Yes, I use LinkedIn all the time to figure out who in my network knows someone else, so that I can background check someone before I walk into a meeting or ask for them to send a backchannel recommendation. Not for hiring, but for various other kinds of business deals. I don't use it at all for the social network stuff--I find that a complete waste of time. As a network map + living resume of people I'm meeting with it's fantastic.
> Lektor belongs to a separate org and the project does not use any resources only I have access to (other than the domain name and the server travis-CI deploys to).
Really appreciate you starting it out this way from the getgo.
> Because I run so many Open Source projects and maintenance of all of them turns out to be tricky I figured I do this better this time around.
Looking forward to seeing Flask & Flask-SQLAlchemy moved to a dedicated Flask org on github. Ideally with another person or two having Pypi creds for pushing releases.
There is also the "poor man's nest" - the Filtrete 3M 50 which is $89 on Ebay and fully wifi supported with a well-documented API and fantastic Android app:
Why do you oppose gay marriage? I'm not looking to start a debate, I won't even respond if you'd prefer (tho I'm sure others will...). I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning from someone who has given it critical thought and can articulate their viewpoint well.
Hey, the original parent poster: (I figure I'd weigh in)
I'm not strongly against gay marriage. I simply don't support it. Sorry if my explanation is a little disjointed. There isn't one particular issue that explains it all.
I see the whole issue as completely artificial. It was almost entirely created and started by Gavin Newsom (former mayor of SF). It was a demogogic move on his part to try to get support for his run for governor several years later.
Aside: Ironic it backfired and ended up pigeon holeing him as a far left politician.
No one talked about or wanted gay marriage before he brought it up.
A more nebulous reason is that society is moving away from marriage. People are more and more living in civil unions. Marriage has become a religious/traditional thing. So revising/redefining antiquated traditions to appease a group of people seems unnecessary.
I think the idea of redefining a term like marriage is also rather problematic for me. It's always described a union between a man and a woman, since like the times of Hammurabi - and now we're just redefining it? It seems a little absurd.
The address the issue, we created a new term. "Civil Unions". But for some reason this isn't good enough - and I don't know why. Seems like the real goal is to redefine a several thousand year old term - which kinda seems revisionist to me.
Another argument I've seen and that I've never seen addressed is: why do gay couples get to marry and not polyamorous people? Seems like there is a double standard here.I personally feel like if they're going to go through all of this, they might as well allow all marriage.
At the end of the day I wouldn't really care if gay marriage passed. What bothers me the most is that so much time, effort and money is spent on something that is a rather insignificant issue.
The right to visit loved ones at a hospital and the tax benefits are more symptomatic of broken hospital/tax laws than a huge national issue on par with the civil rights movement. I think calling gay marriage a civil rights issue is hyperbolic and disingenuous (and is polyamorous marriage a civil rights issue too?). I think there are way way way more important issues currently to deal. Thousands of people are rotting in jails for non violent crimes, thousands of people have their lives ruined by medical bills, thousands of people are forced into plea bargains for crimes they never committed. There is so much suffering happening around us, and we spend out time arguing about redefining marriage. It's just really frustrating for me to see this artificial debate occupy so much of the collective unconscious of the country (and now the world).
> But for some reason this isn't good enough - and I don't know why.
The same reason "separate but equal" wasn't good enough for black people in the mid 20th century: It isn't equal at all.
It's not about redefining a term or forcing people to think a certain way. It's about being recognized on a legal level as being equal.
> why do gay couples get to marry and not polyamorous people? Seems like there is a double standard here.
There's a stigma against polygamy due to it being used almost entirely as a way to abuse and imprison women and children. That's also ignoring the legal hurdles; for example, power of attorney gets tricky when there is more than one spouse. Same with inheritance.
> What bothers me the most is that so much time, effort and money is spent on something that is a rather insignificant issue.
You think it's insignificant because it doesn't affect you. However, for a lot of gay and lesbian couples, it's a huge issue in their lives for many reasons. The fact that you can't even imagine this being a serious issue for someone else is quite telling, and it's something all too common amongst people who argue against gay marriage.
You should take some time and look into yourself to see why you have such trouble empathizing with others.
>The same reason "separate but equal" wasn't good enough for black people in the mid 20th century: It isn't equal at all
"Separate but equal" when it comes to schools is very different than equality under the law; the latter being much easier to achieve and can be rectified by law when it falls short. Separate but equal in schools is intrinsically unequal, this is not true for civil unions. I know that the attempts to hitch gay marriage to the civil rights wagon is a stumbling block for some people.
> Another argument I've seen and that I've never seen addressed is: why do gay couples get to marry and not polyamorous people? Seems like there is a double standard here.
Restricting marriage to pairs of opposite sex plainly discriminates on sex in the same way that restricting marriage to pairs of the same race discriminated on race. Who you are permitted to marry is determined by your race/sex.
Limiting marriage to pairs does not discriminate in the same way. It may or may not be an inappropriate restriction, but its not the same type of discrimination that is at issue with either the opposite-sex or the same-race restrictions, so there is no "double-standard" in eliminating either or both of those restrictions and not eliminating the restriction to pairs.
I'm inclined to agree with you. Gay Marriage isn't a civil right's issue, it's a solution to a set of civil rights issues. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't help the child raised by his mom and an unrelated "auntie" who can't visit the kid in the hospital. It doesn't help the two best friends who have been living in a non-romantic domestic partnership for 20 years who can't both live and work in the same country.
I would prefer if we just make it illegal for anyone (IRS, immigration, employers, etc) to discriminate based on marital status. Problem solved.
Interestingly, I agree with a lot of what you said. I never understood the resistance to "civil unions". Why try to co-op a word with an established meaning when civil unions are in all practical respects exactly the same? I voted for gay marriage in the most recent election, but its always seemed like a non-issue to me. As long as there is no legal discrimination, who gives a flying fuck what its called?
On the other, who better to say "You just don't understand the power of the platform" than someone who sees the numbers on over 10,000 Facebook pages with more than 1Billion Facebook fans?
If Cuban said "I don't understand the platform" that's one thing, but saying "This platform doesn't work" is claiming it's not an education problem, it's a platform power problem
We live in an attention economy, and Facebook is simply the arbiter of it. If Facebook let all fan pages reach all their fans, it'd be a sub-optimal user experience.
The fact that they have turned protecting against the tragedy of the commons into a monetization model may not make brands happy, but it makes users happy.
