Caviar is growing and we need excellent engineers to help bring great food everywhere. We are building a food ordering platform that enables the best restaurants to serve food through delivery and pickup, and that's just the beginning.
We have a number of roles that we think you'd be great for. We have need for engineers that are looking to make an impact on a fast growing product, to take ownership of existing and new products, to redefine Caviar architecture and execute on it, and to work with us to unlock that next step-function product or feature.
I want to call my Uncle Steve in Melbourne. What time is it there?
Google tells me it is currently 4:25am there.
It's probably best not to call right now.
# After abolishing time zones
I want to call my Uncle Steve in Melbourne. What time is it there?
Google shows me a daylight map (First result https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html)
It's probably best not to call right now.
We are just used to the insanity that is timezones. Of course, I say this because I have to deal with time and timezones every day at work and bugs are always prevalent. Each DST switch there are new bugs we find; every time we change our core date and time code there are bugs. Just painful.
In the end, we'd build new tools and intuitions around time. People would adapt and my life would be measurably better (though not completely solved; scheduling anything across a date boundary is odd. No one thinks of 1am as "tomorrow" but instead as "later tonight").
Except that people's hours are not based on solar noon, they are based on whatever the country has arbitrarily chosen. If you look at a daylight map, you can be misled by multiple hours. Or if we're near a solstice and they're far from the equator, there will be gross inaccuracies. So you still need a translation into "local time". That means either doing math in your head, or having the computer reply "four hours and 35 minutes until start of business". Both of those are more awkward than taking "4:25" and classifying it in your head the same way you classify your own times.
FWIW, IIT is an extremely prestigious school system in India that has historically been geared toward the upper echelon of Indian society like private and ivy league schools have been in the United States.
There have been some efforts to rectify that through quotas, though from anecdotes of colleagues it sounds like it hasn't really been solved (e.g. no proper support system leads to disproportionate dropout rates)
Don't rely too much on quora on the caste question. It is dominated by the privileged. Please read other material that like http://ambedkar.org/ and http://roundtableindia.co.in/ . There a lot more sources as well. The problem of our country is that how hounded we will be if we talk in support of the caste system where the majority are from the upper caste. See the recent trouble with starting a ambedkar-periyar study circle at IITM for an example. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/educat...
Can someone explain why there is an extra Ok(...) in this? (I want to call it a function, but I'm not even familiar enough with Rust to be sure that it is a function).
Is it something that could be removed? Right now it just looks like boilerplate.
Edit: Thanks everyone! Ok is similar to a Right or Success of a Either/Result type of object.
You mean in the handler? The return value has to be of a type `IronResult<Response>`. That means it can be either `Ok(...)` for success or `Err(...)` for failure.
In other languages/frameworks (python/pecan for example) you'd throw an exception in case of things going wrong. In Rust exceptions are for very exceptional things only (it's called panic). So the more calm way is just to return `Err(...)`.
It's not a function, it's more like a tagged union (in rust called an enum). So in practice it's like C's union, but you do know which member was chosen and only that one is accessible.
Small correction: Rust doesn't have exceptions. panic!() crashes the current thread with an optional error message, but it doesn't do stack traces and there's no try/catch in the language (there's the try!() macro, but it works with Result<T, E> values, has nothing to do with panics).
I assume you mean in the example at the top of the page.
In theory, a view function should just take a request object and return a response object that encodes 200 OK if all went well, and something wilder like 404 Not Found or 500 Internal Server Error if something goes awry. In practice, problems can happen at a much lower level than HTTP error codes are designed to handle, like "database connection refused" or "template file not found".
Rust's general-purpose error-handling system is the Result<T, E> type, where T is some useful return type, and E is some type representing an error. A function that does error-handling is declared as returning, say, Result<String, MyError>, and then in the body of the function you can "return Ok(somestring)" or "return Err(someerror)".
I see that the example function returns an instance of type IronResult<Response>, which I assume is a wrapper around Result<T, E> that hard-codes E to be some Iron-specific error type (in the same way that Rust's std::io::Result<T> is shorthand for Result<T, std::io::Error>), so the Ok() is telling the framework "this is an actual legitimate response you should send to the browser", as opposed to an excuse for not producing a response.
