While the general conclusion is correct, this angst-ridden blog post posing as a news article wouldn't get past the most generous editor a few decades ago. It's sad that Buzzfeed News is considered a legitimate source by some.
> It's sad that Buzzfeed News is considered a legitimate source by some.
I think it's fine to differentiate between their fluff and opinion pieces, and some genuinely excellent investigative reporting. Why do we need to simplify to "legitimate" or "not legitimate"?
> I have a pet theory that when people interview they bring this buried frustration into the room with them and use the interviewing process to play the part of the people they feel humiliated them.
I think it has more to do with impostor syndrome and a fear that a new person will expose them as the frauds they perceive themselves as.
In my experience, sometimes that fear is justified. The people whom I've run across who are the most condescending to engineers who "haven't proved themselves" often have the most lax coding standards on the team. They're often the ones who build Rube Goldberg programs and who never document their work - you can't be replaced if nobody knows how your core programs work.
It's the ubiquitousness that was missing in the past. It's come to a point where it's considered socially regressive to not give your middle-school aged child a 24/7 communications device laden with apps engineered with the same addictiveness principles of slot machines.
We have burdened young humans, whose mental abilities are not fully developed, with a self-image permanently detached from interpersonal relationships. There is hard data on this[0][1].
They have crossed a threshold and, if you continue to use Google products, you have crossed a threshold.
Google is now a willing and active participant in the coverup of massive human rights violations, including the open air murder of political protesters. If you pay for AdSense or G Suite, or even consume the "free" services, you are financing this.
There's an argument to be made that Java positions are the easiest to fill with lower waged visa or offshore workers, meaning that you have to maintain an extremely high proficiency, move into management, or be under constant threat that your job will be outsourced.
I think it might be the other way round these days. Java programmers are outsourced because they're so expensive. Javascript seems like the best target now for low-skill outsourcing. Much lower barrier to entry, and arguably a much more forgiving language
I think you're right when it comes to the lower tier of JS developers, but IMHO there are a lot less middle tier devs per-capita in JS than Java. Proficient fullstack JS is a very in-demand skillset right now, and if you're an expert you can find a new, high paying job, in just about any mid-tier tech town in 48 hours.
There's a big difference between the AfterEffects guys and the writers. Rogan's complaints were as someone whose career requires massive amounts of writing and understandably wants a keyboard to have feedback.
I'm in complete agreement with him. In their obsession to make the thing thinner and fancier they have rendered it less usable. They've locked themselves into a marketing pattern that precludes them from having a "if it ain't broke" mindset.
I'm being forced into an timed upgrade by corporate and I couldn't be unhappier. If some of the extraneous software needed to work in the environment wasn't Mac/Windows only, I'd request a hi-res Thinkpad and throw Linux on it. Even my ~2010 iMac at home runs Ubuntu.
You might consider running Windows virtualized. About 5 years ago it was still a little janky and slow. These days those problems are mostly non-existent. I run heavy Adobe applications through VirtualBox and can't tell any difference from native speeds, even on my older laptop.
Their authoritarian scale is the RWA, or Right Wing Authoritarianism. They did no test for general authoritarianism, meaning that their summary is suspect. It's no surprise to anyone that the mostly left-wing remain voters scored low in right wing authoritarianism.
Edit: thanks for the brigaded downvotes with no rebuttal, proving that you just don't like your cognitive biases challenged with facts.
This was my original reaction as well; it's not at all surprising that a policy supported by the left would have supporters who score lower on RWA relative to their right-wing counterparts on the other side of that policy. It would be interesting to see more granular survey results, since there is a bucket of questions that do a better job of measuring the A in RWA.
Yes, a pity that the researchers didn't correlate Brexit positions with Stalinism and Maoism, political stances that are definitely widespread common enough that they could find meaningful connections.
I'm assuming sarcasm, so forgive me if I'm wrong. I'm a pretty centrist, non-politically active guy, and I personally have one acquaintance that identifies as a marxist, another as a communist, and a third, literally as a "radical feminist marxist" who has participated in protests/riots. I know nobody that identifies as a fascist. Anecdotally, left-wing authoritarianism is much more prevalent in my milktoast town.
