Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:58 pmSo how would you go about convincing the partners of potential female FOSS developers to take on a greater proportion of the physical and emotional work at home, or at least convince potential female FOSS developers to not put up with their partners not doing their share?

Talk about it. Say out loud, "Well, you won't see me here tomorrow night because I'll be doing my share of the childcare." And if you get static, respond with, "So you don't? What's your problem?" Praise men who do their fair share and shame those who don't. When people ask, "Why aren't there more women in FOSS?", mention this issue. Mention it again. Keep mentioning it until they believe you. (If you're a woman, you might have to have a man repeat this for you for it to sink in.) Bring it up at work. Ask what your employers are doing to accommodate the need for employees with children (regardless of gender). Offer those employees your assistance. If your workplace organises events, make sure it's not the just women who tasked with the planning, the running of them, the cleanup. Combat toxic stereotypes. Don't comment on women's appearance and call out those who do.

That's just off the top of my head. But--as with Vijay's BLM example--where you start is building awareness. Make it so people around you can't claim ignorance of the issue. Then press them for what they're doing to address it.

From reading that diversity statement, it is a start, but statements like that can easily be empty verbiage - but in Python's case it seems like they have actually put in some work rather than just spat out a standard corporate-esque diversity statement and left it at that.

As I said, it's the bare minimum--those statements are often empty (or, to put it more kindly, more aspirational than actual). But if you can't even be bothered to draught one or put it someplace possible entrants will see it, what message does that send about your organisation?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:43 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:58 pmSo how would you go about convincing the partners of potential female FOSS developers to take on a greater proportion of the physical and emotional work at home, or at least convince potential female FOSS developers to not put up with their partners not doing their share?

Talk about it. Say out loud, "Well, you won't see me here tomorrow night because I'll be doing my share of the childcare." And if you get static, respond with, "So you don't? What's your problem?" Praise men who do their fair share and shame those who don't. When people ask, "Why aren't there more women in FOSS?", mention this issue. Mention it again. Keep mentioning it until they believe you. (If you're a woman, you might have to have a man repeat this for you for it to sink in.) Bring it up at work. Ask what your employers are doing to accommodate the need for employees with children (regardless of gender). Offer those employees your assistance. If your workplace organises events, make sure it's not the just women who tasked with the planning, the running of them, the cleanup. Combat toxic stereotypes. Don't comment on women's appearance and call out those who do.

That's just off the top of my head. But--as with Vijay's BLM example--where you start is building awareness. Make it so people around you can't claim ignorance of the issue. Then press them for what they're doing to address it.

At my current workplace, there is a general awareness that the people there have families outside of work, and that often, pre-COVID, people would often work from home because they have the kids for that time. Oftentimes in the computing world people assume that one has no family, or that someone else can handle everything for one so one can work a bajillion hours.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:43 pm

From reading that diversity statement, it is a start, but statements like that can easily be empty verbiage - but in Python's case it seems like they have actually put in some work rather than just spat out a standard corporate-esque diversity statement and left it at that.

As I said, it's the bare minimum--those statements are often empty (or, to put it more kindly, more aspirational than actual). But if you can't even be bothered to draught one or put it someplace possible entrants will see it, what message does that send about your organisation?

To be completely honest, I tend to roll my eyes when I hear the words "diversity statement" because I expect them to be a load of empty corporate-ese rather than a sincere statement of a given organization's intentions.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:04 pmTo be completely honest, I tend to roll my eyes when I hear the words "diversity statement" because I expect them to be a load of empty corporate-ese rather than a sincere statement of a given organization's intentions.

So what's your alternative? How does an organisation not currently or historically known for its diversity signal a commitment to change to those who might be interested?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:25 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:04 pmTo be completely honest, I tend to roll my eyes when I hear the words "diversity statement" because I expect them to be a load of empty corporate-ese rather than a sincere statement of a given organization's intentions.

So what's your alternative? How does an organisation not currently or historically known for its diversity signal a commitment to change to those who might be interested?