Because hello_world returns an IronResult, which in turn is just a simple Result type from Rust. Note that the status::Ok is different from the Ok(...).
Iron::new expects a function that returns a Result type, so it has to be there.
Also, because it is a Result it forces the caller to either handle the error or explicitly panic on it, right? They can't ignore it? (which is awesome!)
Yes, because it is a Result, the caller cannot access the success value without acknowledging the existence of an error -- via match , unwrap, or try.
If the caller does not want to use the success value (esp. in cases which return Result<(),E>, i.e. return an optional error), there is a lint which tries to ensure that the error value is handled, though as steve says you can circumvent it (which is done in an explicit way so that it's pretty obvious that there is an error being ignored).
But without the let, there's a warning. And culturally speaking, let _ is discouraged for this reason. If I want to ignore an error condition, I unwrap() instead, so at least my dumb decision will blow up in my face later instead of faint silently.
I think they were talking about the compiler-enforced exhaustive match, not must_use.
The fact that you must acknowledge the existence of the error value before accessing the meaty success value (either with a match, an unwrap, or a try) is a great feature in Rust.
must_use forcing you to handle errors for things you don't need the meaty success value of is just icing on the cake.
It is needed because the handler doesn't return a Response, it returns a Result that wraps a Response if there isn't an error. This provides the means of error handling.
Just as an opposite anecdote, I find that I run into it all the time. Sometimes, its from people that are outside of the tech industry itself. Sometimes, it is from people that don't realize that they are saying such a thing. Sometimes, its from people of different cultural background (e.g. Chinese developers). I see this in SF, saw it in Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta and in the various countries I've worked in.
I also recognized that it has took me a lot of time and a lot of effort to get to a point where I recognize it. 10 years ago, many of the things that would set off the "Hey; that does seem right" alarm bell would be unconsciously ignored and taken at face value.
If I may presume, I'm going to suggest that your experience may be because you're more 'attuned' to racism than you are to sexism. For me, at least, it takes effort and willful learning to come to better grips with sexism, racism, ageism, etc. It's hard work!
For me it was just that I had a bunch of experiences where I hurt people and had no idea, only much later finding out, by essentially hearing from a third party about a fourth party doing exactly the same thing I did.
And it was clear that I wouldn't have heard those stories unless I had gone out of my way to understand what the "angry" people were mad about, and waded through quite a lot of background material. It was clear that no one would've trusted me with that kind of story until after I demonstrated that I had done some work to learn the basics of "offensiveness". Which, I had honestly only really done because I was in love with this girl who was into it. Kind of ironic really. I think that's how a lot of how this stuff grows though, you're a homophobe until someone you love turns out to be gay and then all of the sudden you figure it out.
Anyway after hearing enough stories about people like me carelessly, unknowingly fucking up other peoples' days, it clicked that I could never really know how many people I was hurting. And that knowledge just bugs me. I don't just want the illusion I'm being good to the people around me, I really want to feel secure that I'm doing a good job of that. It's how my Dad felt, not that he (or I) are necessarily the best at it. It's just my personality. And that provides the motivation to slow down and try to understand train wrecks that I could easily scoot on right by.
> Can you elaborate on why spending time and effort to find offensiveness in things makes sense to you?
Offensive things exist, it's simply a matter of whether you want to be aware of things that offend others or not. You can not put in the effort and walk around ignorant of behavior that offends people, or you can put in the effort because getting along with others generally requires not offending them.
For example, if you don't see sexism all around you, you aren't paying attention. If you don't see racism all around you, you aren't paying attention; our society is littered with both and women and minorities don't have the luxury of ignoring them.
> For example, if you don't see sexism all around you, you aren't paying attention. If you don't see racism all around you, you aren't paying attention; our society is littered with both and women and minorities don't have the luxury of ignoring them.
Please do keep in mind that this is an international forum, and the people you talk to mind come from wildly dissimilar societies than you.
For example where i grew up there was relatively little sexism, instead women were often the stronger people who more commonly fed the family. Similarly there was very little racism, though primarily due to a lack of people from foreign countries.
> Please do keep in mind that this is an international forum, and the people you talk to mind come from wildly dissimilar societies than you.
It may be, but largely the people here are from the United States. The international audience is by far a minority. Beyond that sexism and racism run rampant throughout the entire world, that you might be from a place you don't think it's very evident doesn't negate that reality.
