Heemayer also constructed his Killdozer with no means of being able to get out once he lowered the armor onto the dozer. So he knew he was going to die ahead of time.
An important thing to keep in mind before deciding whether or not to do an "unreasonable thing".
No older techies would have done something like what the sqlite devs did: adopt the Rule of St. Benedict as their Code of Conduct, and a week later cave to pressure and adopt a "normal" one because the matter "was distracting us from our work".
What I'm thinking about isn't "retrocomputing" so much as it's "use old methodologies (which made designs efficient out of necessity) to develop new technology". An obvious example of this in the computing world would be "If you need to make a GUIs, develop it using the Win32 API (like we would have done in 2004) instead of developing a web app and embedding a fucking web browser in your executable".
But on the flip side, things like audio and video codecs are way better than they were in 2004, and there's no reason to not use them.
There probably is some overlap with "retrocomputing" though, just because so much modern software is in such a degraded state.
An UHD Blu Ray is objectively better in any just about any metric you could come up with than a VHS tape (or even a DVD which would have been the state of the art in 2004). They are better than what a movie theater would have had access to in 2004. Though of course there's not much being produced that's worth watching at such high quality, but that's a human problem and not a technical one.
Try running Windows XP on a modern computer: it will blow you away with how fast and responsive it is. It will perform like 20 years ago you would have expected a computer of today to perform.
There is still good tech being produced today. The problem is that the default state of this tech is for it to not work very well, and to make it work well requires that you become an expert. Sadly this is a problem in many domains including health, medicine, nutrition, law, etc...
I suspect "making modern tech not suck" is going to be a growth industry in the coming years/decades. Or taking the good aspects of modern tech and applying it to older tech to get the best of both worlds.
I avoid this problem by listening to songs that are overtly racist.
The biggest cultural break I've noticed between Gen X/Early Millennial techies and this modern cohort is the latter's obsession with bureaucratizing and proceduralizing everything. Whereas the former was openly hostile to those things and in many cases entered the field to seek refuge from them.
A techie speaking like an HR drone is anathema (or at least should be).
There is something in the act of welcoming a stranger which redefines you,
Yeah no. Maybe when you're a child, but how many strangers do you meet on a daily basis? How many of them "redefine" you?
Portland has on multiple occasions drained a water reservoir because a single drunk guy pissed in it.
Religion destroys everything it touches.
If religion forms spontaneously even in its absence (as we see with atheists, of whom probably 80+% have adopted the "progressive" religion in some way), then that would suggest "religion" is just some innate trait of humanity. So then that statement just becomes "some innate traits of humanity are self-destructive"
Which I think the Christians would agree with you on, seeing as how man being a "fallen" creature is pretty integral to their worldview. They'd probably phrase it differently, like "man is a slave to sin" or something like that; but the meaning is the same.
Wait are we supposed to be bothered by a journalist being threatened with a machete? Because I'm not.
Apparently a lot of the cost is to get around various zoning regulations and to keep from needing approvals from other city departments (eg. supposedly the thing must be completely attached to the pole because if it touched the sidewalk they would need approvals from the department in charge of sidewalk maintenance).
Which objectively speaking makes it even more absurd, but in a certain perverse way makes sense.
I remember when Wired wrote about technology.
This must be what boomers feel when they say "I remember when Rolling Stone wrote about (rock) music"
H-1B still needs to die, but they could just as easily open an office in Mumbai or Bangalore to accomplish the same thing.
These companies have so much turnover they wouldn't even have to lay people off really. As people leave, hire their replacement overseas. That's how a place I used to work moved their SQA team overseas. Opened a Bangalore office to "supplement, not replace" the SQA team. Then as the US engineers left they grew the size of the "supplemental" engineers until all that was left in the US was a "Lead SQA Engineer" (who was often an H1B Indian) who simply acted as a liaison between the Bangalore office and the other US-based Engineering departments.
The category differences between the three honestly aren't that interesting to me any more. It's all the same annoying shitheads pushing all of these things in an increasingly shrill manner. And the past 3 years have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they don't actually care about any of the principles they espouse. The annoying shitheads have their "pets", and by god they're going to take care of them (at your and my expense of course).
As you age you just see the same patterns repeat over and over. I've already seen this "grand Civil Rights struggle" shit 3 times in my life: blacks, women, fags. The story is no longer interesting to me, and I have no desire to see another iteration of it.
I guess we're still a few years away from someone going full on "any regime that punishes self defense is an illegitimate one, and I'll play no part in this political persecution" and fleeing. A bit mind-boggling that this isn't a thought that runs through people's heads, but enough of these and it's inevitable.