A rundown on the actual policies that an organization has adopted to try to encourage a more diverse environment, to give people an idea of what to expect from the organization rather than just a statement that the organization is committed to diversity and whatnot? Even in the Python Software Foundation's case, they give little in the way of any indication of what they are actually doing per se in said statement, as opposed to merely stating their commitment to diversity.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:57 am But would you consider it ethical to use existing FOSS given the problems associated with it?

Oh, yes, definitely.
We live in an imperfect world. There's no software at all without its existing issues. In fact, the only way of not using anything with associated issues is to go run naked into the woods and hope to find edible mushrooms.
There are a lot of issues with FOSS (I'd add the elephant in the room: unpaid labor to the mix. Plus the unhealthy hackathon, work 24/7 culture.)
There are also a lot of issues with corporate software development. On the whole, I'd say FOSS has more hopes for the long run. So I keep using it.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:19 am it seems like dealing with general toxicity overall, especially with "equal opportunity abusers", would be more difficult.

I honestly don't know. I've been working in IT since, oh lord, 16 years already? in a wide selection of companies and public institutions and this has consistently been the main headache in the field.
For some reason, asshole behavior is considered normal, and if you point it out, people will keep finding excuses for the assholes, or just ignore the issue. I honestly don't know what can be done.

Honestly, I've always been very happy with IT but there are times when I'd rather just go farm potatoes than deal with yet another conceited, short-tempered fellow nerd/boss.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:10 am

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:57 am But would you consider it ethical to use existing FOSS given the problems associated with it?

Oh, yes, definitely.
We live in an imperfect world. There's no software at all without its existing issues. In fact, the only way of not using anything with associated issues is to go run naked into the woods and hope to find edible mushrooms.

Emphasis on run naked - there are problems with unfree labor in the supply chains for practically all clothing, from what I've read.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:10 am There are a lot of issues with FOSS (I'd add the elephant in the room: unpaid labor to the mix. Plus the unhealthy hackathon, work 24/7 culture.)

The thing about the unpaid labor is the issue is hard to avoid unless you forbid commercial use of otherwise-free code, and thus abandon a key point of FOSS, and find a way to enforce it, or you refuse to write code without some sort of Patreon-type arrangement (but then it is still very hard to make people pay for your code).

About the work 24/7 culture, I personally spend a good portion of my time outside of work working on my own code, but I do this because I enjoy programming and because I am working on what I want to work on - no one is making me do this.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:10 am There are also a lot of issues with corporate software development. On the whole, I'd say FOSS has more hopes for the long run. So I keep using it.

E.g. in many companies there is the expectation to work insane hours without any overtime, and unlike with FOSS you typically don't work on commercial software because you want to.

What is the deal with brutalist architecture and why does it garner so much praise and defense in architectural circles? Following the executive order by Trump banning modernist architecture for federal buildings, I have seen a flurry of articles defending brutalism and even associating it with left wing ideals. Yet despite my best efforts, I cannot help but find it ugly and alienating. Am I simply an architectural philistine, missing some key insight that illuminates the beauty of these buildings?

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:37 am What is the deal with brutalist architecture and why does it garner so much praise and defense in architectural circles? Following the executive order by Trump banning modernist architecture for federal buildings, I have seen a flurry of articles defending brutalism and even associating it with left wing ideals. Yet despite my best efforts, I cannot help but find it ugly and alienating. Am I simply an architectural philistine, missing some key insight that illuminates the beauty of these buildings?

Architects, like many types of artist, are given to pretension and defending the indefensible. Decry some obviously bad art and someone will inevitable pop up to defend it.

Don't worry, I don't much like brutalism either. We have a lot of it in this country, and it's almost universally horrible.

Brutalism was indeed associated with left-wing idealistic movements in its heyday.

I think the current fad for brutalism is a backlash against the prevalent idea that brutalism is just godawful and, worse, communist. Plus there's a fad for all things lefty in some circles.