> instead women were often the stronger people who more commonly fed the family
That's still sexist, just against men. Sexism doesn't mean putting down women. Not treating the sexes equally is sexist.
In a strict game-theory sense: if you're aware of what might cause offense to others, you'll inadvertently offend others less frequently, and your conversations/negotiations/etc. will have higher average outcomes.
Of course, I wouldn't usually phrase it in such a coldly logical way, so here's a practical example: when I meet someone in a professional context, I usually ask about background/expertise early on. This way, I avoid making unconscious assumptions like "she probably isn't an engineer" or "these people will all grok the super-technical explanation I'm about to launch into".
Another example: some of my relatives are more religious/traditional, so I avoid topics and words that wouldn't go over well when around them. Or: I'm in Greece, so I don't ask for Turkish coffee. And so on.
It's not about "spending time and effort." It does not require "time and effort" to see injustice, if you have an understanding of what it looks like and (this is important) the causes of it. It's about coming to grips the world as it treats people who are not like you--and a side effect of that is seeing that the deck is stacked and the dice are loaded and that things are much more grim than they appear to people like--well--you or me.
Instead of looking for wrongs, they become apparent to you, and there's a moral duty to not look away.
There's something weird about the way you phrased this. You're aware that what you said was impolite, but you can't think of a way to be more polite. I think this might be related to the fact that you find the idea of seeing how things that you don't find offensive might be offensive to other people 'outlandish'.
What it suggests is a lack of empathy, which extends to your assuming that other people are also incapable of empathy. Sorry, I'm also not sure how to word that more politely.
Imagine, for a moment, that other people are honest in their assertion that they are offended (for example that women find some common, everyday behavior offensive and sexist).
Imagine, for a moment that other people are capable of feeling empathy for those people (for example, that they have learned, through empathy, to notice the same sexist behavior and find it offensive, even though they are not women).
Then you might realize that they are not 'spending time and effort to find offensiveness', but just capable of empathy. Sorry if that seems outlandish, but.. it's the truth, sorry.
I feel this is just begging the question. It's not about being "capable of empathy" but directing that empathy toward very specific groups of people. To illustrate: how much would you modify your behavior to accommodate someone who is offended by gay marriage?
So now we're left with: why this set of people?
And while I'm sure there is a complex framework of narratives and rationalizations and models of power structures, etc. in support of who gets to be in the in-group and who doesn't, to me it seems mostly like a case of mindless tribalism.
Presenting/accepting horrifyingly bad arguments like "you don't share my viewpoint because you're incapable of empathy" is not done because people actually believe in them, but as a signal of tribal membership.
> To illustrate: how much would you modify your behavior to accommodate someone who is offended by gay marriage?
Not a whit, because after considering the situation I have concluded that same-sex marriage, while it may offend them, does not harm them. There's a world of difference between offended and harmed. My thought process goes, "hey, I can see people being harmed by not being able to get married to the person they love, while these people over there who are offended are going to be just fine not-gay-marrying each other."
I think those who prioritize their offense over others' harm really do lack empathy. (This is why, despite a personal dislike of a number of rather loud social justice activists, I'll go to bat for the causes that they support, while I can be offended by their conduct, they are right and others are being harmed. I am an adult and can put up with being offended to help others not be harmed.)
There's probably not a good way to succinctly prove my capacity for empathy to you, but I think trying to link social grace and empathy is also incorrect in general.
Assume for the sake of argument that, as you suggested, you've identified a statement in the course of conversation that someone else might find offensive. What's your recourse and how does it benefit society?
If you've simply misinterpreted the person's meaning (which I'd argue is more often than not the case), you probably force them to spend time clarifying and maybe they endeavor to spend more time and effort to avoid similar misunderstanding in the future - all to avoid the hypothetical situation where they might have actually offended someone (who could have just asked for similar clarification).
Perhaps instead you've actually identified some unintentionally disclosed socially unacceptable bias that the person holds. The offense you've taken is still imaginary (I guess you'd argue it's actually empathetic) so chances are you're not in a good position to reshape that person's belief system - especially since hiding the belief in the first place suggests they know it's socially unacceptable. Rather, you're more likely just teaching the person to hide their bias more convincingly. I think most people find hidden bias much more insidious.
