iherbig's comments

I acknowledge that my original statement was implicitly asserting that to some degree the public consciousness is right-leaning.

I would like to point out that I was not making any statements as to the validity of either of those two statements. Rather, they are commonly-held beliefs irrespective of their truth values.

>I think this is the right's perspective, but it's not an accurate portrayal of the left's. I therefore disagree with the assertion that this is a fair representation of the "public consciousness" on this issue.

I'm not saying it _is_ an accurate portrayal of _either_ side. The only assertion I'm making is that those are the beliefs the public consciousness holds as truisms, irrespective of their truth values.

Edit: To clarify further, I want to make explicit something implicit in what I said. You may notice that what I'm asserting is the "commonly held beliefs of the public consciousness" is rather right-leaning.

I acknowledge that that statement is also implicitly asserting that the public consciousness is, to some degree, right-leaning as well.

I'd like to point out that the only assertion I was making was that these are the common beliefs that the public consciousness holds as truisms, irrespective of reality.

It's a bit difficult to explain, but I'll try.

In the current political climate, the left and the right have been divided by the public consciousness into the following dichotomy:

The left is overly sensitive and looks for things to be offended by.

The right is concerned with maturity and personal responsibility and anti-political correctness, where those things are defined primarily in contrast to the left's perceived over-sensitivity.

Simultaneously, there have been a lot of trends in various communities (software and otherwise) to formalize rules of conduct and push out people who are more naturally aggressive in tone.

Through that lens, this behavior has been seen as "left-leaning." So in contrast, the right-leaning behavior would be letting everyone behave as they want with the "free market of ideas" being the primary driving force for change rather than any set of enforced community standard. (You can see the parallel with the typically "conservative" economic perspective.)

I hope you can see the general trend.

So what the grandparent is saying is that it's not REALLY about left vs. right, without explicitly contradicting the beliefs of the common social consciousness.

Edit: The comment above that says, "Different people have very different beliefs what is to be considered 'heated', 'hateful' and 'treating well' or not" would be considered "right-leaning" through the common lens because it's implicitly positing that there shouldn't be a common set of community standards (with the implicit supposition that you CAN'T set a common set of community standards because there will always be people who disagree). Not picking on anyone, just using an available example.

The comments are enabled on the Twitch stream, in case you ever want to catch it live again.

STL means "standard template library." It's perfectly reasonable to say "the standard template library."

Moreover, they make the point in one of the episodes (3x06, "Booby Trap", IIRC) that the ship's computer's intelligence is INTENTIONALLY limited. The reason that Data is unique isn't simply due to his status as a fully sapient being. It's because of his positronic brain.

>You suggest it's an ethical decision rather than economic; that streamers deserve the support. But why?

I don't suggest any such thing. I think supporting a streamer or not is pretty amoral. It's all about whether or not you feel that you would like to contribute financially to a given streamer whose work you enjoy.

As for why they need support? I don't think many people would say that streamers universally "need" anything. It's about whether or not you personally would like to give money to a person who brings you entertainment. You admit that there are a few YouTubers who you support on Patreon. Many Twitch streamers (most that I've seen) are also YouTubers and produce content there based on their streaming.

At the end of the day, I think your misconception is that you think of "supporting the streamer" as a transaction in payment for content produced and that entertainment is not content (or in some other way not worth supporting in the same way that traditional "content" is).

The question is simple: Is the content entertaining to me? Do I want to show my appreciation for the entertainment? That's all.

Personally, I have not subscribed to any Twitch streamers and I don't intend to. I appreciate what they offer, but I do not feel compelled to subscribe. And I don't think there's any moral quandary there.

They don't pay to watch, they pay to support the streamer.

Most streamers have subscriber/donation/cheer notifications appear on-screen in some way. Making partner on Twitch (which enables subscriptions) requires the streamer to have a consistent number of viewers each time they stream, and they must stream fairly often.

It's not uncommon to see streamers with a fairly sizeable number of subscribers any given month.

I never said it did in this circumstance.

I see this sort of defense a lot, and I find it interesting.

Some party does something many would find ill-conceived, reprehensible, or in some way greedy. Some other people come out declaring that the action wasn't illegal.

It's interesting to me, because often the legality of the situation isn't even in question (edit: as it is in this article).

I think you may have misunderstood me if you boiled down my point to an existential question.

My point was that directing to Google or documentation is a basic misunderstanding (or simple forgetfulness) of what it means to be a beginner in the field. It is that telling someone to "Google it" or "read the docs" fails to understand the fact that beginners often simply can't comprehend documentation and can't use Google effectively because they do not have the foundation necessary to understand the problem they are facing.

This isn't an existential question of "what is a programmer." It's the statement that if SO is exclusive to "beginners" then it is doing the field a disservice. And it's a statement that directing beginners to Google or documentation is elitist and inherently exclusionary in practice.

The problem, I believe, with this line of thinking is that at a beginner level one simply does not know what to Google. You need a certain foundation to be able to simplify the problem down to a few key words. You need to understand the problem you're having on some level that beginners simply don't.

And I think it's a fairly elitist attitude that's prevalent in programming that leads people to treat the field as if there is some innate quality that makes for a good programmer that we want to filter for. It's a similar fallacy that leads people to believe that they're "just not good at math," I think.

I think the problem that krstck is trying to address is not so much that the anecdote is invalid, but that prefacing it with "I'm a female programmer" colors the rest of the anecdote. Instead of it being a general anecdote which may be relatable to everyone in the field, it's specifically an anecdote about being a woman in computing. And krstck is saying there are certain problems that come along with that coloring of things.

As far as I'm aware, the author was using optimizations in quotes ("optimizations") to parallel the previously defined C* and "C" distinctions. Hence why section 2.1 is called 'Optimization* and "Optimization".' He's not suggesting they are not real optimizations, but that they are a class of optimizations which target the "C" subset rather than the C* superset.

At least, that was my understanding of it. People seem to be reading into the quotes as indicative of tone rather than notation, so I wanted to put a different perspective out there.

Genuine question: What do virtual objects enable that cannot be done through the Trait system?

As you can see here[1], it's because the author utilizes C++'s templates and C++11's atomics. But eschews the rest of C++ in favor of C using specific build flags.

[1]http://genesisdaw.org/post/progress-so-far.html

Location: West Des Moines, IA

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: C, C++, Rust

Résumé/CV: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xfkw1md73yz1ebu/Resume.pdf

Email: [email protected]

Github: http://github.com/iherbig

============

I graduated in December of 2014 with an internship at an enterprise software company. Since then, I've been looking for more work while toying with my own things.

I'm not interested in web development in the slightest. On the other hand, I'm incredibly interested in systems programming. I learn fast and I'm most comfortable learning on the job. If you have a junior remote position far away from web development, I'd be thrilled to hear from you.

Rust has good C FFI. The Book (https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ffi.html) itself says that Rust is not able to call directly into a C++ library.