I think the idea that there was never anything interesting about brutalism was misguided at best. They do guided tours of the seat of Communist Party here in Paris now (until recently considered a Stalinian monstrosity) and you know, it is genuinely interesting even if, like me, you know nothing about architecture. Another part is that brutalist buildings are never maintained properly. We all love, for instance, medieval or Renaissance buildings, but when they're not maintained they also look gloomy and alienating.

(That said, I'm all right with it considered part of our cultural heritage, but please don't go build any new ones and let's maybe just keep a few of the especially well made buildings...)

Coming back to the US from Taiwan was a surreal experience for me. I landed in Houston while the winter storm crisis was still going on and ended up in a hotel room with a faucet that would yield no more than one drop of water at a time in a bathroom whose doors looked like the door to the master bedroom here except older and more broken. I said to myself, "This is the US? This looks less like the US I remember than Taiwan did!"

The contrast between airport security in Taiwan and the US is also hilarious to me. When I was going through customs in Taipei before getting on the plane, I was rushing to put all my items in the right trays because airport security in the US is so rude they might as well just put a gun directly to your head and get it over with, but in Taiwan, the officers said with big ol' smiles, "沒關係！ 慢慢來！ (Méi guānxi! Mànmàn lái! 'It's okay! Take your time!')." Then I got to Houston, and it was like this lady told me to proceed to the booth, so I did, but the guy at the booth gruffly told me to go back (so I did), then he motioned for me to come forward (so I did), then he wanted me to go to the other side (so I did), then at some point he told me he needed to verify my ID or something, so I was like "oh, should I take off my mask?" Then he was like "yeah take it all off. Take everything off your face. Your glasses, too. "

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:37 am What is the deal with brutalist architecture and why does it garner so much praise and defense in architectural circles? Following the executive order by Trump banning modernist architecture for federal buildings, I have seen a flurry of articles defending brutalism and even associating it with left wing ideals. Yet despite my best efforts, I cannot help but find it ugly and alienating. Am I simply an architectural philistine, missing some key insight that illuminates the beauty of these buildings?

I think that's just what happens when you have a dirt-poor and ill-connected court. Courtiers at Versailles and such places could make it clear that they were courtiers at Versailles by wearing expensive and well-made clothes, but our courtiers can't afford to do that and wouldn't know how to dress well at any rate, and don't care to uphold traditional high culture because they associate it with The Enemy, so they make do with what they can afford: liking bad things and disliking good things, as a mark of distinction. If you like good things and dislike bad things, well, clearly you haven't gotten the memo - so you're a philistine, and not part of the court. The more people dislike it, the more cultured and courtly it is.

Tom Wolfe probably wrote about this at some point. (In keeping with signaling theory, Tom Wolfe was basically a Southern agrarian who saw the Yankee courts as beneath him.)

Vijay wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:51 pm Coming back to the US from Taiwan was a surreal experience for me. I landed in Houston while the winter storm crisis was still going on and ended up in a hotel room with a faucet that would yield no more than one drop of water at a time in a bathroom whose doors looked like the door to the master bedroom here except older and more broken. I said to myself, "This is the US? This looks less like the US I remember than Taiwan did!"

The contrast between airport security in Taiwan and the US is also hilarious to me. When I was going through customs in Taipei before getting on the plane, I was rushing to put all my items in the right trays because airport security in the US is so rude they might as well just put a gun directly to your head and get it over with, but in Taiwan, the officers said with big ol' smiles, "沒關係！ 慢慢來！ (Méi guānxi! Mànmàn lái! 'It's okay! Take your time!')." Then I got to Houston, and it was like this lady told me to proceed to the booth, so I did, but the guy at the booth gruffly told me to go back (so I did), then he motioned for me to come forward (so I did), then he wanted me to go to the other side (so I did), then at some point he told me he needed to verify my ID or something, so I was like "oh, should I take off my mask?" Then he was like "yeah take it all off. Take everything off your face. Your glasses, too. :x"

My experience with airport security and border control is that it's generally not unpleasant everywhere but the US. And Russia, though Russia's was where they just didn't say anything: I was standing at passport control for probably a good 5-10 minutes while the officer looked at every page of my passport with a magnifying glass and blacklight. Both on entering and exiting.

