Thanks for this breakdown, I can see why people are protesting. The situation is fucked

You’re certainly not the only one considering getting one after this post

and that she has seen it in the past

Damn, that’s just sad

I respect your approach. I bet you’re the kind of parent who apologises to their kids when you make mistakes

I always find it tricky to understand how tools all relate to each other in an ecosystem and this is a great example of why: the fact that Ansible can do this task, but Teraform would be better suggests that they are tools that have different purposes, but some overlap. What would you say is Ansible’s strong suit?

Without regulation, it’ll make it worse. (31 minute YouTube video by Evan Edinger)

No it won’t. Eco-fascist rhetoric like this is unproductive because it ignores the fact that the people who are most shielded from the harms of climate change are the ones most responsible for it.

Billionaires and others who are profiting most from pillaging the planet’s resources are not the ones at risk here.

(N.b. I am not calling you an eco-fascist, just that this framing is commonly used by eco-fascists. Part of why I highlight this is because your use of this rhetoric may not be intentional)

It’s frustrating how common IQ based things are still. For example, I’m autistic, and getting any kind of support as an autistic adult has been a nightmare. In my particular area, some of the services I’ve been referred to will immediately bounce my referral because they’re services for people with “Learning Disabilities”, and they often have an IQ limit of 70, i.e. if your IQ is greater than 70, they won’t help you.

My problem here isn’t that there exists specific services for people with Learning disabilities, because I recognise that someone with Down syndrome is going to have pretty different support needs to me. What does ick me out is the way that IQ is used as a boundary condition as if it hasn’t been thoroughly debunked for years now.

I recently read “The Tyranny of Metrics” and whilst I don’t recall of it specifically delves into IQ, it’s definitely the same shape problem: people like to pin things down and quantify them, especially complex variables like intelligence. Then we are so desperate to quantify things that we succumb to Goodhart’s law (whenever a metric is used as a target, it will cease to be a good metric), condemning what was already an imperfect metric to become utterly useless and divorced from the system it was originally attempting to model or measure. When IQ was created, it wasn’t nearly as bad as it was. It has been made worse by years of bigots seeking validation, because it turns out that science is far from objective and is fairly easy to commandeer to do the work of bigots (and I say this as a scientist.)

What the fuck do we have hate crime laws for it not this guy? What the hell?

It’s one reason why I like Lemmy so much — conversations around here are so small scale that I can be confident I’m talking to a human.

Quells surprise

Congrats! I appreciate this post because I want to be where you are in the not too distant future.

Contributing to Open Source can feel overwhelming, especially if working outside of one’s primary field. Personally, I’m a scientist who got interested in open source via my academic interest in open science (such as the FAIR principles for scientific data management and stewardship, which are that data should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable). This got me interested in how scientists share code, which led me to the horrifying realisation that I was a better programmer than many of my peers (and I was mediocre)

Studying open source has been useful for seeing how big projects are managed, and I have been meaning to find a way to contribute (because as you show, programming skills aren’t the only way to do that). It’s cool to see posts like yours because it kicks my ass into gear a little.

Unfortunately, learning about things doesn’t always help. I’m still very scared of spiders, despite being big on team learning. Some fears are rational, some are irrational, and these have very different salves.

My late best friend was a metal head and I often joke that I hope he’s gone to hell, because as a queer nerd who loved TTRPGs like Dungeons and Dragons, he’d have a hell of a time there.

I went to a big, old university where there were many old chapels with excellent organs. I went to some services despite being an atheist, just to hear the pretty sounds echoing 'round a pretty room.

this type of ecological engineering

Do you count reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone to be the same type of ecological engineering? I haven’t checked progress on that for a while but the last I heard, it was too early to say whether it was successful. I highlight Yellowstone because of how cautious the effort was (it took years of planning and analysis) and this caution feels like it’s directly descended from the fuck ups of the past

It has one of the best on-screen depictions of a panic attack that I’ve ever seen, which I wasn’t expecting

Selfishly, I hope you’re right, but with the addendum that I hope they don’t try too hard to recapture that lightning, and that they trust in their own ideas. I also hope Rostov, Kurvitz and Helen Hindpere (writer who also lost her job as things fell apart) find success and fulfillment in their future. It’s fucked up that they won’t get to work on Disco Elysium — especially Rostov and Kurvitz.

This is probably a bad example, given how it turned out, but I’m reminded of how it felt to be a Halo fan in 2013 — Halo 4 had recently come out to a mixed reception. It was the first Halo game to be developed by 343 industries rather than Bungie, and some of the disgruntled fans hoped that Bungie’s then-upcoming new game, Destiny, would scratch that itch. Destiny could obviously never be a replacement for Halo (some fans found it easier to consider the franchise to be dead), but jt wasn’t unreasonable to hope for (despite it eventually not working out that way ¯\(ツ)/¯ )

I got the impression from the summary that “broadly welcomed” may include opinions like “there’s a lot of work to do on the implementation front, but this sounds like a step in the right direction”, as is common when there’s a big and complex problem. Unions are used to being given loads of assurances at the beginning when policies are declared, and then gradually over time, the concessions in a bill get eroded. “Broadly welcomed” could mean that 27 of the unions have sentiments that are roughly 65% positive on this, and 1 of them (the quoted one) is 60% negative. In this case, maybe including a quote from the mostly negative union also captures some of the sentiments of the 35% negatives from the main bulk. If this is the only quote included, it is weird, but I imagine the full article has more perspectives.

Edit: Reading the full article deepened this impression — apparently this is a big enough endeavour that it’s expected to be on the drawing board for at least 2 years? Another union (TUC) said that “this bill highlights Labour’s commitment to upgrade rights and protections for millions” — language like “highlights Labour’s commitment” is fairly fluffy, which suggests to me an angle of “starting this early in your elected window bodes well for your intentions, hopefully we can keep this up for long enough that we get a practical change”

In addition, the union who gave the negative quote are a small businesses union, and whilst I’m definitely on the side of the workers over businesses, I also think it’s important to recognise that legislation like this tends to put a disproportionate burden on small businesses compared to the mega-corporations (who can lobby more and also absorb impacts easier).

This announcement is good news, but Starmer has moved the goalposts on past promises so many times that any optimism I might feel is tempered by a “I’ll believe it when I see it”. Time will tell, I suppose. !Remindme 2 years (this is a joke, I don’t think Lemmy has a RemindMe bot)

Oh God, that’s horrifying. Thanks for highlighting this.

if this leads to incarcerated people coming to harm, I know that there will be people who will say that was a good thing and that makes me feel sick. As someone who has been a victim of violent crime, I thought that the perpetrator receiving a prison sentence would help me to heal from the trauma. I was wrong, and increasingly I understand that there is no justice to be found through retributive punishment, just more injustices heaped onto people.