>In one recent example, voices on the PSF Board were demanding that a condition of funding for a particular PyCon be the formal adoption of a “human rights plan” - a measure that would pose a significant legal and personal risk to its organisers.
>
>The entitlement and assumption of cultural superiority embodied in these ideas are absurd and offensive.
I can't track down what this 'human rights plan' requires. I also understand that Europeans (and Americans) need to be very careful when projecting cultural norms to other places. I'm not here for cultural colonialism. And there are some countries where supporting LGBTQIA+ rights (and others) is illegal.
The PSF should be careful when it comes to trying to force organizers to take stances that would put organizers in legal jeopardy. But if you find it 'absurd' and 'offensive' to support human rights beliefs that are espoused by a funding body... don't take the damn money.
People can disagree on what human rights exist, and how they should be enforced. I'm well within rights to ensure that funding I'm giving you is contingent on respecting the rights of the people I serve.
Sorry, but there are some hard lines. And support of human rights is culturally superior than non-support of human rights. And if you don't like that, don't take the money.
> And if you don't like that, don't take the money.
If christian missionaries had these attitudes, Protestants with their ethics would have still be just around the Northern Sea. (And I consider protestant church a carrier of protestant ethics, that Webber described.) Because, those peoples where they sent the missions, were not living to the rules of protestants -- some had no weddings and changed wifes over time, some probably did human sacrifice, or killed each other, or stole, etc.
Missions taught people literacy and arithmetics. And also cared about the 10 commandments. Yet they sent and kept missions where people didn't adhere to those.
Same should apply to human rights -- rather than stay away proudly, let others interact with you and let them absorb your moral standards.
=============
If the above is too archaic/colonial, here's a current example: some Western universities, and the German Goethe Institut have their branches in Central Asian ex-USSR countries. All of them are wannabe-muslim, with 60+% of people considering themselves muslim. Open discussion about LGBTQ rights is a very thin ice -- it may lead if not legal consequences, but a very unpleasant mob, or demands to close the event, and bureacracy will silently follow these demands. One of the countries (Kyrgyzstan) has even an "underage gay propaganda" law, which makes any open discussion legally dangerous.
I bet Goethe Institut management deeply cares about these rights.
Should they close, or keep working, spreading their word and values in these countries?
p.s. Maybe it's all just about not spoiling the PSF brand name, by putting it next to some state entity (which state violates some human rights), then PSF should be open about it.
> Heck, you wouldn't say that Ken Griffin is full of shit to his face if you met him but you said it on an online forum.
You severely underestimate people if you don't think some people would curse him out to his face. I worked for him as an employee of a subcontractor. They wanted NDAs not only from the place I worked, but wanted to bind me personally to their NDA. I told someone who directly reports to him something much stronger than they're full of shit.
Dude is a toolbag, no matter how much money he has.
I've worked with many, many companies as an employee of Amazon. The majority of the companies I've worked with aren't VC funded companies. That's anecdotal of course. But it'd be incorrect to imply that AWS gets most of its revenue from VC funded companies.
The 'they' here is Amazon. This is how it should be read: "Amazon started out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors. The idea that they'd make it easy for competitors using their infrastructure to beat them makes zero sense.
Some forms of antidepressants can be related to lower libido. If your prescribing doctor doesn't talk about this, get a new one.
My psychiatrist was very open about this and we tried different medications to see which impacted this the least. But, you know what else is related to lower libido? Depression. So let's not act as if the antidepressants are only to blame.
I'm not sure who the 'people' you reference are, but if your prescribing doctor doesn't talk to you about side effects, get a different one.
Doctors I speak to go like this. You want antidepressants? They'll solve XYZ problem. They're good, but they don't always work. Do they clash with any medication or health problems.. no. Anything else? Take these ones with food, here's your script/referral/whatever.
Then I take it and it sucks. Literally the government puts up ads saying smoking is going to kill me, but chemical castration (tiny bit exaggeration!!) from SSRIs is A-Okay!
Better article:
In a 2003 survey, approximately 41.7% of men and 15.4% of women discontinued psychiatric medications due to perceived sexual side effects.4 Given that SSRIs may cause sexual dysfunction in 40% to 65% of individuals, these side effects may exacerbate depression and create a barrier to medication adherence.5,6
Yes, it is a reason to trounce on Texas. Texas wouldn't have to go around paying bitcoin miners not to mine if it was integrated into the rest of the power grid(s). But Texas is gonna Texas. Lifelong Texan here.
I still don't understand how some people think it's reasonable that car malfunctions are hand waved away as "it's a beta." We're not talking about an Early Access game on Steam here. We're talking about death machines that weight thousands of pounds.
Beta software shouldn't be on the road where other people can be impacted by it. Want to run into the back of a fire truck? Fine by me. Just do it on a track (and record it). I'll laugh from my computer chair rather than being potentially exposed to it on the road.
100%. It feels as if some people can't turn off that SDE switch in their brain. If you have a bug in your microservice, fix it and deploy a new container. That doesn't work with actual bodies.
Does Steam Early Access require an always-on camera that tracks your eye movement, warns if you look away, and locks you out if you ignore the warnings?
Teslas monitoring system is about as effective as Oceangate’s continuous monitoring system.
From one of the posts above. The monitoring system could not detect if a person was in the seat or not, and would autonomously drive with a giant teddy bear, a giant unicorn and a completely empty seat and repeatedly hit a moving object the size of a child.
>Except for the part where they can not even detect trivial cases. One of the easiest possible cases, a giant teddy bear in the seat “holding” the wheel (by attaching a simple weight to the wheel), is determined to be a attentive driver [1]. A T-ball and they strike out.
The inability to robustly solve simple, obvious cases and not failing safe is indicative of a sloppy development and validation process that is incompatible with the deployment of a safe safety-critical device.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPMoLmQgxTw
A bypass that requires completely vacating the driver seat is probably not easy enough to be widely exploited. If you have evidence to the contrary, please do tell, but while we are exchanging memes, let's review the Green Hills Software standard of excellence, just to contextualize the shade they throw: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UdSVMgay0MI
People deliberately bypassing the system doesn’t mean it’s not effective. Seatbelts are also pretty effective unless you don’t put them on and then put some duct tape across your chest to fool police officers.
>In one recent example, voices on the PSF Board were demanding that a condition of funding for a particular PyCon be the formal adoption of a “human rights plan” - a measure that would pose a significant legal and personal risk to its organisers. > >The entitlement and assumption of cultural superiority embodied in these ideas are absurd and offensive.
I can't track down what this 'human rights plan' requires. I also understand that Europeans (and Americans) need to be very careful when projecting cultural norms to other places. I'm not here for cultural colonialism. And there are some countries where supporting LGBTQIA+ rights (and others) is illegal.
The PSF should be careful when it comes to trying to force organizers to take stances that would put organizers in legal jeopardy. But if you find it 'absurd' and 'offensive' to support human rights beliefs that are espoused by a funding body... don't take the damn money.
People can disagree on what human rights exist, and how they should be enforced. I'm well within rights to ensure that funding I'm giving you is contingent on respecting the rights of the people I serve.
Sorry, but there are some hard lines. And support of human rights is culturally superior than non-support of human rights. And if you don't like that, don't take the money.