The best case, I suppose, is shaming some intentionally offensive statement. This one seems reasonable to me. However, if the statement was intentionally offensive, you probably didn't need the mental gymnastics to identify it in the first place.
I'm open to any counter-arguments you might have; I just thought I'd clarify my own stance since your accusation seemed a little harsh.
> You're aware that what you said was impolite, but you can't think of a way to be more polite.
Wrong point of view in my opinion. I had the same question on my mind and it needs a qualifier not because it's impolite, but because you might be offended by it. Those are two entirely separate things.
That said, nothing of what you said makes it any easier to accept your answers, for me personally, because i still have no idea what things you're seeing as offensive that you might've missed earlier and i still can't compare whether i would've missed the same things, or whether those things weren't present in my environments.
Would you care to bring up some concrete examples?
> i still have no idea what things you're seeing as offensive that you might've missed earlier and i still can't compare whether i would've missed the same things, or whether those things weren't present in my environments.
That's not what the GP asked. They asked
> Can you elaborate on why spending time and effort to find offensiveness in things makes sense to you?
which is an entirely different question (with a very obvious subtext to boot).
People seem more sensitive now than before. Or maybe they always were, but now it just isn't taboo to admit it? In any case, just using myself as an example -- I've found that I become more and more sensitive and easily offended the more I involve myself and try to find disagreeable things (see: online echo chambers centred around a common identity of "the other side is bad/laughable/hurtful!"). And in the modern Information Age, that isn't hard at all.
Personally I don't spend time and effort to find offensiveness in things - but I'm interested in being informed about the world around me.
For example, I've always found it easy to hail a taxi; it wasn't until a few months ago I learned it can be hard to get a taxi when you're black.
That's information that can be useful if I'm travelling with a black friend or colleague; or discussing the merits of electronic taxi hailing, or the place of taxis in a public transport system.
Why would you bother to learn how to identify security flaws in code? Because you think a system without security flaws would be better and you can't prevent or fix them without seeing them.
It's pretty mild; but someone sent me a twitter message after finding my GitHub account (hey nice projects, etc....) The left was my profile pic at the time, and the right is their final message. The fellow with a beard is my little brother. :) http://i.imgur.com/UuQMpi2.png
In the name of fairness; was your screen name gender neutral or leaning towards masculine at the time? If it's the same as HN (Mr. RRGN, right?) I could see it being a simple parsing error! ;)
Although not a certain identifier many people do rely on screen names to discern gender. I ask because if HN had avatars and I had a picture of me and my sister together, with my current nickname, people would likely assume I'm my sister. Even if the photo focused more on me than her (like your profile pic focuses more on you than your little brother). Simply because my username is a female name. Furthermore, without knowing we were family, many people would also assume we were dating. A mistake that actually occurred at school quite frequently from people who didn't know us, since we were nearly always together.
I'd understand the mistake. Of course, I'd correct them after. But I wouldn't take offense at the mistake. It's silly to expect people to know everything about you (even if you have a bio! Not everyone actually reads those.)
I've been mistaken for a girl even when using a picture of myself and only myself as my profile. The individual who made the mistake actually thought that was a picture of "my boyfriend" and I had a night full of laughter at the mistake (as did they after I corrected them).
I've been asked by online friends if I was male or female - months after meeting them - because it never usually gets brought up. I always ask them which they think I am before answering, out of curiosity, and most of them believe me to be female. I guess I need to cut down on my use of emoticons in shorter text forms and work on speaking more manly? I don't know.
I have a hard time seeing scenarios like this as sexism rather than honest mistakes that simply happen...
E:
My real name is a name used by both genders but more predominately by females rather than males. That probably contributes to the confusion over my gender to those who know me long enough to learn my name. I never actually thought about how my name contributes to the confusion until I typed up this post. I can see why people who attribute my name as a feminine name would think I'm female. Enlightening in a small way.
That's a valid point! It could be. I wasn't offended, but it's an anecdote that supports the idea that women aren't seen as being programmers. Other examples: going to conferences and being asked if I was covering it for a blog. Also not a big deal, but it illustrates the stereotype.
Likewise, if a man goes to a nursing conference, or a conference for elementary school teachers, he will likely face the same sorts of misunderstandings.
