Overall, this is a positive development. But we still have a long way to go!
Deleted Comment
Overall, this is a positive development. But we still have a long way to go!
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/finland/helsinki/climatehttps://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/sioux-falls/climate
Yes our car-dependent infrastructure is an issue, but it's infrastructure we've built up for the better part of a century. Changing it will be slow and gradual, and in the meantime cold weather and darkness are issues in much of the country. Also hot weather in other parts of the country (heat stroke can be a serious concern in the Southwest)
Deleted Comment
This is extremely situational. When I was in a larger house and had no kids, WFH was an easy way to avoid interruptions.
Moving to a smaller house (more expensive city) and having kids flipped the situation around. Avoiding interruptions at home was extremely difficult because I was always only a door away from someone asking a “quick favor”.
It’s not just me: As a remote manger I can almost always tell when summer break starts for everyone’s area because there’s a stepwise decline in productive when people’s kids aren’t in school.
Likewise, the office environment makes all the difference. I’ve worked in open-office spaces where everybody respected each other and concentration was the default. I’ve also worked in private-office spaces where I could expect knocks on my door every 15 minutes or less because the culture was so bad that interrupting the engineers was the default practice.
Lately, I’ve felt that fully remote has been the worst of all worlds. Once Slack becomes the default I’m pinged from every angle all day long. It’s hard to push back against people who want answers now now now and know they can get your attention by typing the right few characters into Slack. Comes down to culture, but Slack makes it easy for people to quietly interrupt people directly whereas it was much easier to police the interruptions (as a manager) when I could literally see the offenders bothering the engineers.
i.e., imagine if it worked this way for penalty of incarceration, where your mugger forfeits 10 years of their life, and transfers them to you, extending your own by the same amount - less attorneys' fees, of course.
> When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions.
In favor of this:
> Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent.
Also changed yesterday:
> Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.
became:
> Behaviour which can be considered harassment against protected classes will not be tolerated.
The updated CoC is here: https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/blob/master/en/con...
This is very weird because fundamentally it stems from a failure of the moderators. If someone makes a sexist joke you don't just let them because you're "assuming good intentions", that clause means that you tell them it's not appropriate here, and if they apologize you assume they are sincere, and if they don't you swiftly boot them. But there is no substitute for good moderation, shifting words around won't help much.
Aside: Open source discussion opening with "My rationale for these changes are documented on Twitter: [link]" also seems somewhat crazy. And I love Twitter, it just seems very odd to link to a thread of tweets instead of restating your case in the proper medium.
I do remember renting a Dodge Caliber year back when the CVT performed terribly going up hills as automatic but it wasn't bad at all if you used the paddle shifters. I did read reviews of people who bought the things, drove 20,000 miles and complained bitterly about performance and never figured out about the paddle shifters though.
How did it happen twice?