They weren't overhyped. Your point is a common and old canard.
The worry wasn't that avian flu or the swine flu would kill a lot of people in their current states, but that they would mutate into something considerably more dangerous. The swine flu, for example, was known to spread easily but wasn't _yet_ very lethal. The avian flu (H5N1) didn't _yet_ spread easily, but was very lethal.
If the swine flu mutated into something more lethal or if the avian flu mutated into something more communicable, then everyone would probably know someone that died from either virus. And that's exactly the worry with these new crop of viruses, and why it's important to react with extraordinarily measures -- to prevent them from becoming something much worse.
Java should be the conservative choice for your web framework's language (rather than PHP). Scala, Clojure, Nodejs, Erlang, Lua, and Haskell should be in your list of workable yet "cool" languages (rather than Ruby or Python).
I'd add the caveat that Java should be the conservative choice only if you are expecting it to matter that you can serve 200,000 simpleish (but nontrivial) requests per second. In the vast majority of cases, development speed and things other than raw framework performance will dominate as concerns. However, that is a non-zero niche.
I was considering other factors in that generalization, although they're implicit. E.g., a lot of the "cool" language frameworks I mentioned are comparable with the Java frameworks in speed, but Java has a considerably larger ecosystem and number of hirable developers (although I'm not sure if that translates well into web development). And I assume PHP is as verbose as Java from what I've heard from other people (I've never used PHP).
What language should be the conservative choice based on the many factors and ignoring the specific case for the general case?
If you're using something like Symfony2, there'll be more abstractions and layers than using something like Silex - but they still don't come close to what Java looks like.
Some Java frameworks are not doing that well on all tests. So it is not a fair generalization. As for PHP vs Java , it is not really the point of the discussion , since raw php is doing very well.
The Java frameworks are generally doing very well (top quarter to top half), and the PHP frameworks are generally doing very poorly (bottom half). PHP-raw is doing well, but that's not heartening given how mature its frameworks should be (if we were talking about golang, I think that argument would be sound).
That's the point of PHP , you dont need a framework to do web development with PHP. PHP is merely a C Web dev DSL. Using a framework over a DSL makes no sense.
Yes, you can do all of those things with sublime's API (https://github.com/wuub/SublimeREPL, https://github.com/SublimeText/Origami). Yes, emacs is more extensible, but not where it matters, really. I.e., I don't think you're going to see any cool feature made with elisp that can't be ported to sublime.
Ok, that's pretty cool. Still doesn't seem as supported by the core APIs though. In Emacs I can run a REPL and attach it to any process with a few lines of code.
I love Sublime Text, but I would argue that Emacs is more extensible in all sorts of places where it really matters.
You can probably add every single feature in emacs to sublime. The 30 earth-years and many, many man-years of features, additions and smoothing of interactions that has gone into emacs, will however take quite some time to come to par with.
See e.g. tramp, org-mode, the vc-modes, gnus, magit, smart indenting etc.
martinced: you have been hell-banned for some, to me, completely opaque reason.
I'm guessing, but I think it's because yesod uses a lot of magic such as templates and the like. The other frameworks like Snap use more idiomatic Haskell.
I think Adria could have avoided this if she apologized not for reporting the offenders to pycon, but for publicly identifying them. She was given the perfect opportunity for this when one of the offenders apologized for their own misstep in a hacker news thread that she herself commented in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681).
That's all a bit silly. We have a common understanding or definition of what racism is and it connotes something immoral. _Some_ sociologists define racism as something else which also connotes something immoral. The common thread is that both definitions connote immorality, and so if something falls under either definition, it's still bad and so the whole arguing over which definition to use is moot.
For example, if an organized group of American Asians began touting their superiority over other races and advocated and lobbied for more Asians in positions of power because they're superior, wouldn't you still consider their actions to be immoral?
People can use whichever definition they like, but they need to be open about it, and they need to realize by using another definition they're not also redefining or constraining the connotation -- that's begging the question.
So, black people cannot be sociologically-racist-therefore-immoral against white people, but they can be common-usage-racist-therefore-immoral against white people.
(I should also note that labeling something with a word that connotes a negative or positive affect isn't much of an argument for the applicability of that connotation to that something. It's a heuristic more than it is an argument.)
No, you're missing that racism is a systematic oppression of a certain group or people. HN isn't the best place for speaking about social issues, so I won't write you an essay about what's wrong about what you're saying. I'll just say I believe you and others are conflating the terms prejudice and racism. I'm guessing that's what you're describing by "common-usage-racis[m]." Indeed, black people can be prejudiced against white people, and that prejudice can be because of race. Racism, however, needs a little bit more than that. Particularly, institutionalization.