I wasn't trying to imply this sort of sexism doesn't happen. Woman being asked which man they are attending a Hackathon with happens frequently! The assumption being they aren't attending on their own or aren't hackers, etc.
I was more worried about cases where genuine mistakes being clumped with sexism when they really shouldn't be.
In my experience introducing loaded terms generally kills any useful dialogue pretty quickly. Instead, why not acknowledge that you understand the parent poster's points / story, and then explain why you disagree with what they have to say.
HN is a terrible place for "any useful dialogue" on this subject to begin with, so in this instance I'm more interested in calling a spade a spade than laying out my thinking for other folks to "Well, actually..." me.
All due respect, but if that's really what you believe then why contribute at all? One liner comments with loaded terms serve only to start flame wars which just result in everyone solidifying their existing opinions and being less open minded in the future.
Highly offensive? I haven't heard that before. It seems like a pretty good term for what it describes.
Is this a case of people not liking a term that is used to call them out for poor behavior? Such as saying bigoted things and then objecting to being called racist?
I haven't run across someone calling it 'highly offensive' in the time since I learned it.
It's offensive because it assumes I identify as a man - and that assumption, to me, is explicitly implied in the term itself.
I refuse to see the term as a neutral-term applied equally to both genders for three reasons. One being the term itself is gender-loaded (includes "man" in it) and the next being that the majority of the users of the term are femininsts using it to discount any opinions or explanations held by a man; regardless of validity. Lastly, even the wiki article goes to great lengths to emphasize "usually a man" and "usually towards a woman".
Though I'm probably mansplaining right now aren't I? You probably know more about the term than I do and here I am explaining to you why it's a sexist term!
Their usage also missed that the very problem of being misgendered is something I'm accustomed to and I'm aware of the reasons behind why it happens. It only sees that I tried to "mansplain away" why she was misgendered as the male in the picture rather than pitching in my $0.02 as to why the mistake was a genuine mistake and not explicitly or implicitly sexist. In mrrgn's defense, she provided a better example of the "coded sexism"/implicit sexism in a reply to me. It's also a much better example as it is implicit sexism rather than a "genuine mistake" because it's making an assumption based on gender.
>Other examples: going to conferences and being asked if I was covering it for a blog.
The usage against me makes an assumption that I am not frequently misgendered and know less about being misgendered than mrrgn does (since the term "mansplaining" itself assumes the lack of knowledge of the one "mansplaining" in regards to the person they are "mansplaining" towards"). I'd wager I'm misgendered far more frequently and thus this assumption is wrong and I can't possibly be mansplaining by its own definition.
The largest problem, in my biased opinion, is it misuses a negatively-loaded term against a rather lengthy reply. People may glance at their reply and disregard my post without actually reading the content due to the length of my post. I find that unfair to me and unhealthy towards discussion (and discussion is the point of HN comments...right?)
> It only sees that I tried to "mansplain away" why she was misgendered as the male in the picture rather than pitching in my $0.02 as to why the mistake was a genuine mistake and not explicitly or implicitly sexist.
I read your comment. I understood all this. I imagine the person you were replying to also considered this. Who wouldn't?
>I read your comment. I understood all this. I imagine the person you were replying to also considered this. Who wouldn't?
They used something that wasn't sexism as an example of sexism. So I imagine they hadn't considered it at the time.
Regardless, you've made it clear you do not care for discussion (at least for this topic) so there is no point in us continuing this conversation. You've obviously made up your mind on the subject.
A reaction or reflex can be sexist (or racist or classist) even if the person having that reaction is filled with all the best intentions and happy thoughts in the world. It doesn't mean the person with that reflex is a bad or terrible person.
I see myself with sexist reflexes all the time, e.g., using a certain pronoun without thinking even when all I know is the person's job title. I'm certainly not thinking "Oh, they're a Director of Engineering? They _must_ be a man." I'm not thinking anything at all, actually — it's a reflex that's been baked into me by a few decades of acculturation.
That reflex: sexist.
When someone talks about an engineer you've never met, how often do you see a non-Asian person of color in your mind's eye? The honest answer for me is "Almost never, unless I'm being very deliberate about it."