That said, I haven't flown/travelled in quite a while, so it'll be interesting once that starts up again, hopefully (fingers crossed) in July or August. During my stay in the Grandest of Duchies (which was pre-pandemic except for about six weeks), I was normally flying at least once every six months and travelling by train a lot otherwise, both for work and for personal travel. I don't miss the spending money on flight tickets or being enclosed in a tube for extended periods (like the 11-ish hours from Paris to Seoul), but I do miss going places and seeing friends of various flavors.

I don't know much about architecture, but I do know that certain kinds of "ugly" music temporarily increase my ability to calculate. Too much beautiful music lulls me into a kind of stupor. Traditionally, Buddhists tried to jerk consciousness into wakefulness by beating drums and wooden bells. This is the most aesthetically pleasant version I know of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3IcXVOrwiU

Having said that, I do not support the curation of a "left-wing culture". Right-wing cultural curation serves as a basis for absolutism, and I see no reason to think that left-wingers will prove morally superior in that department.

Airport security is usually unpleasant in France, at least IME. They're nowhere near as unpleasant as Homeland Security and US Customs, but they'd like to and they give it an honest shot.
(Security personnel in general are usually unpleasant, in equal measures in both countries or so it seems.)
(I was a smoker last time I went to the US and I wish I could have taken a picture of the Customs guy gingerly holding a carton of cigarettes, wondering -- I suppose -- it these were designer drugs or a top secret French WMD.)

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:35 pm Having said that, I do not support the curation of a "left-wing culture". Right-wing cultural curation serves as a basis for absolutism, and I see no reason to think that left-wingers will prove morally superior in that department.

I'm honestly pretty sure brutalism wouldn't have such a bad rep if it was associated with more right-wing ideals or none at all.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:29 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:35 pm Having said that, I do not support the curation of a "left-wing culture". Right-wing cultural curation serves as a basis for absolutism, and I see no reason to think that left-wingers will prove morally superior in that department.

I'm honestly pretty sure brutalism wouldn't have such a bad rep if it was associated with more right-wing ideals or none at all.

The J. Edgar Hoover Building's bad rep has nothing to do with its ideals.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:35 pm Having said that, I do not support the curation of a "left-wing culture". Right-wing cultural curation serves as a basis for absolutism, and I see no reason to think that left-wingers will prove morally superior in that department.

Cultural curation is inevitable given the existence of mass culture and institutions to support it. If you mean mass culture shouldn't exist, I agree, but unfortunately there's no movement in the US to ban radio, television, Amazon, and schools.

But the American experience with right-wing cultural curation is... well, the worst charge anyone levels against it is that Dalton Trumbo, who was, in fact, taking his orders from Moscow, had to use a pseudonym for a few years. Who cares? It might be different now, of course, now that we no longer correctly recognize Hegel as an earthly manifestation of the devil.

It's also worth remembering that the alternative to Trump's architectural diktat got passersby brained by falling chunks of béton brut. Architects can eat shit and do what they're told, just as they did before Trump, as the Alexander-Eisenman debate demonstrated.

Peter Eisenman, incidentally, was the guy who built the Holocaust memorial in Berlin that people keep trying to use as a playground, for the simple reason that it is one. So he's either a troll or an idiot - but either way, Wikipedia informs me that he's one of the "New York Five", whatever that means. Christopher Alexander, OTOH, is mostly known because some programmers liked his books and thought their concepts could be adapted to software development. Versailles!

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 6:55 pm
Peter Eisenman, incidentally, was the guy who built the Holocaust memorial in Berlin that people keep trying to use as a playground, for the simple reason that it is one. So he's either a troll or an idiot (...)

