That someone is even pointing this out should give most people in the US a cause for concern. Sadly most people in the US have no idea what real cheese or chocolate actually tastes like.
> Sadly most people in the US have no idea what real cheese...
Oh? Interesting.
> An Italian academic has caused more than a stir after saying the recipe for carbonara is American and the only place in the world to find bona fide parmesan cheese nowadays is Wisconsin.
> Alberto Grandi, a professor of food history at the University of Parma, made the remarks in an interview with the Financial Times.
What Grandi actually wrote was that Parmesan Cheese, which was imported into the US by Italians, continued to evolve in Italy but not in the US. I have no way of verifying whether this is true but it wouldn't be terribly surprising if it was, and in any way, this doesn't imply any value judgement whatsoever.
Of course, the media are more interested in controversy, so they turn that into "bona fide parmesan cheese only exists in Wisconsin".
Babcock Hall at UW is also like the world leading expert institution on dairy and cheese, too. (Try their ice cream, it's literal perfection from the ingredients to exact temperatures required to get the precise consistency)
If there are so many great local creameries around why then do you have Kraft and Mars products dominating most of the US stores? Oh I can answer that, it's because the US is a corporatocracy that only cares about profits.
"I’m decent at figuring things out ad-hoc, but that counts for nothing."
That counts for a lot. You shouldn't discount it. Some of the best programmers I every worked with didn't have a degree. However, having said that you need the passion for it. I'm assuming you still like tech, since you are posting on HN?
If you do want to give software a try again, maybe try working on an open source project. Most projects need all kinds of things besides programming. Writing tutorials for example or other developer advocate type things can lead to a different career.
> That counts for a lot. You shouldn't discount it.
Hasn’t done me any good yet. It doesn’t get me through applications, and it doesn’t help when interviews just want you to regurgitate things with perfect accuracy/timing. Plus it’s hard to put it on a resume, when a lot of the more impressive things I’ve managed to do don’t fit in with my work experience.
I’ve wondered about dev advocate roles before. I don’t see them as much as I used to though. I guess I’m just not sure how to write a resume for something completely different then what my work experience says I’m qualified for.
Are you talking about money or fame? Honestly, I think most folks who work in open source are either funded by some sort of start up or they are independently wealthy and can spend time working on projects that "interests them".
However having said this, I do think that contributing to an OSS project is a great way to get a job in the "real world". <--- whatever that means.
This is a re-invention of the wheel. Many companies in the past had non-managerial career paths for technical people, and for some reason this fact, along with many other things, becomes "an innovation" by the current generation.
Did it ever go anywhere? I think it just takes a company of a certain size to be able to have a (formal, with some kind of written scope or responsibility anyway) IC track.
Imagine a little start-up with a 'Distinguished Engineer' and slew of Principals and Staffs, it'd seem a bit weird wouldn't it? Even if they distinguished themselves elsewhere. Maybe it's just me.
I suppose, but it does need some top-level leadership, and those (vs 'head of' or whatever) are reflective of legal structure.
Have you ever seen/heard of one with a DE? My starting point was that it basically/presumably doesn't happen - 'imagine' - and that it would seem weird if it did. If it is fina and normal as you suggest then ok, it is just me (as I said it might be), and I haven't come across it.
Of course it needs some leadership, but the multiple "C" levels are mostly just about ego management, very little to do with day-to-day or scope, in practice.
Hell you don't need any C levels at all. The legal structure doesn't require it, corporate directors is not tied to title ... there are few things that have to exist, and it's mostly about who can sign contracts that bind your company.
Fundraising is probably easier if you go out as "CEO" just because expectations are met, but that's a separate issue.
Definitely, but the point is that technical people shouldn't feel like they need to take the managerial route to "get ahead". In the same vein, managers should become managers because they are good at managing people and not because they are the smartest people in the room.
That is what I mean by attractive; whether one path gets you ahead significantly better than the other. Otherwise people will flock to the attractive path, leading to a worse overall outcome for the organization.
It's a bit like making sure the characters in a game are balanced so the game "works".
I guess it depends on what you mean by "getting you ahead". It takes a mature and confident organization to implement this type of strategy for sure and allowing people, who are not managers, to make some of the strategic decisions.
Not GP but isn't it obvious? Compensation, future prospects.
If managers are paid more you're putting a price on how much someone has to dislike managing people or prefer spending their time ICing for someone else. I don't think many people will pay much (in opportunity cost) for that.
And probably more significant than the initial bump for many is when they're looking for the next job elsewhere, and can say 'led a team of x many' vs. not.
Most technical people I've met who bemoan the "fact" that they would make more at their company as a manager (mediocre or otherwise) would also have the option of moving companies and/or industries to a technical role that pays better. And yet, they don't. Mostly because it turns out the preference isn't just about $$, but about all the other factors (I don't want to move, I don't want to work on X, I only want to work on Y, it's too big, it's too small, they don't give enough holiday, whatever).
So what it really comes down to is that they disagree with the company about how it values their relative contributions. Which is obviously fine, but do you really think the average IC has the data or experience to evaluate this well? Many of the rants I've heard along these lines were pretty naive about the business.
