Did it though? It really sounded like a persons opinion. Maybe I didn’t read it carefully, but I don’t recall any numbers or data backing any of the claims he made.
> Robert Wuthnow, a sociologist at Princeton University, spent eight years interviewing Americans in small towns across the country.
Now, that isn't peer-reviewed research, and it doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it's a decent start toward being authoritative (even if I find it quite unconvincing).
If you follow the Apple dev community, there is a group of folks that make their living on books and speaking. That's fine, but they are using the platform differently than someone shipping software. They are also often the authors of some of the more ideological, less pragmatic proposals. This has a large impact on the disconnect the author describes - which incurs a cost on folks who ship software. I do wish the Swift team said no more often, but as with any dependency, you're never gonna get 100% alignment.
Maybe I'm in the wrong part of the Apple dev community, but I don't know of anyone who makes a living on books and speaking. I know many who write books and do a lot of speaking, but there isn't enough money in it for it to be anything more than a side gig.
Yeah, there's certainly some people who would like to make a living on books and speaking, but every single one of them that I know of has a job as an iOS (or macOS) developer of some sort and no one's even in the range where they can pretend that maybe one day they'll be able to quit their day job.
It seems like some folks may not like that a private company does the hosting or that they have exclusive rights to its reproduction. You could consider some reasons this might be the case that are reasonable, like the cost of maintaining it is actually cheaper by having a company who has the appropriate resources and infrastructure to support it, it's probably a challenge/costly to hire an internal team to maintain it at a high enough quality level, the hosting company made a deal with the government to reduce maintenance and hosting costs by having exclusive hosting/reproduction rights. These are all pretty reasonable things to happen,given that the source text is still freely available to anyone. I think anyone who has an argument against this is probably looking for a reason to get upset at what they perceive to be unfairness by "the other team", and won't be convinced otherwise. Such is life, oh well.
I think it is completely reasonable to take the position that the law should be freely accessible to all, and also the process of providing it should not be in the hands of a private entity, or if it must be, that said entity cannot do things like be the exclusive provider, or charge egregiously for things like copies in a reasonable medium (e. g. paper or CD).
It's not a "team" thing, and I reject wholly the implication that anyone opposed to this is just trying to score political points for their "team." Perhaps people twisting the narrative to "they won't let anyone read the laws!" are indeed politically motivated, but that's not what you or I are discussing here -- and even so, you need to assume good faith if you want a discussion.
While it is reasonable for LexisNexis to be the official provider, it is not reasonable for them to abuse this privilege by charging silly amounts for certain kinds of access, and it is not reasonable for the state to sue to prevent others from distributing copies of what should by all rights be public domain and fully accessible material. Those problems are what's at issue here, not whether or not the state can hire a DB administrator.
freely available, if you agree to a non-government terms of service which:
1.) gives them right to force you to remove links to the content (section 6.b)
2.) gives them the right to advertise while showing you the law (section 8)
3.) does not require the provider to have accurate text, or be free from malware (section 11)
4.) requires indemnification (section 18)
5.) requires that the jurisdiction be New York (section 22)
6.) terms can change at any time, for any reason, without notice (section 26)
7.) cannot be used for commercial purposes (section 2.1)
8.) nor make a copy (section 2.1)
It doesn't cost any money to access it online, but the limitations on actually using are very real.
Want to provide a link to it via a blog to educate your local neighborhood? Want to know that the official law is free from errors? Want to use the law, but hold the provider accountable if the information is grossly incorrect? Want to sue the provider in Georgia since that's the official law? Want to know that the terms of service stay consistent from day to day? Want to use the law to help your business succeed? Want to provide a copy of the law to others so that they can educate themselves?
All of those items are restricted in some way by these terms of service, which are required before access to the law is allowed.
Free as in "anyone can go to the URL," not free as in "free speech," and it makes a difference here. When I say free, I mean that the law is not a Disney movie. The state's interest is in enforcing it, not preventing people from copying it.
The "annotated" version is the official law of Georgia. The freely available code you link to is missing the annotations, despite those being officially adopted as law as well.
Without the annotations, you do not have the full law.
The article says many times that this is not the official code. That means it's useless, what one must follow is the official one, that is annotated by a private party, and paywalled.
"Free" in relation to pricing is very different from "free" in relation to ownership by the commons. The law being the latter is crucial to a well functioning democracy.
You'll have to forgive the author for not going into every variable in human beings. Perhaps the purpose of the post was to give people a scaffolding to start developing their own thoughts on the matter? Maybe you have a post you'd like to share that takes others to the next level of understanding that you have?
There are 12 comments and 350 million Americans. That represents about .00000000034% Americans.
But continue to jump to conclusions and create generalizations based on your limited worldview, because that's not at all the same attitude responsible for the current state of humanity.
I'm in America and i completely agree with his view. You're being overly sensitive.
