Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
"No, I have not used c++.
No, I have not used mfc.
No, I have not used Pervasive database.
Goodbye. 😢"
BUT! I got the job!3 -
I lurk here on occasion. Quite frequently in fact. It's honesty been years and I've grown up with the community. I'm glad to still see old faces here but many of the ones that I used to see are long gone. Man - it's so different.
It's not the same anymore. There's no longer any gangs or clans or anything. It was really fun.
Another thing I specifically miss when @dfox was actually around. Actually replying to people most of the time. Lately, there just hasn't been any trace of him that I've seen. He comments on averages 2-3 times a month lately, and he used to comment a lot more on average years ago. But I don't blame him. I'm the same.
Everything about this feels wrong and off. I used to love this but now i just don't.
I'm going to formally say goodbye to everyone here. And to the OG peeps, I love ya all, you know who you are.
Byes.13 -
!dev
I have a couple of thoughts about social justice controversies from these last years.
I think it's hard to have a good opinion about these events for several reasons.
One reason is that finding good information in 2019 is very hard.
Revenue based sites (thus unneutral) dominate the search results. You search about something and you find thousands of sites basically saying the same thing (because they copy each other).
That's why the existence of a free and open search engine is so important, so it's easier to find neutral hence good information on which to base your opinions, but they are prohibitively big for small groups to build.
Another reason is that controversies generate shock and shock curtails rational thinking. Maybe that's how the primitive brain works?
I'm not much of a scholar to feel confident to say that, but it's so recurrent that it's not too much of a wild guess.
When a controversy happens, a natural reaction is to pick a side. This means that:
a) we assume that there are only 2 sides, and
b) we must pick one of them
So, maybe the human is a bad politician by nature?
Also, because of the shock controversies generate, peaceful dialogue is very rare.
I have yet to see peaceful dialogue online about what patriarchy means to feminists and a lot of other terms they use.
I don't care much about feminists that vandalize or interrupt talks (yelling over someone else is abuse in my opinion).
But for the rest of them, I think discussing their ideas would be good.
I say this because most feminist discourse I see online is not open. Or maybe there are such instances but the web is so big that it's hard to find such instances.
I think some part of the modern feminist doctrine is bullshit, and some part is true.
I for one hate when some men I know in life expect their wives to be their cooks+cleaners (unless they want to do that, willingly). Personally, I'd encourage my wife to get a job (rightfully so, not just to meet some minority quota in some company).
I don't mind either calling a trans person the pronoun she wants.
But other ideas are awful, like the idea that meritocracy is patriarchy, so you need to force minorities to meet a proportionate quota. That's terrible reasoning.
Or the excessive self appreciation culture, like saying to yourself "you are pretty, you are beautiful, you are perfect". I think that grows arrogance and black-or-white thinking.
And some other ideas as well.
I guess the same you can say about any doctrine with different degrees. Some part is bullshit, some part isn't.
Some right wing people hate everyone who isn't white by default, but some want to have more immigration control.
I sure don't like the experiment of separating children from families like the current us govt did, but I wouldn't be happy either to know that by '99 50% of gangs members in the us were hispanic.
With this, I'm not going to say "embrace everyone's ideas" like an idiot. I hate when people do that. It's a stupid and weak reaction to radicalism.
In fact I think the way you fight radicalism and bad doctrines is that you listen to them and maintain good dialogue and counterargue in a respectful but insightful manner.
Making snide remarks, insulting or trolling won't change anyone's mind. That is just throwing fire to the fire.
In fact, when someone gets harassed because of something they believe in, usually it results in even more adherence to their beliefs, because of the usual assumption that success or goodness is full of strife.
So by telling a "sjw" or kkk member that they are idiots over twitter, you are in fact making them stronger believers in their doctrine.
Think of Daryl Davis, a black guy that made 200 members leave the kkk. How? He didn't tell them they were assholes, he somehow made friends with them.
I feel bad now because I've been trolling new devrant users a lot because of how they worsen the quality of the site, but maybe I should tell them that they are ruining the site somehow in a nice way and maybe they'll listen? I dunno...23 -
Countdown has begun! July 29 is the last day we see this f***ing dialog. Bye bye annoying Windows 10 update.
12 -
Every day: 30 mins trying to remember where I left off the day before. Coding for 5 mins. Interrupted by a colleague. 30 mins trying to remember where I was. And that's my day.
-
Every time I hear footsteps in the office comming my way after a commit: "Oh dear god, what did I break?!"2
-
Not dev related so don't shoot me. If you like writing I figure you maybe might enjoy this and thought I'd share.
This is a section from an unfinished novel about 2050s America, set in a corporate subsidized mega-fevela sprawling across washington state, ruled by gangs and patrolled by the officers of a bankrupt nation suffering through austerity and on-and-off again spasms of mass civil conflict.
"Averice - Sex, drugs, and vice, in the downfall and dying days of america."
we lived in a smoke government, where everything was bullshit they blew up your ass so you could continue make believe while
you were bent over with your head in the hole in the ground you mistook for your ass to start with. And if you questioned it all, one bit, the mouth organ of the state would command
hate upon you, like an old latin curse, with a lexicon armada of phrases like "terrorist", and "troubled individual" to character assassinate you by drowning you in the humbling river of societies mass delusion giver, those two sweet letters "TV."
No, we were on the industry edge here, inventing better bait to catch what the state politiburo labelled 'bandits', all for what?
It had, in later years become fashionable to call those who didn't want to be stolen from any more, projected as it were, "thieves", in the same fashion as those in the middle east, defending
their homeland from foreigners, were labelled "insurgents." Tyranny had not so long ago grown a sense of irony it would seem.
And if you became enemy number one of the state, as thousands were, you would spend your days on the run, always looking over your
shoulder for the states vanish vans--black escalades with men in dark suits and mirrored glasses, like bugmen with shiny inhuman, and inscrutable eyes full of alien malice.
These were sordid summers, full of plastic playhouses where the cost of a days wages you could lay with a synthetic lover and pay away the days tense tax for a good lay, and forget your toils and troubles. And so many were kept in poverty because of easy habit and routine that they forget they were not living.
But for me, I had none of it. I preferred the troubled thing on the corner when I could coax one into my state issued sedan. She was sulky, with bright blonde curls, 19, maybe 20, with empty eyes, as if watching some invisible horizon. And in the glow of the blue neon, among the wet sidewalks, and trash, she leaned into my car. No words were exchanged. I nodded, and
she got into the car, a miniskirt, and slinky little handbag.
This was no more than state business with a bureau guy like me, and for her, little more than the prison trade taken public.
She huffed some powder and climbed spraddle leg onto my lap, grabbing me along my jawline, eyes locked onto the depths of my soul, and
for the next ten minutes as she moved on top of me, I was motionless property while my lusts became animal, and she, my cream cup.
After, I arrested her to the standard protests, but she new the game and quickly hushed. This was the verdant arithmetic of the state. I was awarded x amount of pension points for every criminal, no matter how, and it was no gentle hand, not the judge, not the jury, or the executioner of their will. It was the rigid touch of a long arm, dislocated from the law, and now, like frankenstein's monster, cobbled onto the mechanism of the state not unlike the manner of a combine harvester.
We were the owners of all by virtue of all we could take, and we took all we could get. The serial romeos of state police power, romancing
the unwilling citizenry with televised patriotism and five minute power talks at the beginning of the corporate day.
It could be paradise or a wasteland if we wanted it to be. And for a time it was.
Edit: devrant always breaks my formatting. sigh.
Top Tags
Weekly Rant
View