplace.
Older workers are less likely to leave because it’s disruptive, but they’re also more experienced at the political side of life — and tend to insist on things like reasonable hours, professional management, etc.
My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game — but from the employers who act that way...
There’s some who prefer the lower expectations (eg, Amazon) and some who prefer the more stable crew (eg, ATT).
> My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game
Maybe in highly paid and creative fields, but for the vast majority of business around the world, I observe exploiting the power imbalance between employer and employee to be very beneficial for the employer.
The realization at the end of your post is what the author is trying to get people to reach about software.
The category theory for programmers crowd argue that categorical diagrams (annotated graphs) are the right way to reason about software to gain insights — and the rest is describing the equivalence between functions in a type theory and maps in a category.
Your mental model of directed graphs is a functional model.
Your mental model of directed graphs is a functional model.
In the more general sense that may be true, but I was talking about Factorio specifically, where I'm using the graph representation to do the analysis.
Or rather, just because a functional interpretation exists doesn't mean I actually reach for the toolkit filed in my memory in the box labeled "functional stuff". In practice I mostly reach for the boxes I've filed away under "linear algebra", "graph theory", and "circuit design", which aren't things I typically reach for when I'm actually doing functional programming.
Might be worth mentioning that the sitting president was using the platform to create the atmosphere that led to an attempted insurrection against a democratically elected government. This is similar to what FB should have done in the Myanmar situation, where they did not act in time.
(also, private companies shutting down access to their property is not censorship, etc etc.)
Principal engineers are expected to give talks about their experience, which are heavily attended in person and widely shared.
It’s not perfect, but it’s less abstract when one or two concepts at a time, they explain why those truism through their personal experience.
“Earn Trust” is a truism — but being able to search for talks by the keyword “earn trust” where a high level engineer discusses different situations from their career and how they handled them is useful.
Not exactly. It would be as if the bank that mortgaged your house then prevented people from buying it, then turned around to you and said "See? Nobody wants it! You need to lower the price. Oh! What's this? The price has gone down, I need to reposses it. Thanks, come again!
These "here's why it's OK" legitimations are sounding just as cynical as the high profile insiders' rage against WSB that we have been hearing.
This is fast becoming a symbol of brazenly rigging of financial systems to ensure the house wins.
Hypocritical appeals to responsibility are half of what's causing all this rage. Sure, a responsible broker might reserve a right to liquidate your position in order to limit their risk. This isn't a responsible broker. They might also liquidate your position to limit their losses at your expense... or because the cabal said to.
We are not starting from the assumption that they (RH, Citadel, NASDAQ,etc... even the SEC) are acting responsibly, or in the interest of "mom & pop." They are playing heads I win, tails your lose... again.
The hedge funds got caught holding $10m puts with $1bn (so far) long tail risk. RH are in some sort of similar position. They make high, steady returns from such positions. Typical insider deal. When that long tail risk materializes, all bets are off... and this is not even a figure of speech!
The asymmetry is dumbfounding. Responsible actors! Market Fundamentals! The hypocrisy of it.
It's a cat and mouse game. This is a once in a lifetime event where you can push everything to extreme limits. As wall street gets more desperate they will resort to extreme and more extreme tactics. The average retail investor is not going for a win. They are trying to make the house expose all of the cheap tricks.
The end result is a checklist of publicly confirmed anti retail strategies.
But for the part where the current valuation was widely viewed as much too high. It does smell bad. I agree with how you framed it. I’m really grateful you wrote it that way as it makes it very clear how this feels deeply corrupt. I suspect this is a corner case which could bankrupt a broker though.
How can it be too high when there was a know market to buy them? Short seller positions are public, and they had already agreed to buy the stock by such and such date.
> It’s like the bank banning selling your home then repossessing it when the value falls.
Apples and oranges. If you bought a house on margin, the way a brokerage defines margin, they would absolutely be allowed to do that. Margin and mortgage are fundamentally different types of loans.
I agree that halting buys was absolutely wrong. Definitely see where you're coming from, if you look at the two actions together..it doesn't paint a very pretty picture.
No like I said they are fundamentally different. In a normal mortgage the bank cannot take your house if you make payments. With margin they can force you to sell if your account becomes too risky (usually happens because your positions lost value, but could also happen in cases like these where an investment is deemed to have a high probability of losing value). They can do this even if you are paying the interest on your margin on time.
> In a normal mortgage the bank cannot take your house if you make payments.
Depending on a loan agreement... It can
The last time this has happened en masse was as recently as 12 years ago.
Since then, people started reading loan agreements a bit more carefully, hence the decline in the number of banks demanding completely unconditional recall clauses.
Margin loans more like a performance bond. Unlike a mortgage, it gets called in when you cannot cover the loan. Speculation with margin is dumb for most people.
To be clear, RH (and others) blocked their users from trading those stocks. That’s separate from trading halts, which are initiated by the listing exchange based on algorithmic rules and apply for all trades in the US. The broker is in its right to give you a margin call anytime. It cannot liquidate your position if the stock is halted by the exchange, because all trades are halted during that time.
All that said, my personal opinion is that they couldn’t check in a code change to handle the increased collateral requirements, so the only feasible and somewhat legal way to save RH was to prevent its users from buying more. Pretty shitty, but then again, ever since RH crashed on 2020-02-29 because none of their devs thought of leap years, I can’t say I expect very much from them technology-wise.
What code change would you recommend? Sure, prevent margin buys-- but that's not enough. You'd need to require that the cash from a transfer has actually shown up. Perhaps even crossed some time after that.
And that's enough to make people pretty not-happy.
It sounds like now that they have a bunch of additional cash in hand they're going to allow (with limitations) GameStop buys again.
I'm ignorant. In your example, the bank manipulated the housing price and now owns the house, earning them an asset. The the Robinhood example, they (maybe) manipulated the price, and then forced you to sell, so you now have the money. They don't now own the proceeds from the sale (except what you already owed them). These don't seem similar.
Especially if they don't at least provide the opportunity to collateralize the position so the user can avoid selling at a loss if they want to try & wait out the trade ban.
I agree that it’s crooked to block buying of gme stock, but the resulting margin calls are well within the risks you agree to once you start trading with borrowed money
At this point, nobody cares - Reddit found a repeatable distributed exploit that cannot be patched, and the financial system's self-preservation instinct kicked in.
I love that movie it shows them 'fixing the House' / messing them around in other ways. ratings houses refusing to downgrade MBS rates and the banks that wrote Burry's trade refused to execute until they also were on the right side.
Yes.
“Antiracist” doesn’t mean “not racist”; it’s a Marxist ideology focusing on racial identities and purposeful systemic racism to “balance” the power between racial tribes.
It’s extremely racist.
Anti-Asian racism will become normalized as long as “antiracism” is part of the Democratic agenda. They’re literally fighting to overturn civil rights laws in CA and WA so the government can discriminate based on race again.