You're lacking an understanding of linguistics and philosophy. Both usages are no more correct than the other, and the point of such usages is to ascribe a connotation to a cluster of things along a continuum. Arguing over definitions is pointless (I can create my own definition of racism and it will be equally valid), the point is what they connote.
We'll never agree because I'm arguing about what racism is (a semantic argument) and you're arguing about how racism is defined (a pedantic argument). Perhaps my original post was a red herring. I was merely justifying that what she said lines up with a known definition, not that it is the ONLY correct definition.
Also, your definition of what racism connotes is severely lacking as well. Simplifying racism to "something that connotes immorality" is a gross oversimplification.
You have it backwards. I don't care how racism is defined. I care about whatever the word "racism" points to in the real world. But you have to realize that a word can point to anything you want it to point to.
And not only that, but words have denotations and connotations. "Ugly", in common usage, denotes and points to a set of subjective physical characteristics. "Ugly" also connotes and points to a negative affect that isn't explicit in its denotation.
I'm not simply saying that racism is "something that connotes immorality", but that is what we're connotating when we use that word in its various denotations (although, it's not necessarily the case). Racism's denotation can be literally anything. I can say, for example, that it's racist to call Canadians effusive pushovers even though "Canadian" is a nationality rather than a race.
And people do exactly that. In the U.K., for example, it's common for people to call people that insult the French "racist."
Language is fluid.
So, I think you can see why people are affronted when someone says "black people cannot be racist" without putting it within a certain context. The implication is that it's not immoral for black people to act denotatively common-usage-racist.
> Certainly her employers don't deserve any blame, though
To be clear, SendGrid is her employer and that's exactly who sergiotapia sent an e-mail to saying he was going to boycott and recommended that others do the same.
I'm clear on that. This whole issue is deeply entwined with philosophy which makes it all a bit amorphous. From one perspective, you could argue that it's moral to boycott SendGrid if it leads to "positive" consequences, for example.
Are we really arguing that people should keep silent when things like this happen? When a rule is violated? That they should only respond after it's taken place?
Personally, and I think this might be the case with most people here, I'm most worried by the public shaming of the two individuals. Them being kicked out of PyCon isn't as much a concern to me.
I think the culture that she's implicitly promoting is ultimately a suspicious and hostile one where there is no principle of charity but instead there's the inverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity). And not by the fact that she reported it to PyCon organizers, but by the fact that she then escalated it to the public. In this instance, I think she should have kept their identities anonymous in her tweets and blog post.
There are instances where I can imagine revealing their identities would be the right thing to do, but this doesn't come close to it by my judgement (for all that's worth).
I am no fan of the behavior ascribed to these guys, but the PyCon code of conduct also says no "harassing photography or recording" and, in my book, her blasting a photograph to multiple thousands of followers is an intentional invocation of a shitstorm to attempt to harm them. PyCon also is on record as not being down with the "public shaming" thing, too; see their policies regarding it.
The two guys are unprofessional assholes. 100% agreed. But by my lights, she is too.
Her initial response was a twitter message with the pycon hashtag and a picture of the "culprits". It was demanding a lynch mob resolution. She never directly replied to or messaged pycon staff, though she had the wherewithal to search up the code of conduct.
She didn't file the HA-RASS-401A form. She deserves everything she got.
What did she "get"? If you do something publicly, you are open for public criticism. That's life.
However few would debate that it is utter hubris to use social media to demand a lynchmob response to a relatively mild social faux pas (which is 100% bullying behavior. Ala "I have 9000 twitter followers so you'll see who is the boss"). I don't blame her for the guy getting fired (that's on his shitty employer that knee jerk responds to something asinine), nor should anyone else, but I think the original activities were much more egregious and socially questionable than making a dongle joke.
The worry wasn't that avian flu or the swine flu would kill a lot of people in their current states, but that they would mutate into something considerably more dangerous. The swine flu, for example, was known to spread easily but wasn't _yet_ very lethal. The avian flu (H5N1) didn't _yet_ spread easily, but was very lethal.
If the swine flu mutated into something more lethal or if the avian flu mutated into something more communicable, then everyone would probably know someone that died from either virus. And that's exactly the worry with these new crop of viruses, and why it's important to react with extraordinarily measures -- to prevent them from becoming something much worse.