These days everyone smart and educated wants to be a 'no-BS' skeptic type person. That means categorically rejecting anything that smells like certain kinds of "low-brow" thought. What I wrote trips the "conspiracy theory" heuristic, so it gets tossed.
It's a lazy cheap heuristic. If you took what's happening today and went back in time 20 years and posted about it on the 1990s Internet, even the wacko conspiracy nuts would call you crazy.
You don't even need a time machine to see the truth in what you've said. Remember the seemingly absurd "silent black helicopters" of conspiracy lore? Then look what was revealed during the bin Laden raid. Of course plenty of people were calling 1984 conspiratorial drivel as well. The world of today puts that to shame.
That's an absurdly partisan statement considering his likely opponent is currently under investigation for reckless behavior while serving as a senior government official.
His opponent's level of reckless mania is not pertinent here. (Or should that be maniacal recklessness?) Also, there's nothing partisan about Trump-bashing. People from all over the political spectrum have been making common cause over it.
Since I haven't noticed anyone mention it directly while advocating for voting functionality: GitHub issues originally had voting. The feature was removed with the release of Issues 2.0. Back when the GitHub blog had comments, the Issues 2.0 announcement's comments included this one from pjhyett (https://web.archive.org/web/20110412131836/https://github.co...)
> Issue ordering and voting were used by an incredibly small number of users and we made the decision to drop them. Leaving features in that only ten people use is how to create Jira, not GitHub.
Obviously, that was a while ago and things might be different now.
Absolutely. There are jobs that discriminate against people with eyesight disabilities (some aircraft pilot jobs, for
example) and there are many products that don't account for people wearing glasses.
People with glasses are widely stereotyped as nerds or geeks and often experience bullying.
People wearing glasses were also reportedly targeted in mass killings by the Khmer Rouge due to that same stereotype.
Physical ability and job qualifications are a central issue in the debate about discrimination in hiring. It's not just limited to disabilities, since the same debate has repeatedly taken place around the issue of whether women are physically qualified for certain jobs, as can be seen in the current debate over whether women are physically qualified for special operations roles in the US military.
Would you consider it discrimination if, for example, consumers are more likely to be influenced by a white athlete spokesman than a black one? And so, the white ones gets paid more?
Take a look at this [1] article, especially the first chart.
True, a slight majority of principals are women, but it's much more illustrative to look at the career progression. Those selected to be moved up the career ladder are clearly primarily men.
Cool. That's improved remarkably in the past couple of decades. Every principal I ever had was a white male, and the balance for most of the history of our public education system was way off.
Of course...I wonder how it looks when you go even further up the executive chain in public education?
Nonetheless, it is not our topic of discussion here. Tech is remarkably unbalanced, and we've been told countless times by countless women why it is remarkably unbalanced (or at least a big enough part of the reason for us to want to do something about it).
Edit: Also, you know nothing of my political beliefs, and my political beliefs have no bearing on what women have said about their experience in tech fields.
It is disingenuous to continually change the subject from the gender imbalance in tech, particularly when we're talking about an article by someone who has first hand experience about why that imbalance has developed.
They are tools for managing multiple installed versions of a programming language. When developing software, we often specify dependencies using version numbers, which indicate the version of the language or library that should be used when running the software. Running the software with the specified language runtime or library version ensures that the expected features of that library or language runtime are available and also helps avoid unexpected issues related to differences in the environments, including different developer's local systems as well as remote server environments.
In the case of a programming language runtime, if you have one project that's configured to use version 2.2.4 of a language and another that's configured to use version 2.1.0, these tools provide an easy way to install and switch between the two versions.
I've dabbled a little bit in Ruby, and I found this to be a much larger problem than it is with Python. Most systems have python 2 and/or python 3. Beyond that, I've rarely need to worry very much about which Python version I have. But for every new Ruby application I install on my machine, I'm messing around with rvm.
Is it truly a difference between the languages release strategy or is this just my perception because of limited experience with Ruby? I found it to be a huge pain in the ass.
It's annoying for sure, and I like that we don't need it in Python land. But, in situations when we do want to target multiple Python versions, an identical approach using pyenv works well. I've come to appreciate it more.
It's not really a problem per say. It's just taste really. There are multiple good options for managing ruby versions and environments. (as well as other languages like Phython, see pyenv). I don't necessarily switch to ruby versions between projects or with frequency. That being said, ruby is in active development and with new versions there are many improvements to performance and security. So developers like to try the latest and test out their apps, libraries and frameworks.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, I'm wondering why there seems to be a war of sorts between which version manager to use for ruby. Are the differences between rvm, rbenv, chruby, ruby-install practical or purely ideological? There doesn't seem to be this kind of disagreement over which version manager is best in other languages, just ruby, why is that?
There's a lot of reasons, but the most significant one is that Ruby successfully and recently made a compatibility break between versions (1.8 and 1.9), which made the ability to run multiple Ruby versions on a single machine extremely important to a large group of people. Toss in alternate implementations like JRuby and Rubinius and it's almost indispensable.
The Ruby dev team tends to prefer encouraging the community to implement competing solutions rather than adopting any of them as official. Ruby devs in general tend to be members of the "there is more than one way to do it" camp.
There isn't really much of a "war". The different version managers came to an agreement on certain things like the format of .ruby-version files, so at this point it's a personal choice akin to which text editor you use.
rvm hooks into the cd command which has caused people nightmare-level debugging marathons. rbenv's key feature was that it did not do that and uses a shim instead.
To add a little more to the history, I made the switch from rvm to rbenv when rvm broke under me (I can't remember now whether it was `cd`-hooking or rubygems-bundler which broke the camel's back). I made the switch from rbenv to chruby when rbenv's shims broke. Chruby does so little that there's almost nothing to break, so I've stayed there.
Be aware that Homebrew Cask [1], which your comment is referring to, is a separate project being built on top of Homebrew ("brew") [2] and it currently has a number of shortcomings that are independent of anything to do with Homebrew itself.
Racism generally does ignore class. One of my best friends is a very successful man who happens to be black - and large, and very dark-skinned. He's a doctor and hospital administrator with strong financial expertise, definitely a one-percenter. How safe do you think he is if he gets pulled over by the cops? If he's walking down the street toward a white person, do you think they get that twinge of fear, or do they think "Actually, he probably makes about ten times what I do, so why would I be afraid he'd mug me?"
>It is when it ignores class and takes people of different ethnic and economic groups and treats them as homogeneous based on skin color alone.
You mean just like a racist society does (which makes the statement even more accurate)?
Because even a "rich/european/etc" black person is still a n... when it comes to a racist society, and while his experiences might be better, they'd still be shaped by racism.
Yes, I am familiar with the general concept of wage slavery. How does it apply to software engineers without applying to...basically anyone whose main income is not investment?
Well, the honest answer is that it does apply to everybody whose main income is not investment or anybody who must remain employed in order to survive. We live in relative luxury and privilege, but many of us certainly might not work for their current company or as many hours as they do if they had the freedom not to.
As LesZedCB points out, it does apply to everyone whose main income is the sale of their labor. Software engineers could be considered part of the [aristocracy of labor][0], but still part of the working class.
