Good thing he apologised, yet it still looks that the c-suit still mostly concerned with speed. Apologizing for shitty behaviour is still worse than not being shitty in the first place.
FYI, I don’t think this situation is cause enough to ditch Proton, but I still stand by my original comment.
In one exchange, an employee in the company’s security Slack channel urged Proton to at least take a few days to pentest newly written code before pushing it live. “That’s bullshit and loser thinking. Of course it’s possible to be fast and secure,” Yen wrote in the channel at the end of August. “Stop thinking always of how to be slower, and focus more on how to be faster.” Yen added, “stop lovingly handcrafting all our code and use AI more.”
Yet somehow speed seems all that matters to c-suits.
Coming back to my point: slower ≠ worse.
Can AI speed things up? Oh, yes. Is it really better? It depends, but I’m leaning to no.
Ok, if taken as medical term (which happens way too often with these words) it can be seen as derogatory and making fun of a psychological disorder.
But I’d argue that no average person thinks of the word that way. I don’t think narcissism is ever seen as disorder in popular culture. From outside perspective it looks more like a choice, especially when compared to autism, schizophrenia or mental deficiency. None of those look like choices (autism being the most debatable out of the examples).
In a colloquial sense narcissist is just a selfish asshole. When talking about horror story narcissist, sociopath and / or psychopath depictions, I’m hard pressed to feel empathy for these characters. I’m not saying they are not sick, but having a disorder doesn’t automatically make actions and motivations any more justifiable.
What are you talking about? Maybe I have something blocked, but I see nothing close to that in this thread.
It’s a wordplay, it’s true. It’s the necessary precondition for a discussion: to use the same definition for words.
It only becomes necessary when it’s all you have. Taking ones words, understanding what one meant and then arguing that actually there’s a slight difference in semantics is a misdirection and I’d like to ignore it going forward.
Is the ability to make a squared circle necessary for a God to be worthy of worship?
That’s a strawman.
I don’t need a squared circle. I want children that don’t die of cancer. I want leaders that don’t bomb countries for personal gain and ambition. I want women not being raped at night. I want brown people treated with the same respect I get. I want a planet that is not on fire.
A god that tolerates suffering is all too human and I reject it.
Let me ask you this way: in a world where evil is caused and solved by people, what is the role of a god? Why should I want a god if I still have to solve these problems myself?
I just read the Wikipedia article not the myth itself so take it for what it is.
Getting all bent out of shape because of someone using a word that, since ancient times, meant some form toxic self love is silly at best.
Skimming through the wiki article I see more than one interpretation of the myth. An Ovids contemporary gives an interpretation of an asshole who rudely reject everyone and for being an asshole Narcissus is punished.
Yes, Ovid might have depicted the guy differently; no, I don’t know the texts myself.
But the colloquial meaning of the word is a self absorbed asshole. No matter gender or sexuality.
At the end of the day we are talking about a myth that was interpreted and reinterpreted through time by many people and even became term by itself no longer attached to the myth at all. The myth is nothing more than a fun fact and should not be treated as adding extra meaning to every usage of the word.
I would consider your comment wordplay. Mainly because your arguing semantics while semantics were never the point of the argument.
If a god said to be all powerful but allows for evil to exist it’s either not all powerful or evil itself, or both. In any case, why would I want or need such a god?
I know I’m exaggerating myself, but it doesn’t affect the argument.
We do 4 to 3 and we did it last weekend since this Sunday is already November.
My job is not to be fast. This expectation of development speed is bosses not understanding why they hire specialists.
I code, make sure it works, is secure and maintainable. That’s how I own my work.
Have you heard of Facebook? People use their real names and don’t give a single fuck.
It’s a good and, I’d say, well thought through argument, however, it’s completely irrelevant.
You read my position as if it came from a place of faith and then responded from the same place of faith. I think that’s why none of you arguments worked or will work on most of the people here.
You can’t cite the Bible to me, because I see it at the same level of fiction as Lord of the Rings. Fundamentally, all of the context, nuance and logic in your theological argument is mute.
I could try and address concrete points from your response that miss the mark for me on this level, but I’d rather try and give you context on where does my position come from. I’m not trying to convince you, nor will you be able to convince me.
I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in a god, nor I think it necessary. Good and evil are social constructs. A mouse is neither good, nor evil; the same applies to the universe in general. There’s no higher purpose, afterlife or absolute judgement.
A question I see more often regarding this: “If there is no God, what then stops a person from killing and raping, and stealing, and etc.?” To this I’d say — the person themself.
We are social creatures, we want to and live in communities. This communal lifestyle can be just as good of an anchor for morality as faith. (A somewhat relevant reference).
Morality can be fully separate from faith and doesn’t require a god. Which seems like a much simpler argument than existence of an unprovable (by the same token, undeniable), all-powerful, beyond human comprehension being. Simple doesn’t necessarily mean correct, but considering my options I’m inclined to go with the non-magic one.
Another point worth addressing is nihilism. If there is no god or afterlife, what’s the point of living? To this I’d say there is none, but why is that bad? If there’s nothing else besides the existence I already have, that’s all the more reason to appreciate it.
Again, I’ll come back my social creature reasoning. Knowing that this is all there is makes it all the more special and worth maintaining, protecting. I want to keep my relationships with loved ones, I want to share it with my offspring. What I don’t want is religious promise of happiness. I don’t need a promise, I need happiness in this life.
There is this philosophical argument for faith where believing in God means at least not losing much, and not believing — at most losing everything. But to me this seems backwards. If a god is truly divine and loving, it should not care for my opinions and only judge me by merit. If, however, a god is not that, then I don’t need it and reject it. If it doesn’t exist, well, none of these discussions matter then, do they?
I wont even go into Christian church with it’s absurd rituals and show.
Although, I do understand why people turn to religion. It comforting to have something bigger then oneself.
To me, though, it’s freeing to know I don’t matter in the grand scheme of things. I can’t change the world, but I can try and be happy with people I care about.
I don’t believe in a god and, if it exists, I reject it.