Your example of title is different from the given example of mistaking who in a picture they are talking to. You're arguing against something I'm not defending or mentioning. I'm even going out of my way to exclude such examples of implicit sexism by admitting it exists but the specific example given wasn't a good example of it since it was likely an honest mistake. To bring up another example that I excluded and made no mention of is being intellectually dishonest.
A picture with a male in it could easily be mistaken for being male when you know nothing else about the person other than a picture and their username if the username is interpreted to be masculine or their manner of speech is interpreted to be masculine. Since names and speech are gendered that's a very common mistake to make online and it swings both ways. Feminine-sounding guys are assumed to be girls and masculine-sounding girls are assumed to be guys. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck most people are going to think it's a duck. If it isn't a duck they weren't being duckist. They are simply wrong.
If someone's name was "Jesse" or "Taylor" and their job title was "Hooter's Girl" would it be sexist to assume the person is female? I'm of the opinion it wouldn't be sexist at all, given the information provided. It could still be wrong, but being wrong is not being sexist.
Rhetorical question, by the way, I know you think it is still sexist.
They are still different examples and have very different implications in them.
I'm complaining about Powerade. You're complaining about Gatorade. Gatorade and Powerade might be similar in some aspects and some people may even confuse the two - but Gatorade is not Powerade.
> I refuse to see the term as a neutral-term applied equally to both genders for three reasons. One being the term itself is gender-loaded (includes "man" in it) [...]
I agree here. In my mind there is no question that the 'mansplainer' is a man and the 'mansplainee' is almost certainly a woman.
I read the first bit of the Wikipedia article, seems like one of those cases where Wikipedia is going out of its way to be 'neutral' on a one sided subject.
Its use in this case demonstrates why it's highly offensive. It's being used to label someone's opinion as negative and discount it for no good reason.
Attaching words with negative connotation to a specific gender is highly offensive.
Ok, so what term would you suggest for discussion when a man talks down to a woman to explain something they already know (possibly better than the man) while trying to be 'helpful'?
> Ok, so what term would you suggest for discussion when a man talks down to a woman to explain something they already know (possibly better than the man) while trying to be 'helpful'?
I think its unwarranted, and arguably sexist, to put that characterization, regardless of the word used, on the question offered upthread along with an anecdote that provided context.
Are you suggesting that you haven't seen that situation occur? I only learned the word last year, but I've definitely seen it happen in real life. I've even seen it used as the situation for sitcoms, which would imply that it's common enough for people to be able to relate to or at least understand.
Does it need its own term? I don't know how you'd gauge that. Clearly there are people who think it does. Enough of them have decided to use it that eventually I learned the word without seeking it out.
No, I've not seen this behavior exclusively displayed by men often enough to warrant gendering the insult.
There are lots of gender stereotypes in sitcoms that are unhealthy. That this particular one is currently en vogue in mass media should tell you that it's exploitative and not actually descriptive.
I think it's offensive. Imagine if we had a phrase called "womansplaning" to describe someone who sounds uneducated about the subject they're explaining, Would that be ok?
The point of the term (as I understand it) is the situation where someone one in the majority explains something to someone in a minority that that person already knows, possibly quite a bit better, ending up bro condescending while possibly trying to be helpful.
Since that seems to be a very frequent occurrence for men to do to women (relative to the reverse) it seems fair to me.
Let's take a different context. When southern white racists would explain to African Americans in the south how they were well treated and free after the civil war (say the 1930s) would a term like 'whitesplaining' not fit?
:) No worries. I personally don't like the term because I'm a man who is quite capable of explaining things well. Most of the things I see labelled as mansplaining I think are poor explanations that lack nuance, introspection, and social / emotional awareness, and as you pointed out they are usually condescending. But how does it relate to my own manhood when something someone else writes is labelled as mansplaining, since I've also been attacked due to my membership in the class? Am I not a real man because I'm not lacking in these things? No, of course not. Would I be offended if some angry person labelled my own writing as mansplaining? Not really, they'd have to attack me on the specifics, in which case I'd listen, etc. I would however use it as a filter indicating I should be wary of their future arguments though, just as I use other slurs as a filter.
In general I think it's pointlessly divisive to invent slurs for the other side in the push for egality. That said, men probably have 10x the number of slurs for women (at least if our names for genitals is an indication), so it does make for an uncomfortable object lesson.
