Clojure has "reader conditionals" which enable you to write a single file and only have divergent code paths when you need to do something that is JVM or JS specific (or CLR-specific, if you're into that).
It's super helpful for shared libraries. A lot of our code can be shared between JVM servers, JS lambdas, or JS frontend code without much development effort. It's mostly just a matter of naming a file .cljc and you're off to the races.
This doesn't pass a very basic sniff test. All marginalized groups need is to be called some specific terms? This is entirely a question of terminology rather than a fight by marginalized people to achieve specific, better outcomes?
That view is so convenient that I have a hard time believing that it's right.
> All marginalized groups need is to be called some specific terms? This is entirely a question of terminology rather than a fight by marginalized people to achieve specific, better outcomes?
Calling someone by the terms they prefer is a baseline for common courtesy, from which those better outcomes can follow. Nowhere is it claimed that this is "all marginalized groups need," rather that it's simply the least you can, and should, do.
>That view is so convenient that I have a hard time believing that it's right.
It isn't right, because you're purposely misrepresenting it an attempt to discredit it through a false dichotomy.
Also I don't understand what's "convenient" about it. Are we supposed to infer an ulterior motive on the part of people who want to be called by a certain pronoun?
I was specifically addressing the anxiety that people are feeling about "saying the wrong thing" and offending someone, it's certainly not all that needs to be done to end marginalization, but many of the other things such as preventing housing and employment discrimination aren't on individuals to fix, it's on the government to enforce
In the spirit of that second paragraph - focusing on outcomes, not specific implementations - here's a rewrite:
Original:
> So…what’s the way out? It’s a smart focus on clear outcomes, not output, with roadmapped outcomes replacing planned milestones, with trusted product teams, not project teams, empowered to vet assumptions and discover the minimal path to value.
Rewritten:
> So… what’s the way out? It’s a focus on clear outcomes, not output. There should be dates for when specific outcomes should happen. Teams should be empowered to find the minimal amount of work needed to achieve the outcomes.
It's a really wordy way to say what any good leadership class would tell you. Focus on what you want more than how you get it, and let your subordinates decide how to get it. Both good product teams and project teams are capable of working that way.
This kinda sums up my problem with endless agile vs. waterfall vs. whatever discussions. The interesting parts aren't really new ideas and the extra buzzwords add nothing.
Interesting, I’d interpret “roadmapped outcomes replacing planned milestones” to mean there should not be predetermined dates and deliverables (planned milestones), but rather, a sequence of value-delivering outcomes (roadmapped outcomes).
A relative order of outcomes could also work, yeah. You'll have a date in there somewhere, though, even if it's not driven off the amount of work. Could be "and if we can't achieve this outcome by X date we give up on this whole outcome".
We really do need animations on everything, SPAs, etc. Having a less pretty looking site makes us appear much less trustworthy to non-technical customers, who don't care that their browser was not originally created for our online storefront. I imagine that's the same for pretty much every other e-commerce site.
It is basically a direct replacement for the experimental software that necessitated my university to support Windows 3.1 VMs in their psych lab, so this is a group that likely can't afford Qualtrics. This replaces a host of bespoke, free, but unmaintainable software in university labs.
I don't dislike people using the statistical tools available to them, but in my own field (social sciences) there's a huge replication crisis going on right now. And a lot of that is due to people who were never good at math taking easy-to-use statistical tools like Excel and SPSS and blindly running stats without programming or math training.
Is it too much to ask that people treat a field with a bit of respect? Like, just because NYT reporters can use some of these "data skills", can they hold off a bit until we figure out if they're even any good at statistical analysis after their crash course? We currently have an entire academic field that has to throw away a lot of their findings because tools like sheets and SPSS gave them false confidence. I don't have any higher hopes for the NYT newsroom.
I think that’s unfairly dismissive to the data scientists, statisticians, analysts and engineers who work at the New York Times and other major publications (as well as smaller, but crucially important places like Pro Publica).
The purpose of this material isn’t to suddenly turn normal reporters into data scientists, it’s to give them a better grasp and understanding how how to evaluate different types of information that become important when reporting.
I don’t know how good or bad this material is — a cursory glance shows that it’s very low-level, the type of stuff I learned in my 100 level accounting and stats classes as an undergrad. But I won’t dismiss this material being made available and potentially augmented for all — tho I wish it was stored in GitHub or GitLab.
If you look through the material, there is nothing that actually says that someone who goes through this training will be a skilled data journalist. But it might just prevent poorly-interpreted articles like this [1] from being written.
And for the record, I’ve worked with data journalists who were more skilled in math and computer science than the engineers I work with at giant tech companies.
The spec authors would have done better to make the semantic stuff attributes. It's difficult to tell what CSS rules you're going to have to apply to any given semantic tag, which makes people instinctively reach for <div>s and <span>s. React native gets this right, with <Text> and <View> and just a handful of others, with attributes like testID and accessibilityLabel driving automated software that needs to read the screen.
I'm glad we're finally taking anti-trust seriously, but this timing is incredibly suspicious. Right after we put sanctions on Chinese tech, we start taking steps to limit our own?
A good, plausibly deniable soft power attack would be to make an antitrust case, present it to the feds with the work already done, and let them do their thing now that they basically have to take action or look foolish.
No malicious actors involved, except for the people who choose to trigger the audit at the opportune moment.
His point about the misleading headline is good. But the poverty stat still stands. Needing to borrow to come up with $400 is slightly better than not having $400, but, like... not by a lot?
It's super helpful for shared libraries. A lot of our code can be shared between JVM servers, JS lambdas, or JS frontend code without much development effort. It's mostly just a matter of naming a file .cljc and you're off to the races.