> Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?
The majority of the Cold War happened while both sides' superpowers had nukes.
In other words: nukes didn't change this scenario; they helped create it.
> Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?
Guide? No. Inspire and/or remind? Why not.
To be fair, however, the PKD book that spawned that show, contained factual errors due to information that was declassified only after the book was written. Turns out, even if the US had been neutral in WW2, it's fairly certain the remaining Allies would have won regardless; and furthermore, in such a case it is possible the Soviets might've been so thoroughly weakened by the Japanese, that the former wouldn't have emerged as a superpower nor as the other side of the Cold War.
(And while we're on the topic of conjectures about counterfactual US neutrality: it is possible that US neutrality in WW1 would have averted the creation of the Nazi empire and WW2 with it.)
Convey to us reasonable people, reading it at a distance as 3rd-parties?
Absolutely.
...
Convey to the intended recipient, with his inevitable personal/emotional/etc. attachments to the topic, in such a way that it takes the intended effect?
A pending question-of-fact, and one that can only be answered very indirectly and in the long run.
Heck, if the answer really is "no", then it's possible we may never know! (until the NSA pwns us all, or at least pwns the subset of us who didn't kowtow to whoever the central socio-econo-political authority of that era will be)
> I don't think it's actually a pending question whether avoiding personal attacks makes people more likely to listen to a message.
That depends on the context. When you're talking about changing ingrained behaviors, emotional shock and awe can definitely be necessary and the shortest, most painless path to resolution.
the underlying incorrect assumption is that everyone will do the right thing, if only nicely and logically talked to. This is not true and obvious to anyone with experience managing large amounts of people, especially so when firing is not an easy option.
> the underlying incorrect assumption is that everyone will do the right thing, if only nicely and logically talked to. This is not true and obvious to anyone with experience managing large amounts of people, especially so when firing is not an easy option.
I've yet to see abusive management tactics work in the long term. It might work in the short term, but people with the means will take it as a signal to jump ship because no adult is going to accept abuse if they don't have to.
I've heard your exact sentiment echoed by people who aspire towards management, and it always comes across as a weird power trip fantasy.
> I've yet to see abusive management tactics work in the long term. It might work in the short term, but people with the means will take it as a signal to jump ship.
Like I said, depends on the context. Being mean has it's place, as does being nice. Those are the extremes and the Lions share in the middle is non-emotional transactionalism.
That's one person of many. And it's not a question of aesthetics of the message in the short term, but of the quality of the overall results in the long term and the effort needed to achieve them.
Hopefully this won't happen, but it's entirely possible that this change will result in Linus finding himself with a much greater number of broken, half-broken and/or subtly-broken PRs to review than ever before, increasing the chances of something like https://lwn.net/Articles/57135/ succeeding.
And having a kernel backdoor ship worldwide is way worse than having a few recalcitrant kernel developers be exposed to - oh no! - coarse language. Results > the "fee fees".
Are you saying that Linus has been able to review fewer patches because his personality has driven people away, and by being nicer he’d be overwhelmed trying to review code?
I'm saying that the patches he has reviewed may have been given more attention-to-detail by submitters and lieutenants because of his personality, in which case by being nicer he would lend his time to be abused to a greater degree. Note that I said "more patches that are broken/semi-broken/subtly-broken", not "more patches overall".
The inherent limitations of human memory likely made that person assume you use a single password everywhere. Your response makes me assume that you memorize a unique password for every account.
You do you; but personally, I would rather memorize timeless things like facts and theorems - or at least ephemeral-yet-important things like deadlines, decisions, names+faces, etc. - than memorize a ton of meaningless blobs of entropy.
> I'd say, "what you should do" is to organize with others and enforce boundaries on those who are in the "bubble" of not giving a (meaningful) fuck of continued organized existence of the human race.
Dumb question here: why should I give a fuck about literally anything that happens after I die?
Because people (or even projects) you love may outlive you? It can provide immediate visceral satisfaction to try to help boost them even if you won't see the benefits. Children are a good example of this, but there are many others (legacies, societies, proteges, lovers).
Why should you... not get between a lioness and her cubs? Well, just because she doesn't yet realize that you're doing that, doesn't mean she never will. The question is really just how thick you think this ice is, and if you feel particularly lucky. The question isn't so much why should you care, but if you don't care, what leg do you have to stand on in regards to others?
Why would you care, that's the better question IMO. Maybe because you have been treated well, because you can afford it, because if you have greater capacity for care than neediness. That is, maybe after you spent all the care you possibly can on yourself, you still have plenty left and might as well use it. Because your daily income of ability to care is more than your expenses on just yourself.
I've known stinking rich egotists as well as rich people with a huge heart, and the latter seemed happier and more intelligent by far. No contest, I'd even say they're actually living in the first place, while those who care only about themselves are boring at best, constantly whining at worst. And just like there's networks of sociopaths, just like "the devil recognizes his brethren", so do people with functioning hearts and brains recognize others, and I dare say they're much better company. Better looking, too, even just insofar that being able to look any- and everyone in the eye makes a person instantly more attractive, all else being equal. And that's before age kicks in.. reaping the rewards of a selfish life is truly brutal, and the most cruel part is that after a life of selfishness you have no ability to recognize the consequences of that as consequences of that.
Why is the .NET integration a feature rather than an antifeature? Don't null and subclassing tend to poke holes in F#'s type system's ability to detect mistakes? And would it not be better to compile to native code than to require the Mono VM or whatnot?
A compiler is in the happy position where there is little point in continuing to run after encountering an error, so it can bail right out with exit(2) after reporting the error to the user. This means that the contract on parse(), for example, can be that if it returns, it has succeeded.
Except of course LLVM has proven the value in not assuming this pattern & building your compiler as a library of which the executable entrypoint is but one frontend.
I don't get paid by-the-hour to drive; I get paid to arrive on-time. So commuting in my opinion (like IT in MBAs' opinion) is purely a (time-)cost center. And from that POV the average driver is indeed absolutely terrible. Ever since I started working in the software industry, I don't think I've ever taken the wheel of my car and driven it somewhere, without getting angry at another driver along the way.
Granted, different drivers can be terrible in different ways.
Some of them do stupid mutually-harmful BS like pulling out right front of me with minimal margin and no intent to travel at even half the speed-limit.
Others think that because they have an 8-cylinder engine and a traditional automatic transmission, that they should rule the streets - which they can and do, but that doesn't make me any less angry at them when they e.g. pass me at a 20mph relative-speed on the same side into which I was signalling to change because I was behind a schoolbus.
The majority of the Cold War happened while both sides' superpowers had nukes.
In other words: nukes didn't change this scenario; they helped create it.
> Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?
Guide? No. Inspire and/or remind? Why not.
To be fair, however, the PKD book that spawned that show, contained factual errors due to information that was declassified only after the book was written. Turns out, even if the US had been neutral in WW2, it's fairly certain the remaining Allies would have won regardless; and furthermore, in such a case it is possible the Soviets might've been so thoroughly weakened by the Japanese, that the former wouldn't have emerged as a superpower nor as the other side of the Cold War.
(And while we're on the topic of conjectures about counterfactual US neutrality: it is possible that US neutrality in WW1 would have averted the creation of the Nazi empire and WW2 with it.)