Personally, I find it mildly offensive - and it's my interpretation of the social context that some offence is generally the intent (though possibly jocularly).
Seems to be more about premature stereotyping than sexism, if sexism is supposed to mean something like "the belief in the superiority of one of the sexes". There is nothing inherently superior, or good, about being a programmer on GitHub. Some people have other goals, hopes and aspirations, without that making them "bad" people.
I don't disagree with the premise that double clicks are a broken thing on the web. There's too much of a cognitive shift between "the web" and "everything else" where double clicks are either a bad thing to do or a required action to complete tasks. Like the author said, even tech savvy people will double click things that they wouldn't need to.
But, saying that idempotency is hard and thus we should build features to get around it.. that seems wrong to me. The web is inherently a distributed system and you're going to have concurrent requests and weird edge cases that arise in those situations. The right way to handle that isn't to bandaid it with disabling client side behavior. That just hides to problem. Your server is the place to handle it.[1]
And, it really isn't that hard either. It's just a couple extra validations on your input before you do a write. There are places where it is more difficult but still not overly complicated to implement.
[1] Dogmatism alert. Of course, there are exceptions to everything that's a 'best practice'. Here, I'm just talking about disabling double-click as a general solution for the web to a concurrency problem.
Not entirely sure what you're asking, but you should probably look into "schedulers" and other tools built on top of such ecosystems. Here are a few to get you started:
Docker ecosystem: swarm and/or compose
Mesos ecosystem: Chronos, Aurora, Marathon
CoreOS ecosystem: fleet
Hashicorp: Terraform
Amazon Container Service: works with the above, will likely build their own simple one in the near future
This is less about embedding images and about managing/"scheduling" them
Writing the test is the experiment, in your example. You're playing with how it is going to be used and interacted without worrying about the details/implementation. You'll take care of that later.
I don't see how you can experiment with functionality by writing tests at all. Tests are basically just pseudocode. It's writing the requirement/interface before figuring out what is possible.
For example. I was recently trying to figure out how to make an autocomplete list faster, as the database was too slow. I already had a functional test taking in search parameters and returning results. But there would be no way to write a test for the actual implementation of the indexed/faster search classes until I figured out a real approach. In the beginning, I had no idea if this would require a separate daemon process to do indexing, or if it could index realtime, or caching, or memoization, or where it might need to keep an index once created. These are just a couple of the unknowns. Once I figured out a workable concept, I wrote tests for those classes and functions. Then I refactored multiple times, altering the tests accordingly.
Your functional test was a test that allowed you to experiment. You designed the parameters and then altered the variables involved under the conditions of those tests.
You probably even "called your shot" and make guesses about what would be successful before you even approached the problem.
Then you wrote a test and saw whether your guess was right or not. If not, then you misunderstood something and you dug deeper.
This is easy to beat: just go to the source. If there's a howling white man going on about injustice and how he's going to tell you about the struggles of women of color, First Nations and Imperialism.. ignore that person. Go talk to a (well.. several, actually) woman of color, member of a First Nation or a nation ravaged by European and/or American imperialism.
"But what can I do as a white man/white women/generally privileged person?" - Amplify. Your voice unjustly carries more weight than that of other people. If you can be the "Retweeters" of Social Justice, you'll be doing a lot of good. Just be sure to retweet the people with firsthand knowledge.
It’s absurd to claim that white men can’t ever under any circumstances have anything to say about the struggles of other people, but there are certainly people who make such a claim.
As one example, my father, an anthropologist/historian in his 60s who spent his whole career and life befriending, interviewing, translating, and writing about indigenous rural peasants in southern Mexico, and probably knows as much or more about their history and circumstances as anyone alive (in an intellectual sense, if not precisely as lived personal experience, since he was never himself a destitute peasant) was told by a 30-year-old recent Ph.D from a well-off family (who had literally never worked a job outside academia, and spent her entire life living in rich US suburbs) that he had no right to comment on the circumstances of indigenous rural peasants, “the subaltern” to use her term, because he he was a privileged member of the hegemonic class, whereas she could, as a Latina.
I was specifically speaking about people that pontificate about things they have no legitimate claim to have experienced. Being a Latin@ in the United States doesn't legitimize your claim to speak about rural peasants of Mexico (though, if your family has roots there you may have lingering first hand accounts that can color the discussion more than those without).