Edit, because HN won't let me reply to the claim of "misunderstanding" Marxism (and the clear gaslighting of the words "communist" and "radical" that were used):
Clearly, my "radical marxist" acquaintance destroying public and private property, while actually flying the Soviet flag, is wholly misunderstood for the non-authoritarian, peaceful, theoretical marxism it actually is.
Edit 2: Are you perceiving the whole comment or is your cognitive bias actually blocking out the words "communist" and "soviet"? You're picking a minute fraction of my sentences that suit your disposition and acting like they're the whole.
Marxism is not the same as Stalinism or Maoism, and is not necessarily an authoritarian belief system. Fascism is by definition authoritarian. I don't know how you define "left-wing authoritarianism," but the fact that you treat participating in a protest as some extreme point of it suggests to me that you don't know much at all.
Edit: If you think destroying property is necessarily authoritarian, once again, you don't know what that word means.
Edit 2 (seriously, this is the way you want to have a discussion?): going on and on about "gaslighting" and "cognitive biases" isn't make you look any better. I've known a number of people who toy with soviet chic without actually condoning the actions of the USSR; it's not a surprising in a country where the mildest trade unionism is equated with Full Communism by a large part of the population. I don't like it, but I know enough to know that most of the people flying it aren't Stalinists (or Maoists) by any stretch of the imagination.
The standard authoritarian scales are indeed tuned to detect right-wing ideology. That being said, it's easy (though unpopular) to construct measures that capture Left-Wing Authoritarianism (the "Loch Ness Monster," as Altemeyer famously labeled it). Unsurprisingly, authoritarianism turns out to exist in equal measure on left and right. A couple samples of the literature; there are plenty more if you google around:
Authoritarianism is inherently right-wing, if you use the original definition of right and left.
According to original definitions (from French revolution), the left objects to power inequality between people and consider citizens should be equals; while the right doesn't have problem with power inequality in society and accepts things like hereditary nobility.
And the fact is, despite propaganda that sometimes equates leftists and bolsheviks, large majority of leftists still identifies with this definition.
For reference, I got a 59, which is securely within the supposed "non-authoritarian" side. That being said, the questions in that test are quite binary and, The RW in RWA being for "Right Wing", heavily biased towards "authoritarianism" being a solely right wing, religiously conservative thing, which it is most certainly not.
There were no questions on the test that would capture a pure Stalinist/Maoist as the obvious authoritarian he/she is. This throws the entire study into question on its claims.
Also, with regards to the original study, the high degree of neuroticism in remainers could easily be characterized as them being susceptible to fear based propaganda.
Thanks for the mention of this test. I scored 51, but for some reason I am known as the 'right wing conservative AWM' in some circles.
I just suppose that even liberal people judge by looks (I do look like the prototypical AWM) and by small disagreements about some liberal thesis (e.g. I don't agree with 100% with current feminism mantras, yet in absolute terms I agree 90% with feminists in general and disagree 99.9% with barefoot&pregnant types). There is a lot of cargo cult among liberals.
It sounds like you have views that are controversial in your social environment. That's not authritarian - that's anti-authoritarian.
If you had those views because everyone around you had them, and didn't like people disagreeing because it was outside social norms, then you would be authoritarian.
In Germany, people with high RWA are probably very anti-rascist for instance. It's an interesting metric.
Like most situations, you learn more about someone from the questions they ask than the answers they give. The creator(s) of that survey have some extremely binary world views.
I'd be very hesitant to make that conclusion. Much more likely is that more nuanced middle-ground questions are a lot more open to individual interpretation than the "extreme" statements, and thus give you a lot less "signal" in what you are trying to measure - even some of these could be seen as widely open to interpretation.
I'm guessing the scale (rather than agree/disagree) is attempting to compensate for this somewhat.
(Caveat: I'm a scientist but not with a background in anything close to Psychology; I've seen but not written these sorts of tests).
