Azure is a good product, though. And, more importantly, the person is familiar with it.
If I was doing something similar, I'd probably use GCP. Not necessarily because it's superior (i like it a lot, btw), but because I can achieve my goals faster that way.
Good news, the CoC is inclusive for you, with the following:
"those who wish to participate" ... "are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that honors the overarching spirit of the rule, even if they disagree with specific details. Polite and professional discussion is always welcomed, from anyone."
It's weird, though, right? I mean, flip the logic.
What if someone had a code of conduct that was clearly about people treating each other well...but started it with "First, you must acknowledge that there is no God." Or "First you must acknowledge that Mohammad is God's messenger." Or "First you must accept the mitzvot as binding." Or "Brahman is Truth and Reality."
None of these is promoting inclusion.
That said: I'm an observer here. I haven't chosen to participate or not participate in the SQLite community because of this. I simply think it's a strange place to promote one's religion, and it doesn't surprise me that non-Christians might find it unwelcoming.
I reject this premise that every CoC must "promote inclusion" i.e. be approved in full by some social marxist Politburo notionally intended to protect everyone's "feelings" by expunging and banning everything that might be considered "offensive". If you want that for your own project, fine, but you have no right to force it onto others.
In any case, western civ has deep roots in the christian tradition and I don't know any atheists that are so extremely fragile or sensitive that they are "offended" by simply seeing people repeating 1500+ year old fragments of it. Especially when they use the disclaimers that were used here.
I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything, and I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that I am. If someone wants their OSS project to be appealing to the 1/6th of the people in the world who consider themselves to be Christians, that's fine.
If they want to try to be appealing to, say, 7/7ths of the developers out there, they might want to do something different.
> appealing to the 1/6th of the people in the world who consider themselves to be Christians
I don’t consider myself Christians but I like CoC a lot. It even made me think why I only used sqlite when I had to.
To me the CoC doesn’t say I’m excluded. It says a couple of other things however, that author’s not ashamed of who he is, he’s sincere, and he knows about 1st amendment. I think all of these things are good.
Well i love Sqlite and also don't consider myself Christian and i am quite baffled by this. I mean this is some strange place to promote Christianity. It is suprising considering how tech tries to always paint itself as apolitical.
Seriously i can't imagine the uproar and hate if he was a Muslim. Imagine how many tech leads would immediately start figuring out how to completely change their stack and replace sqlite with leveldb.
If he were a muslim and added some Sufi-inspired rules I don't think there would have been more complaints than the Rule of St. Benedict gave rise to. If he cited those parts of islamic scripture which call for conquest by the sword there would - hopefully - have been uproar as those espouse an exclusive and oppressive ideology, just like there would have been more of an uproar if the sqlite project cited the more vile parts of, say, Deuteronomium.
I see this 'code of conduct' as a literary form of pro-biotics [1], there to protect against invasion by harmful non-transcendental religions like intersectionality which have the capacity to sow discord and tear communities apart into warring factions. Even though I do not believe in transcendental gods I have no problems accepting the Rule as I see it for what it is, an abstraction of monastic life written to the benefit of medieval monks. I am under no vow of obedience or poverty and I am rarely in a situation where I have to bury the dead so I know I can skip those parts which are not applicable. In truth, I realise I can skip just about everything except the bit which tells me to treat others as I'd like to be treated myself.
[1] a mixture of safe bacteria which is supposed to colonise the gut to keep the bad ones out
It says 'love God'. It doesn't say 'acknowlege God exists'. The latter may be a prerequisite of the former, but the explicit rules are distinct, and have different flavors.
Your logic is at fault, at least regarding atheists: atheists are expected to be tolerant of religious beliefs, but no religious person is expected to be tolerant of atheist (non-) beliefs.
Expected by whom? There were and are "warlike" atheists, who actively fight, mock and even eradicate religious objects and people, and there are, thankfully, a lot of religious people, who tolerate atheists' non-beliefs.
Aside from the fact that the SQLite CoC does not use the language "you must", none of those statements bother me.
I think the SQLite's author is just trying to make a statement of "hey, there's us Christians out here, and this is actually what we believe in[1]".
1. Let's just avoid the reality that there are many people who call themselves Christians who don't follow those rules, and do many horrible things. Those people exist in virtually every demographic.
Something written, without the explicit goal of being enforced, or expected, whatsoever.
He could have equally written: "We expect those participating in the SQLite project to murder at least three people by Sunday - but if you don't do it, it is fine too"
Leftist Atheist here... I have no problem with this Code of Conduct. This isn't like "In god we trust" on our currency or the 10 Commandments in our courthouses. I could contribute to this project with a clear conscience because a lot of what I believe is very much in line with Christ's (if he even actually existed) actual teachings. Take care of the poor. Don't judge people who have differing lifestyles than you do. Love your neighbor. Do unto others. Etc.
