Interject. When things are getting off topic (which is to say, as soon as one person interrupts another person's update with a question) just say "this might be better for post standup", or even just "post standup?" with a questioning inflection.
Most of the people who will mind are exactly the kind of person that you're trying to keep from wasting everyone's time.
> What benefit do they see in exchange for the effort in open sourcing things?
Goodwill and more people willing to try whatever they release next, rather than the current situation of “Oh, Google is releasing a new thing? Pass. They’ll just stop supporting it and I’ll be left in the cold anyway, so no bother even trying”.
Killing so many projects makes fewer people interested in trying whatever they release next, which means fewer users, which means a higher likelihood it’ll be abandoned. It’s a vicious cycle that could be stopped or even reversed if they open-sourced their abandoned stuff.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily advocating Google should do it or that it’s be a clear win with no downsides. Maybe the upside wouldn’t be worth it, but there is an upside.
My point has nothing to do with licensing, but longevity.
What non-technical users know is “Google released a project, I invested my time in it, they abandoned it, and I was left hanging. This has happened multiple times so I no longer want to try anything new they release”.
Had the projects been open-sourced, at least some of them would have been picked up by others and continued so non-technical users would know “Google released a project, I invested my time in it, they abandoned it, then someone continued it and I’m still using it to this day. I’m happy to try this new Google thing, because even if they abandon it I won’t be left in the cold”.
It's more like a 9 sheep and a wolf with a great PR firm who convinced 5 sheep to vote against the other 4 for lunch plans. Those 5 sheep aren't going to come out of this any better than the 4 of us.
Books are sold for the purpose of people reading them, including all the normal consequences that happen from a person reading a book. AI training being analagous to that doesn't unlock some cheat code that makes it legal, or reading books illegal. And it might indeed be found legal, but not for that reason.
I think for this discussion, "math is stuff you'd learn in a math department" is a pretty useful definition, even if it's not a very good one. There's a lot of math involved in the design and manufacture of the kettle, electrical grid, and water utilities, but a person's ability to put a kettle on isn't going to be improved by math classes. In that way, programming probably is a bit mathy, but good programming is more like good technical writing than it is like math.
> I think for this discussion, "math is stuff you'd learn in a math department" is a pretty useful definition
That means that definition shifts over time. For example, courses on numerical analysis, graph algorithms, programming, and on compilers used to be part of “what you’d learn in a math department”.
It likely also even today will show geographical variation.
That setting can be fairly sticky. Mine has stayed off since I initially disabled it, shortly after they added the "feature". I have no idea why it's not sticky for you. Maybe they fuck with me less because I have premium?
I don't have premium and it's sticky for me but only on a single computer, I have to reset it if I switch computers or browsers. Same with dark mode. So maybe it's stored as a cookie and they wipe their cookies?
Surely you don't expect YouTube, a company that doesn't store any data at all actually, to be able to store a single boolean value somewhere in your account, do you? This would be impossible for a company as broke and small as YouTube.
I would imagine that's why they had "best practices" in quotes. Lots of enterprisey things get pushed as a "good practice" to improve reuse (of things that will never be reused) or extensibility (of things that will never be extended) or modularity (of things that will never be separated).
Enterprise development has particular problems you won't find in other environments, for instance having hundreds of different developers with widely varying levels of skill and talent, all collaborating together, often under immense time and budget pressure.
The result ain't going to be what you get if you've got a focused group of 10x geniuses working on everything, but I think a lot of the aspects of "enterprise development" that people complain about is simply the result of making the best of a bad situation.
I like Java, because I've worked with people who will fuck up repeatedly without static type checking.
I can attest to that and see it as the reason why Angular is still so popular in the enterprise world - it has such a strong convention that no matter the rate of staff rotation the team can keep delivering.
Meanwhile no two React projects are the same because they typically have several dependencies, each solving a small part of the problem at hand.
> for instance having hundreds of different developers with widely varying levels of skill and talent
That's a management problem. Meaning you assess that risk and try to alleviate it. A good solution like you say is languages with good type checking support. Another is code familiarity and reuse through frameworks and libraries. A third may be enforcing writing tests to speed up code review (and checklist rules like that).
It's going to be boring, but boring is good at that scale.
Though that also comes with male-pattern skeletal growth. So unless your body still has elevated/male-level T levels, you're carrying around a disproportionately heavy skeleton which negates the advantage. If the net effect were actually an advantage, you'd expect the womens' sports which are allowing trans women to be dominated by them, but they really just aren't.
Additionally, trans women on HRT typically have their T suppressed below standard cis women levels, and thus well below the levels of cis women athletes (the top levels in any sport by definition tending to be outliers in performance).
> Though that also comes with male-pattern skeletal growth. So unless your body still has elevated/male-level T levels, you're carrying around a disproportionately heavy skeleton which negates the advantage.
The male-pattern skeletal growth isn't necessarily a disadvantage. E.g., narrower hips and stronger bones is likely an advantage in running.