In fact, historians are one of the people I would consider a source, especially if their words are born from the interactions and studies done from interacting with real people. They make it their life's work to understanding the situation in which people live.
Also, everyone makes mistakes and/or embellishments. I make mistakes. People in their own experiences get caught up in those experiences instead of the truth. Historians get caught up in their own narrative of truthiness instead of truth. Skepticism and an open mind are great tools toward enlightenment.
So, yeah, sometimes white men can be more legitimate than others in their viewpoints. But far too often the voices of the privileged and uninformed drown out the voices of experience and truth. That's the tragedy.
So, I hung out on a forum called 'stuff white people do' for a while. I wanted to find out more about racism, and the forum host was white, along with the denizens being a mixed group (I didn't want to stick my nose into a place where it wasn't wanted).
Anyway, this exact thing you suggest was something that they explicitly had articles against. "PoC are tired of being asked about their experiences. Go read a book first, don't ask them". I was scolded by the host for suggesting that "asking people as a first resort over picking up a book" was a human thing, not a white thing born of privilege, and I was scolded for it. Several of the PoC in the forum were quite clear on how they felt (poorly) about being asked of their experience by people not familiar with it.
Until I hit that site, I thought 'white apologism' was a myth. But boy, if you self-identified as white and didn't meekly talk cap-in-hand about how you sucked, you were berated. My favourite post was where the moderator asked what could be done to improve the site, and myself (white male) and an asian female said the same thing (both dispassionately): that we felt we held different opinions to the mainstream of the site, and it was difficult to be heard. She had a number of users encouraging her to post more and feel welcome. I got read the riot act and was nearly banned from the site.
It's very much worth noting I did learn a lot from some of the users that site, and I certainly wouldn't tar others in the field from my experiences there, but boy, arseholes can come from all directions. Some of the users were actually interested in discussion and I did learn a lot from those (one of whom was the woman above), but the moderator was an utter moron. I felt sad because these are important issues, and that moderator and his ilk were more interested in shriving guilt and hand-wringing than finding equitable solutions.
Anyway, long waffle short: not all people of colour appreciate being asked about their experiences by well-meaning naifs.
Thanks for the story. It's something to consider when being conscientious about these things.
I think a possible difference is that asking someone to share their experience directly invokes some kind of entitlement on the part of the asker.
But, I don't think that there is anything wrong with amplifying the messages of those underrepresented [1]. Many people with true experience are talking, but have trouble getting that message heard.
[1] With their permission. Don't shuttle around someone's personal story without permission. It can be damaging in ways that you're not aware.
I think a possible difference is that asking someone to share their experience directly invokes some kind of entitlement on the part of the asker.
This is something I really don't get. This attitude seems so dysfunctional and counterproductive. If I ask a question about someone's experiences, it's because I'm interested in learning more about that person. If they're not comfortable talking about it with me, for whatever reason, they need only say so, and I'll understand and not pursue it.
I believe in general I'm entitled to ask questions (with a gut-check as to how personal the question might be vs. how well I know the person, which might cause me to decide not to ask), and the other person is entitled to decline to answer. That's just how polite social interaction works.
This comment is incredibly racist, not to mention problematic on several other counts.
Racism is the view that the content of your mind is determined by your race. The Nazis believed that, and so does the person I am responding to.
Interestingly, Marx said something very similar: that the content of your mind is determined by your class. This is why large swathes of people have to be either wiped out or "re-educated" in Marxist countries.
Caviar is growing and we need excellent engineers to help bring great food everywhere. We are building a food ordering platform that enables the best restaurants to serve food through delivery and pickup, and that's just the beginning.
We have a number of roles that we think you'd be great for. We have need for engineers that are looking to make an impact on a fast growing product, to take ownership of existing and new products, to redefine Caviar architecture and execute on it, and to work with us to unlock that next step-function product or feature.
Caviar is hugely impactful to Square. Take a look at the 2017Q1 Shareholder Letter (https://s21.q4cdn.com/114365585/files/doc_financials/2017/Sq...) and see how much we are featured. We're growing fast and need you to help continue that growth.
Apply at https://squareup.com/careers/jobs?team=Caviar