Or, er, you know, the tourists being disrespectful there are trolls and idiots, if not worse. I mean, regardless of your opinion of the memorial itself, what the hell don't these people understand about 'Holocaust Memorial'?

(It's a matter of taste, of course, but I found that memorial creepy as hell, which is at least appropriate. I don't really get the urge of goofing off there: it looks just like a cemetary, the extremely sad kind.)

It's also worth remembering that the alternative to Trump's architectural diktat got passersby brained by falling chunks of béton brut.

I'm not familiar with that piece of American news, but I guarantee you that brutalist buildings typically don't do that.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 6:55 pm Cultural curation is inevitable given the existence of mass culture and institutions to support it. If you mean mass culture shouldn't exist, I agree, but unfortunately there's no movement in the US to ban radio, television, Amazon, and schools.

On the contrary, I don't think prescriptive definitions of culture as specific to politics, country, etc. should be taken seriously at all.

Aside from absolutism, if beliefs were grounded in reason rather than a lifestyle, then people like Eddy wouldn't have grounds to associate their politics with a desire to move to Seattle and work in a cafe or whatever it was.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 6:55 pm It might be different now, of course, now that we no longer correctly recognize Hegel as an earthly manifestation of the devil.

According to the intellectual Nazi Heidegger, Hegel was the height of achievement of the Western intellectual tradition.* But I suppose it is not clear who represents the Real West TM, Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther. Should one of these factions triumph over the other, I have no doubt you'll proceed to the next controversy, and then the next, ad infinitum.

I don't know enough to comment on the structural integrity of brutalist architecture vis-a-vis other kinds. I don't see any immediate results from searching Google.

*Actually, this confuses me. On the one hand, Marx bad because he destroys the West by inverting Hegel. On the other hand, Heidegger sets himself the task of destroying the Western tradition to recover primordial Being. Maybe this is justified somewhere. If so, I missed it. I can imagine justifications, but none of them really make sense. For example, if destroying the West has become necessary owing to the Marxist inversion, then how is Plato the villain?

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 7:24 pm

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 6:55 pm
Peter Eisenman, incidentally, was the guy who built the Holocaust memorial in Berlin that people keep trying to use as a playground, for the simple reason that it is one. So he's either a troll or an idiot (...)

Or, er, you know, the tourists being disrespectful there are trolls and idiots, if not worse. I mean, regardless of your opinion of the memorial itself, what the hell don't these people understand about 'Holocaust Memorial'?

(It's a matter of taste, of course, but I found that memorial creepy as hell, which is at least appropriate. I don't really get the urge of goofing off there: it looks just like a cemetary, the extremely sad kind.)

It looks like a cemetery in pictures. In person? I've been there and I agree with the tourists.

I'm not familiar with that piece of American news, but I guarantee you that brutalist buildings typically don't do that.

Eisenman's Holocaust memorial has similar structural problems to the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the prominent brutalist building in DC which is regarded as a horrid failure by everyone who isn't an architect.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:40 pm On the contrary, I don't think prescriptive definitions of culture as specific to politics, country, etc. should be taken seriously at all.

Curation doesn't require a definition, and it's inescapably inherent in the logic of certain forms of mass culture. Not all pilots are turned into TV shows; not all pitches are turned into movies. The act of deciding which are and which aren't is curation. The act of deciding which will be high-profile, which will be discussed in all the right places, which will be covered in the fashion magazines of the overschooled mind, etc. is also curation. The rural purge was curation. The cancellation and uncancellation of Duck Dynasty were both curation. Hell, Erdogan visiting the set of Filinta was curation.

(Filinta was a decent show - I managed to get twenty or so episodes in before giving up, which is more than I can say about any American show I've tried to watch.)

According to the intellectual Nazi Heidegger, Hegel was the height of achievement of the Western intellectual tradition.* But I suppose it is not clear who represents the Real West TM, Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther. Should one of these factions triumph over the other, I have no doubt you'll proceed to the next controversy, and then the next, ad infinitum.

