Yes. Who you find to blame doesn't fix the problem, does it?
After you find said individuals, someone has to still fix the problem. And in my experience you always need the help or information from said individuals to do so.
CHOOSING to focus on blame, only produces attacks, defensiveness and avoidance from whom ever you are blaming, when they can be contributing to the fix.
Reaching the solutions get pushed further down the road.
Whenever a crisis unfolds you want the people who created it in the room contributing info, thinking about solutions, rather than focusing on how to save their asses and hiding what they did.
Current culture puts too much emphasis on passing judgements and blaming people. What outcomes are being produced speak for themselves when that route is choosen.
> I had 50 employees, and I had to think about them and the money they would make from this sale.
You know if you just scale up the numbers above, Mark could justify what he's doing the same way Acton justifies his actions yet somehow Acton thinks there's a difference. You just have to laugh at that.
This is what I have a problem with; one cannot even share a simple poem without it degenerating into a virtue signalling debate. Now you're forced to defend something that you had nothing to do with. Yuck.
Unfortunately, that's the world we live in at this moment where too many people need to find validation by belonging to some virtue group or another because they care what other people think. In hindsight, I'm not sure why I even cared enough to defend my position. Perhaps I'm not so different as I'd like to hope.
Letting people know your honest thoughts in a straightforward manner is important. I know plenty of folks who hold opinions along the same line as the person you replied to. They are usually various degrees of shocked when I give them civil yet straightforward pushback, and more often then one may think, when done in person, it leads to real discussion, and ideas outside of normal worldview enter both our minds. It is a good thing.
I think it's very possible to read the last few lines in a non-gendered light. You have to want it to be misogynistic in order to interpret it as such.
There is a gulf between "misogynistic" and "being part of a culture that largely ignores women". It strains credulity to claim that the words "son" and "man" don't draw males closer and push females away. Any one poem is a "micro", but it adds up across the culture.
I agree wholeheartedly. I've always loved this poem. I think a lot of the values it presents are sadly lost in today's culture - we're in a post-chivalric era alas. But these are the values I grew up with and as a result form the man I am today. This is what happens when your childhood heroes and role models come from the pages of Robin Hood, Les Miserables and The Three Musketeers.
As with all though, you either evolve or you're doomed to irrelevance. This should be a familiar concept to any programmer in the past 20 years :P
> If you deal with Alcoholism, there's no "final" cure.
This is precisely it. You fight it continuously and always assume you are going to mess things up even when you think you're 'finally' strong enough. Just being constantly paranoid about slipping back into old habits. It's no joke and there's no panacea.
Not sure if you've tried this but it helps me when things get out of hand; check out /r/stopdrinking
Just talking about it with other people going through the same thing helps a lot. It's almost always worked for me and I tend to get a hold of things before the spiral further out of control.
I've done the same but for a proxy I needed to circumvent geofencing restrictions. I got a local(non-US) VPS provider and installed squid on it. I found it more affordable than the paid services out there and it's immensely better than free options that are prone to abuse and are rendered essentially unusable.
Anytime you get an opportunity to reduce the overreaching powers of the state, that's a good thing! Today, we on the right have Trump, tomorrow there'll be someone on the left as president and that won't make us happy and vice-versa.
Why would it be different ? Both doesn't respect private life of people to make money. If both case are on opposite side of the political spectrum, it's better : it means that the law is applied correctly to everybody.
Yes. People have issues with it because of Thiel's far right politics, but keep in mind what Gawker did. Publishing a sex tape is a sex crime, or damn close. Imagine if Hogan were a woman and its obvious. Imagine if they published a sex tape of an actress or outed a community activist in a conservative area as gay. In some cases outing people as gay can put them in danger.
BTW I also think it was fine for Alex Jones to get deplatformed and sued for encouraging people to harass school shooting victims. Free speech doesn't mean libel, slander, blackmail, targeted harassment, sex abuse, etc. won't get you sued.
What is alleged with the National Enquirer here is much worse. It looks a lot like they are acting as blackmail enforcers for Trump and/or the Saudis. Like I said others are now coming forward.
If I'm not mistaken, Thiel went after Gawker (through Hogan) because they exposed him as being gay. He also happened to be in Saudi Arabia at the time.
Whenever a magazine publishes some trash story attacking someone they should ask themselves what's the worst that could happen.
When you attack people like Bezos and Thiel, you better be sure of what you're doing.
> Imagine if they published a sex tape of an actress
I'm pretty sure this has been done. Normally, they get out in front of it, so they can at least cash in. Personally, I'm not thrilled with rich people being able to shut down publications that they don't like. That said, I don't know how to feel about the Gawker case. It's easy not to care, when the victim is so unsympathetic.
While a number of F-list celebrities like Paris Hilton deliberately released their sex tapes, the sex tapes of actresses and other celebrities released without their consent generally resulted in pretty heft settlements for the women, and in a few cases prison sentences for the distributors. (See e.g., Erin Andrews.)
They actually got off very lightly :-) Merely civil bankruptcy, no jail time, no career ruination and inability to find employment for the ahem "journalists" involved.