Just know that if you support Delany you're supporting the sexual abuse of children.
“I read the NAMBLA [Bulletin] fairly regularly and I think it is one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality I’ve ever found. I think before you start judging what NAMBLA is about, expose yourself to it and see what it is really about. What the issues they are really talking about, and deal with what’s really there rather than this demonized notion of guys running about trying to screw little boys. I would have been so much happier as an adolescent if NAMBLA had been around when I was 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.” — Samuel R. Delany, June 25, 1994.
There's certainly more to be found, and it gets considerably worse. He's not the only one in that era's sci fi author peer group either. Moira Greyland's account of her childhood with Marion Zimmer Bradley, her mother, is harrowing.
Is "support" always transitive? To support someone is necessarily to support everything they support? What does "support" mean, anyway?
To read and enjoy a book by him necessarily means I'm "supporting" everything he has ever supported, including in the past?
Why would it work that way?
(This is not meant to say anything either way on whether Delany "supports the sexual abuse of children". I suppose that's another transitive property of support... if I 'support' Delany who 'supports' NAMBLA which 'supports'... )
Take NAMBLA out of the equation and Delany is still a man who promotes that man/boy sexual relationships aren't intrinsically abusive and should not be criminalized. There's nothing transitive about that.
He has not changed that opinion, nor is he ever going to. And yes, if you support his work then I'm going to look at you funny, just like if you had a painting by a certain German politician on your wall - and that goes double when you try to dissemble what his beliefs actually are.
This is pretty funny. Rail against browser boss Brendan Eich on HN for his anti gay marriage donations - all good. Rail against LGBTQ writer Samuel Delany on HN for his child rape advocacy - not good. Separation of art and artist, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, downvotes, etc.
I hypothesize that the negative response of a surprising number of readers is due to tripping some kind of pro-LGBTQ+ support mental programming rather than their taking a principled stand in favor of advocating the rape of little boys. Nevertheless whether it’s a principled stand or a knee jerk reaction, anyone who experiences a negative emotional response to opposing child rape, same sex or otherwise, has a serious problem and should get help.
What does "support Delany" mean? Imo you need to separate the art from the artist, and thus one can enjoy the art without necessarily aligning with the artist' views.
This was a statement Samuel Delany had well over two decades ago. Additionally it's clear Samuel Delany was himself a victim of child sexual assault if you knew anything else about him.
A lot of authors are deeply problematic. That doesn't mean you can't like their work unless a) their problematic views are baked into their work or b) they profit off their work and use that profit as a platform for their horrible views. Neither is the case here.
This is discussed in the article and while not a position I support, I think leaving out this detail does him a major disservice: "Yet he has refused to retract the comments—in part because of his own sexual experiences with men as an underage boy, which he refuses to characterize as abusive."
I find that overall hard to fully condemn the person for, vs to separate out those views from his work, as I've never seen anything about him personally acting that way himself with any boys. (Though you say there's more to be found,so... what is it?) I'm no doctor, but the "standard" media-presented look at a situation like that would probably be something like manifestations of trauma from those encounters at young ages combined with the other traumas of growing up gay in America at the time, which I largely file in the "bad but understandable and not actively harming others" bucket.
Reading this article, it makes me recall all the pop songs from the 80s which had lyrics like "...she's only seventeen!" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_(Winger_song)). I don't think Winger was a member of NAMBLA.
Equating someone that recommends some magazine, that then publishes a story about sex, to child sex abuse, is a bit of a stretch. Since you browsed HN, which had a link to an interview, with someone that read an article once about sex, does that make you a child sex abuser?
A lot of sci-fi authors have 'weird sex' stories. Not only was it the sixties, they are sci-fi authors in the sixties, writing about alien sex and all kinds of out of the box thinking.
I could just as easily say, don't vote Republican, they have a large percentage of sex abusers in office. Or, don't be Catholic.
The funny part is that it isn't homosexuality being public that's at fault for men being afraid to show platonic affection just because they might therefore be mistaken for being gay, it's the fault of there being a stigma against being gay, otherwise why would anyone care about being mistaken for being gay? It's such a disingenuous argument to blame gay people being accepted in society for men being afraid to do things that might make them look gay and not homophobia. It's basically the definition of victim blaming.
Interesting point, but I think it's not quite right. It's the fault of men thinking there's still a stigma against being gay. (Or perhaps feeling that there is.)
"Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones." Short story, bootleg scan available online; I have no qualms telling people to start with that since they'll want to buy the rest of the collection soon enough. It's my favorite of his stories in a lot of ways. The characters are fun, every word (or at least every sentence) is essential to building the world, it has a very strong sense of place that's so common in his work.
I would /not/ suggest starting with Dhalgren. You will enjoy it more if you learn how to read Delany from his other works. Work through his super-accessible shorts, then Stars in my Pocket for an intro to theme and style, then Triton for an intro to disagreeable protagonists in his work. Then back to Babel-17 / Nova for use of language, and then -- if you enjoyed all of those -- on to Dhalgren for the first attempt.