Who said anything about the West? The attitude of American philosophy departments during our golden age was "the wogs start at Calais". To the extent that that's changing, it's not a good sign - Rorty was a monster, but continental Europe has plenty of monsters itself, and most were dedicated to worse causes than the New Deal.

As for Aquinas and Luther, was the height of Anglosphere popular music King Crimson or GG Allin?

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:52 pm Curation doesn't require a definition, and it's inescapably inherent in the logic of certain forms of mass culture. Not all pilots are turned into TV shows; not all pitches are turned into movies. The act of deciding which are and which aren't is curation. The act of deciding which will be high-profile, which will be discussed in all the right places, which will be covered in the fashion magazines of the overschooled mind, etc. is also curation. The rural purge was curation. The cancellation and uncancellation of Duck Dynasty were both curation. Hell, Erdogan visiting the set of Filinta was curation.

(Filinta was a decent show - I managed to get twenty or so episodes in before giving up, which is more than I can say about any American show I've tried to watch.)

Once there is no definition, you will be exposed to the brutal reality that there is no natural consensus on what values hold society together. The best critics on the left and right might say Rent is horrible and it makes no sense, while the people might watch it compulsively anyway. In this situation, I would say, so much the worse for the critics.

This stance rejects curation in the sense that the people don't like Rent for any reason they can lucidly express or because they belong to any particular identity. If giving in to irrational desire is a form of curation, then that the only curation I accept.

It doesn't even matter whether Rent is good or bad, putting desire beyond the purview of good and evil. In the end, I also support rationality on this basis. We should be rational to an irrational extent, only because we want to, and unconstrained by considerations like whether it is good or bad for us to be rational in certain ways.

This approach is ultimately grounded in the German Romantic tradition, but there are also indications of it in Japan. However, the Japanese strain is infused with values like loyalty, cf. the Hagakure.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:52 pm Who said anything about the West? The attitude of American philosophy departments during our golden age was "the wogs start at Calais". To the extent that that's changing, it's not a good sign - Rorty was a monster, but continental Europe has plenty of monsters itself, and most were dedicated to worse causes than the New Deal.

As for Aquinas and Luther, was the height of Anglosphere popular music King Crimson or GG Allin?

If the wogs start at Calais, does that mean you are no longer representing Catholicism?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:27 pm Once there is no definition, you will be exposed to the brutal reality that there is no natural consensus on what values hold society together. The best critics on the left and right might say Rent is horrible and it makes no sense, while the people might watch it compulsively anyway. In this situation, I would say, so much the worse for the critics.

And? Values talk is aspirational at best anyway, and "proposition nation" conservatives don't even believe what they say - otherwise they'd advocate for exiling natural-born monarchists. As far as I know, nobody's proposed revoking Mencius Moldbug's citizenship. If what a society is can be defined at all, Benedict Anderson got closer to the definition than Dennis Prager or whoever.

This stance rejects curation in the sense that the people don't like Rent for any reason they can lucidly express or because they belong to any particular identity. If giving in to irrational desire is a form of curation, then that the only curation I accept.

Your use of the word "curation" sounds very different from mine - when I say "curation", I mean it in the sense of an admissions board, an editor, or the designers of a museum exhibit. There are more objects in the museum than the exhibit has space for, and more submissions to the editor than the magazine has pages for - someone has to decide what's in and what's out, and out of what's in, what's central and what's peripheral.

If the wogs start at Calais, does that mean you are no longer representing Catholicism?

What? I was never a Catholic. Some of them have some good ideas about economics, that's all. (And architecture, and having something more constructive than Netflix to do on Sundays, etc.) The problem with capitalism is that there are too few capitalists. I just happened to read Chesterton before James C. Scott, but obviously it's a personal failing that I'm not a cabinetmaker - I have to show up to work on time and can't evade taxes.