I think the Golden Rule is a wonderful Code of Conduct and it's how I try to live my life. If only more people followed that rule.
The author had a chance to make his CoC the golden rule. But instead he made a deeply religious statement. He has full right to do what he wants, but to also claim that this is somehow inclusive because you can close your eyes to things incompatible with you is nonsense, sorry.
All religions teach largely the same good things, but you generally won't see their devotees agreeing to any document that proclaims their love for a different God.
And yet atheists are expected to swallow that. No thanks.
Swallow how though? Feel dirty when submitting a patch? I really don't understand the west's fascination with these codes and statements. Why not just do your work and avoid drama?
By standing up for/against things like CoC as opposed to actual incidents, nothing is really achieved except - I believe the term is bike shedding?
Open source exists so that everyone can contribute their talents to something that benefits everybody. If Joseph Stalin or bin Laden wrote a great patch, I'd want it. We'd all be better for it. We can fight his ideas in a different arena. It doesn't have to be the SQLite mailing list. It is not a sensible place to have these other types of ideological battles.
Here in the third world life is hard. Business ethics are non existent, workplaces are dominated by obsession with job security. If you have to make a life for yourself, you have to do your work. I find perhaps the greatest "white privilege" as it seems to be called in the west, is having the luxury of debating CoCs instead of supporting yourself and your family.
> I really don't understand the west's fascination with these codes and statements. Why not just do your work and avoid drama?
And you will never understand it if you look at "the west" as a single organism. Its millions of people with different opinions. They don't have to be consistent with each other.
CoCs exist to promote desired (usually understood as "professional") communication and collaboration standards in open source projects. People who want to bring their political or religious agenda into those CoCs are indeed largely undesired even in "the west", that's why this particular CoC riled up so much attention.
> Why not just do your work and avoid drama?
I'd love that, and I'm doing that. But I'm not a "turn the other cheek" kind of person, and I'll call out bullshit when I see it. This here is bullshit.
> If Joseph Stalin or bin Laden wrote a great patch, I'd want it. We'd all be better for it.
That theoretical programmer-Bin-Laden would never contribute a patch to a project with SQLite's new CoC because it is incompatible with his faith. You said we would be better off if he did, so by your own logic such a religious CoC is detrimental to us, which is why it is a problem.
> It doesn't have to be the SQLite mailing list. It is not a sensible place to have these other types of ideological battles.
Indeed, it is not a sensible place because SQLite itself is not a sensible place for religion. But its author made it a place for religion, with very predictable consequences.
> Here in the third world life is hard.
> I find perhaps the greatest "white privilege" [...], is having the luxury of debating CoCs instead of supporting yourself and your family.
That's perhaps a bit of an overstatement, and definitely a false dichotomy. Moreover, here you are enjoying the same white privilege in the third world. A bit hypocritical to accuse others of something you yourself are engaging in, don't you think?
> And you will never understand it if you look at "the west" as a single organism. Its millions of people with different opinions. They don't have to be consistent with each other.
It isn't a single organism, this attitude is a very popular one in the west, that's all.
> That theoretical programmer-Bin-Laden would never contribute a patch to a project with SQLite's new CoC because it is incompatible with his faith. You said we would be better off if he did, so by your own logic such a religious CoC is detrimental to us, which is why it is a problem.
Is why I had Stalin in there too. I guess I can add David Duke as well, I'll add as many examples as required for the point to be made, which you have avoided.
> Indeed, it is not a sensible place because SQLite itself is not a sensible place for religion. But its author made it a place for religion, with very predictable consequences.
Many of these sacred cows like diversity, tolerance, political correctness, etc. are all religious ideas. By using religion, the author makes an excellent point, one that is sadly lost on many though.
As for me, I am stating my apathy towards CoCs and the communities behind whichever open source project I need, so no, I am not debating CoCs. Like I said, I would gladly use Joseph Stalin's library for my projects.
Anyone familiar with Christian tradition will understand the reference to the Gospel: Jesus says that "love God" and "love your neighbour" (# 2 on the list) are the chief commandments and equally important. That's fine. Even if atheists think nothing of God anyone can think the best of the next man.
But how am I to understand the requirement in the Ada Initiative-derived FreeBSD code of conduct? In all seriousness, it demands that contributors do not selectively quote from private communication to give a false impression! Is there a special spirituality behind it, a context that I'm not aware of, or are they just stating the obvious? And who needs to be told the rudiments of human interaction in this form? Best, let's stay away from this morass. If the FreeBSD crowd needs to be told that to function, that's a bad sign.
I'm pretty sure, if you are offended by the word God, you can substitute another word, such as "Ayn Rand" or "the human intellect". Nobodys insisting that you have to do...anything really.
I am not offended by someone's personally held religious beliefs. I am, however, deliberately excluded if participating means adhering to a code of conduct that targets my beliefs.