Generalizations aren't bad, they're just one persons understanding of a group of people. Clearly, based on his/her experiences he is able to generalize the above statement, and that isn't incorrect - it's just his/her generalization. We all have them, and they just represent our combined experiences.
Generalizations are only bad if you condemn others based on them - but that's not the fault of the generalization, but rather the fault of the person. Generalizations are how you live life. You get mugged 10 times by the same race/class/location/etc, you might start to generalize against that combination, and you're not wrong, it clearly happened. That's not to say that all of that race/class/location will be the same way. Same goes for animals. If i get bit by a snake 10 times, i might start to fear snakes. Are all snaked bad? No, but my experience with them is bad, so rightfully i have a bit of a stigma and fear towards them.
This culture of fearing assumptions is bewildering to me. Can we just blame the actual actions of people, and not assume that because they generalize that might, at some point, be classist/racist/etc? Can we have some sanity here?
I am sorry if I accidentally hurt your feelings or slighted your national pride. I am simply making an observation based on my general experience with Americans on the web and the sentiment I've noticed. My experience certainly is biased, as people commenting on the Internet do not equally represent whole American nation but I don't feel I need to interview every single one of those 350 millions to make my remark.
This is the most unfortunate part. You think that I've picked some side in this; that I'm defending the concept of being American or the things these people are saying.
I'm saying you're generalizing. This behavior is toxic. Instead of saying, 'You know what, you're right, that's really not a representative sample size and I shouldn't have made the generalization.', you doubled down on making it about generalizations.
But at the end of the day, the only person that behavior hurts is you. So, sorry man.
> This is the most unfortunate part. You think that I've picked some side in this; that I'm defending the concept of being American or the things these people are saying.
You have, though, have you not? You have picked the side of "don't generalize people ever", clearly, no?
I'm on the side of "generalizations and stereotypes are not inherently bad, it's the actions of the person that are bad"
Do you disagree with that?
You call my actions toxic, but what exactly did i do that was toxic? I'm advocating that we judge people by their actions, not their beliefs. What is so wrong with that?
In other words, Don't assume i'm somehow "against" a group of people just because i have assumptions towards them. My dad is heavily religious, i assume and generalize that most religious people don't want me swearing heavily around them - so what! Generalizations aren't bad. Actions are bad. I don't get your view point, clearly.
Your comment did come off as very defensive, at least to me, and presumably to dagenleg as well. I don't think dagenleg is saying that all Americans have this view. (The comment even says it's a stereotype.) I certainly see this thinking all the time in America. It seems that many people's greatest fear is that they will have to subsidize someone else's life in some way. I don't have much direct experience with European culture, but this type of thinking seems less prevalent in Western Europe.
It is unfortunate that so many people are looking to blame anything - big companies, government, whatever - anytime their worldview has to reconcile a hint of the imperfections of humanity.
If you optimize moving troops to the front line through one path, you leave a path of lower troop tiles right into the heart of your production, which is usually close to your general. They aren't cheating, they're just better than you.
I can't speak for the rest of America, but that law does exist in at least parts of Atlanta. Most people are surprised at how green and forest-y the urban parts of Atlanta are.
Would the better job been the first in a series of steps to even better jobs/promotions in the future? Did that job have the same pay from now until retirement? Would a year of hard work in this job yield a raise that offset the loss to food stamps? If any of these are true, her's wasn't the rational decision, it was the most convenient, least risky decision.
If any of these are true, her's wasn't the rational decision, it was the most convenient, least risky decision.
It shouldn't take far-seeing, risk taking, and great inconvenience to get out of poverty. If our society wants to bring people out of poverty, it should make the choices leading to that obvious, low risk, and convenient.
If the context was game development, this wouldn't even be an issue. People do what they're incentivized to do.
Also your conclusion about "rational decision" is clearly wrong. Taking risks is not necessarily rational. Doubly not when you are a single mother with 3 kids and a deadbeat ex.
Taking the job guaranteed losing her money. If she kept the job for a couple of years, she would have started to break even, but it would be quite a few years until she was ahead of where she was. Instead she continued to look for a job that either paid just little enough to keep food stamps, or offered a prospect of paying enough to offset losing food stamps.
Your reasoning is based on the theory that your best way up is to take the best job you can and then work your way up. That was how things worked when I was a kid. But today people tend to improve their job by switching jobs, not by being promoted in their current one. Therefore staying underpaid is often a better route up than switching to a job you don't want in the hope of maybe being promoted some day.
You're talking about the "rational decision" as if there's only one value to optimize. If their "utility function" is described by more than just how much money they have/make, then it could be perfectly rational to turn down the job.
That being said I do agree that if there's a huge difference in future earning power, it would still generally worth it to go for the job that involves giving up food stamps.
> That being said I do agree that if there's a huge difference in future earning power, it would still generally worth it to go for the job that involves giving up food stamps.
If you can manage to hold your life together well enough to continue to do the job, with fewer resources available.