> If the net effect were actually an advantage, you'd expect the womens' sports which are allowing trans women to be dominated by them, but they really just aren't.
My understanding is the opposite. In fact, if it wasn't the case, there is basically no reason to have separate mens and womens fields.
This is anecdotal evidence but I'm a trans woman who transitioned at 30. I ran cross country and track and was the fastest kid at my school in a relatively competitive program. I got depressed after college and gained a bunch of weight and only ran sporadically. I started HRT, I keep my T levels in the lowest range that's healthy for cis women. I got the urge to start exercising again. I now run more than twice as much as before, lost 40 pounds, and do roller derby on top of that. I'm still not as fast as I was when I was mostly sedentary, drinking beers every night in my apartment. I don't know if I'm faster or slower than I would have been if I was a cis woman but I did take a pretty big hit.
> The male-pattern skeletal growth isn't necessarily a disadvantage. E.g., narrower hips and stronger bones is likely an advantage in running.
It might or might not help, but if it were a net benefit then you'd expect trans women runners to perform more strongly than they actually do.
> My understanding is the opposite. In fact, if it wasn't the case, there is basically no reason to have separate mens and womens fields.
This sentence seems to presuppose that trans women are men. There are some womens' divisions which allow trans women (typically with stipulations requiring some duration of HRT), and they are not dominant there. To me, the sensible conclusion seems to be that trans women perform roughly on par with cis women, not that cis women perform roughly on par with cis men.
My last sentence wasn't particularly coherent; sorry. I have sort of two ideas here that were merged poorly: (1) setting aside trans entirely, cismen enjoy significant sport advantages over ciswomen in most sports, and this (fairness) is basically why we have women's sports instead of combined fields. (2) I believe transwomen have outsized performance in women's sports (contra your claim of no outperformance).
> There are some womens' divisions which allow trans women (typically with stipulations requiring some duration of HRT), and they are not dominant there.
I think there are maybe two things I'd poke at here. (1) Sports where transwomen enjoy greater advantage are more likely to have already excluded transwomen from womens' fields. And (2) the number of transwomen is tiny to begin with and AFAIK they have lower rates of participation in sports than ciswomen.
I think you can basically make a case for including or excluding transwomen in women's sports depending on whether you think inclusion or fairness is most important.
> I think you can basically make a case for including or excluding transwomen in women's sports depending on whether you think inclusion or fairness is most important.
A pretty wide spread of sports have allowed trans women*, and they have not dominated. If trans women did have an outsized performance in women's sports, there'd be examples to point to. I don't think you can make an evidence-based case for fairness and inclusion being at odds, given there aren't any unfair examples of inclusion to point to.
Some of the most notable examples include weightlifting and swimming. In weightlifting, probably the sport I'd expect an unfair advantage to make itself most apparent, Laurel Hubbard got a DNF in the Olympics, and did merely pretty good in several other events. Or in swimming, another sport I'd expect body proportions to have a significant impact in, Lia Thomas, who was the center of a ton of controversy, also did merely fine.
I'm not sure there are sports where trans women would have a bigger advantage than weightlifting, if such an advantage existed. And the tiny number of trans women interested in sports means that erring on the side of inclusion (if it does turn out to be an error) would also have a tiny negative impact,
* - Pedantic side note, combining "transwomen" and "ciswomen" into single words implies that we're different base nouns. It's similar to how "chinamen" is not acceptable, but generally there's nothing wrong with "Chinese men". "Trans" and "cis" are just adjectives modifying "men" or "women".
> In weightlifting, probably the sport I'd expect an unfair advantage to make itself most apparent, Laurel Hubbard got a DNF in the Olympics, and did merely pretty good in several other events.
On the contrary, Laurel Hubbard is a good example of how apparent this male physical advantage is when male athletes are allowed to compete in the female category.
Here's a chart showing ranked lifts for both men's and women's weightlifting in the World Masters Games, where Hubbard won a gold medal in the women's category in 2017: https:/i.ibb.co/WWf7CMQD/hubbard.jpg (the source of this graph is a developmental biologist who, amongst other things, studies sex differences in sport).
This shows that the set of lifts by female and male weightlifters are entirely distinct. Hubbard falls within the middle range of the male rankings and is a huge outlier compared to the female rankings.
For the Olympics, if Hubbard had been female, qualification for the competition would have been unprecedented. Hubbard was competing in the wake of an earlier elbow injury, had taken a years-long career break, and was considerably older than any female weightlifter ever to qualify for Olympic weightlifting: female weightlifters peak at around age 26 and Hubbard was 43 years old at the time.
Being male in the female category was sufficient to mitigate all the effects of older age, chronic injury, undertraining, and - compared to other males - lack of world class talent.
It's also worth noting that Hubbard came last at the Olympics due to being disqualified for improper technique, not because of being unable to physically manage the lifts.
Most of the people who will mind are exactly the kind of person that you're trying to keep from wasting everyone's time.
reply