A general problem with this genre of claims is that they're pure confirmation bias: you don't notice the people who don't tell you, because they don't tell you.
> there's no "View As" which will show you someone's search and location history
Not in the UI, no. But once you have the token, which is what this was, then you can request that from many of the UI API interfaces facebook provides.
When this first leaked, anyone who worked with auth systems immediately assumed it was a game over scenario.
I had only followed general-consumption reports here, and hadn't seen that the attack involved obtaining a token that allowed the attacker to authenticate as the user, and I didn't realize that the API included support for pulling search history data. Given that, I understand much better why this was a disaster from the beginning, and why people are so mistrustful of the rolling "and also this..." disclosures.
It's because sometimes, such as when Apple takes a year to update a line, that you can find an ultrabook that costs half of what Apple is offering for similar specs (or in some cases, same price, much worse specs).
It's not as severe as it used to be now that returns are diminishing on new generations of components, but even three/four years ago, it could be startling.
This has been happening for years, especially in the "botnet community". Either someone takes down someone else's botnet through the same bug and patches it or figures out a bug in the botnet and caps it for themselves (for example, getting ops in the CNC channel). I think Microsoft has even done in cooperation this a few times; it's dubious legal territory.
You can see some historical examples, both recent (Mirai had some viruses that went around closing the bug), as well as further in the past (there's one that escapes me, it must have been around 2010?)
I wish I could cite more, I'm going to spend some time researching this and make a list for myself, it's surprisingly interesting!
English has a lot of unwritten rules as well. Which sounds correct?
I have a large red ball.
I have a red large ball.
I imagine german has the same, and I wonder if it's one of those cases. For example, to a german speaker, it would be completely clear that Dave is the one who forgot the book because the first subject mentioned is always the relevant one, or something like that.
OMG - negative is the format for making prints. And the prints are hardly 35mm, are they? Maybe I was too brief, and I was pedantic, but not pointlessly so.
Some points -
- as it was formulated, you could have assumed they meant positive and negative film
- you make prints from negative film
- plot twist - those images don't reflect the resolution of 35mm at all, or even small prints made from 35mm film. So the text says there are 800 000 35mm film images - but what we see are 800 000 NTSC video stills. Quite the difference.
That's because the digitized images (at minimum, the majority) aren't from the original film. Around 1989, the Municipal Archives Collection started archiving the most recent images on LaserDisc. That process was clearly destructive (to the 'archived' copy; not the original); given that the landscape photos fill the frame, they were clearly cropped. When the MAC went to digitize the images, they "extracted low-resolution tiffs of each frame from the LVDs for viewing in the gallery."[0] Others at that link appear to have been pulled from the original film. Hopefully, that means all of the originals were preserved for future scanning.
Anyhow, according to a separate source quoting a NYC Tax Photos page that's no longer available,[1] the used 35mm film when they originally shot every building in the five boroughs between 1939 and 1941 (~ 720,000 black-and-white 35mm negatives) and when they later updated the photos between 1983 and 1988 (~800,000 negatives and prints). Starting ~1989, they then archived those latest photos on LaserDisc. Presumably because they'd be easier for tax assessors to work with.
The 1939-1941 collection was shot on black-and-white negative film. For the 1983-1988 photos, all of the sources I've found state that they were "in both print and negative formats." Which may or may not be helpful, as it's not uncommon for people to sometimes positive/slide film as "negatives" even though it's...wrong. You'd probably have to contact the archive to verify that.
Given the use case--a massive archive of images that can be quickly referenced by tax assessors--I find that odd if not unlikely. For that kind of massive volume, slides are easier to work with (toss a bunch on a giant light box) and take up much less storage space. Most importantly, slide film was--I believe--generally cheaper to buy and process in the 80s, not to mention it let you skip having to get prints made altogether.
Aside from the DOF tax photos, the MAC has a massive number of other photos and documents online. Assuming you don't die of boredom waiting for the pages to load, it's fascinating.[2]
I have an interest in this from several points of view. I like photography, in particular on film, I have a modest Laserdisc collection and I am interested in the history of that format. Presumably the images are in "CAV" format, which means they would be perfect still images on a TV set and also searchable by index. IIRC 9999 images could be searched on a single Laserdisc. (But maybe more, certainly the format is capable of holding many more images per side, IIRC 50 000 images per side, but maybe not in individual indexes.)
Also the Laserdisc existed in a write once, read many format - rather similar to CDR technology, but of course analog and very expensive by today's standards. I imagine that is what they used, although they could have ordered a limited pressing run, but that would have been incredibly expensive if they didn't need many copies of the discs.
Watching the quality of your replies improve in this thread is exactly why I love reading the comments on HN. This is a prime example of an effective community.
Watching someone write a well researched and thought out answer to a, let's face it, sketchy (as well as downvoted) comment is another reason to love HN. :)
Not to mention consent...