OK but it's not like the pickings are very good for the handful of men who meet this criteria looking for a woman with comparable characteristics:
- No kids
- Would be a good mother
- Not run through
- Not obese
If you look younger (say 20-30) than you have, in addition to above:
- Not annoying as shit
- Into older guys without it being due to something weird
I know a couple guys who got married in their mid 30s and who met all these criteria, and there were still tradeoffs involved in their mate selection. Not like they were banging the co-ed Marketing intern or something like that.
The video interview stuff they started pushing the past couple years was weird. And I don't think it's a coincidence that (at least where I worked) they started pushing it right around the time all their anti-white "diversity" initiatives started in earnest.
Whenever HR tried to have me do a video interview I'd just lie and say my camera was broken, and since I wasn't on video they didn't have to be either.
Modern interview processes at big companies are pretty demeaning. Made even more so because they're supposed to (in part) weed out incompetents, but then when you start working at these places you see how the bureaucratic nature of these same companies seems to punish you for actually being productive, so what the hell is the point of jumping through all those hoops? Getting hired is probably the hardest you'll ever work at those places.
I've been very fortunate I've been able to avoid this stuff in my career.
The strategy I eventually settled on for interviewing engineers was to ask candidates what they were most proud of in their career, and have them talk about their work in as technical level of detail as they're capable. Just keep asking "how did you solve that?" or "how did that work?" You learn a lot about a lot of interesting tech, get a feel for how much they worked on and if they're bullshitting you.
I interviewed this guy once who worked on satellite TV set top box firmware who told me all about how the broadcast encryption worked, and it was funny later on watching some random video describing how that same system was cracked and realizing "hey this is exactly how that guy said it all worked!"
Just seems like one of those "College Republican" sorts I remember going to school with. The sort that'd get access to the dorm file sharing network just to narc on it to Campus IT to get it shut down. Spiritual Jannies: we hated those guys.
Guy's like in his mid 30s: he's not exactly some old sage. Hell I'm older than him, and I'm no old sage myself.
For reference, this is the persona Matt Walsh had adopted when he said these things.
I see a deeply immature man who insults people on Twitter but lacks the courage to face them in person. I see someone who fashions himself "politically incorrect" but is really just a cruel and bitter old man who thinks it's funny to mock the disabled. I see a man with no honor who launches vulgar attacks on women and then lies about what he said. I see a phony who brazenly exploits the fears of the American public. I see a guy whose recklessness and greed drives his businesses into bankruptcy, and I see a guy who tries to silence journalists when they report on it.
You say you want someone who's politically incorrect. You're so desperate for political incorrectness -- a supremely ridiculous reason to vote a guy into the Oval Office, but never mind -- that your esteem for him only grows when he belittles the disabled, mocks American prisoners of war, calls women dogs, calls his opponents p*ssies, calls for the assassination of women and children, says he'd like to have sex with his daughter, brags about his adultery, etc.
Source. And when he was criticized for the over the top nature of this particular article by Trump supporters, here he nonchalantly dismisses a reader offering this criticism, thinking that his position was the more popular one.
I have spent months calling Trump what he is: a conman, a tyrant, a pathological liar, a flamboyant despot, a fraudster, a big government liberal, progressive in a very poorly fitting and unconvincing conservative costume, a Planned Parenthood apologist, an unrepentant philanderer, a crook, a creep, a fascist with a spray tan, a reality TV Mussolini, a Caligula with bad hair, etc.
How could I possibly vote for a guy who I've just described this way? How could I possibly unite around this man when I've spent months correctly observing the fact that he's a scam artist who lies about everything, including his opposition to illegal immigration? It would be nonsensical. It would negate everything I've said about him and make me as big a fraud as Trump himself.
This is all early 2016, and it seems obvious to me what happened: he thought Trump was going to lose, so he bet big on insulting Trump being the winning strategy. Then Trump won, and he realized maybe his wasn't as popular a viewpoint as he'd thought; and to stay relevant he had to adopt his present "Rough and Tumble Mountain Man" persona.
He was on the "principled, compassionate conservative" grift before this one. Hated Trump* for being a "misogynist" and for attacking "journalists".
I do believe that some things like his opposition to abortion are genuine, because he's been consistent on that.
* You can hate Trump all you want; people seem to think I don't like Walsh just because he didn't like Trump in 2016. I don't like Walsh because he enumerated specific personality traits as reasons for not liking Trump, then adopted those exact same personality traits once Trump won. And then acts as though he is some sort of "thought leader" instead of a hanger-on.
Target intel is a thing, and frankly automation and remote control is far better than it was in 2004. I'm very much in favor of people taking calculated risks and living to fight another day.
Regardless, "dissidents" often end up in ditches and/or gulags; and I think it's important to always keep that in mind.