The words have meaning. If you don't understand them you could just ask for them to be explained rather than throwing out insults. I suspect you actually do understand the meaning of what was written though so I suppose that means you're just trying to start a flamewar.

The problem is that "leveraging" can be replaced with "using" every time, with the added benefit that it won't leave a bad taste in the reader's mouth.

This is what I mean.

There is no agreed upon measurement of job performance that transcends the partisan divide.

Well, as a german, where this happens often enough: If a law gets truck down by the Federal Constitutional Court ("Bundesverfassungsgericht") as being in violation of the constitution, this universally can be seen as a bad job performance for the lawmakers. They know the law was in violation of the constitution, still they agreed upon it. It's their fucking job to make sure laws are not in violation of the constitution. This clearly justifies a strike.

> It's their fucking job to make sure laws are not in violation of the constitution.

Well, not really: That's the constitutional court's job.

This is a typical condescending blockchain enthusiast line. Stop implying that the critics don't understand how things work, it's insulting, intellectually lazy and false. When the blockchain is actually useful enthusiasts won't have to beg everyone to give it a chance.

It's statistically possible, so why not?

This is an oft repeated fallacy by blockchain enthusiasts. Skeptical predictions from the past that turned out to be incorrect in hindsight has absolutely zero relevance to the viability of blockchain technology.

Well, you would invoke the point to challenge dismissal which I think is fair.

Airing skepticism of a technology does little more than fuel forum fights after all.

It's not "fair" as far as logical argumentation is concerned because the statement proves nothing since it is equally true of successful technologies as it is of failed technologies. It is an absolutely meaningless platitude.

Sure you can, just store them in .sql files and have your CI system auto deploy them.

It's unfortunate that you take such an inflammitory tone when you're so completely incorrect. They are constant, end of story.

This makes no sense. Have you ever used a web forum before reddit? People get banned all the time for arbitrary reasons on forums all over the web, why should reddit be any different? "The internet" has not been turned into anything, it remains the same as it has always been, a place where communities of varying interests can interact at their own discretion, a freedom which includes the prerogative to exclude anything the administrators deem off topic, offensive, annoying or even boring.

The internet gives everyone the freedom to create a community of their own, and it's easier, cheaper and the experience is better than ever when doing so. There are already popular "anything goes" discussion forums (e.g. 4chan, voat) that give much wider room to "freedom of expression", so how have companies like reddit or google prevented others from operating in any fashion they find acceptable within the confines of their own communities? The answer is they haven't.

I've used Slashdot before reddit. Nobody got banned for anything except spam.

I've been on BBSes and various forums since 1987.

Reddit is the only site where I've been banned off a single sub. And this was to correct an error referencing my own work and expertise.

As far as I can tell, they've gone overboard on their censoring, marketing and propaganda.

If you're rebuilding aspects of your production system for the sake of "incorporating newness" then the problem is poor engineering not react or any other tool. If things are working fine as they are, you only have yourself to blame when you introduce new technology that you find too complex to manage.

It does not follow logically that just because men and women are biologically different that those differences are necessarily significant with regard to career distributions.

It does follow that we should not expect them to be the same.

Not necessarily (based solely on the axiom that men and women have different brain chemistry).

It is logically possible that the differences we observe in career distributions are more heavily influenced by other factors besides differences in brain chemistry.

Lets consider a sociology view. When it comes to inter-sex competition there is a sexual dimorphism where men competes and derive status over resources and women over social relations. This would causes behavior divergence for both boys and girls, especially during adolescence, where both sexes will do status-seeking behavior and favor career choices that best fulfill their goals.

That sexual dimorphism could in turn be caused by a different brain chemistry or by cultural values. From studies that look at different indigenous people, it seems universal that women select men based on a mans ability to gather resources, and men selects women based on their ability to raise and nurture a family. Inter-sex dominance hierarchy also follow those lines.

I feel you're being too permissive of the possibility that culture drives gender roles. It seems implausible that culture would cause every civilization however isolated to organize itself along very similar gender roles. I understand you are alluding to this; I just want to put a fine point on it.

Maybe, but it certainly doesn't follow that career preferences are the same or that culture is the primary driver for career distributions. Never mind that culture is a function of biology.