I hear your viewpoint, but parents do have a right to teach their religious beliefs to their children. There is no law or social imperative that children must be taught a secular view point. At the end of the day, there are over 7 billion people in the world, it's okay if some of them believe differently. Honestly, I am more concerned that in the last 20 years we've progressed to the point where secularism has for some become as militantly evangelized as any religion. It has become a belief system of it's own, and I for one fear the coming crusades :)
I say live and let live, parents should be free to teach their kids whatever belief system they want without political interference. Much to the dismay of the left (and I say this, being a left leaning moderate... I know, bad word today), kids are not the communities children, they are their parents children, full stop. The shift towards enforced collectivism, away from individualism, is only putting fuel to the fire in this surge in global fascism. At the risk of sounding too kumbaya'ish, we all just need to accept each other and recognize the real enemies to society is a global loss of empathy and the rise of transactionalism. Now that is something I could really get behind, forced empathy courses! :)
> I hear your viewpoint, but parents do have a right to teach their religious beliefs to their children.
I didn't claim that they don't have a right. I just claimed to be skeptical of the idea that the primary motivation for homeschooling was educational outcomes rather than ideological outcomes.
> At the end of the day, there are over 7 billion people in the world, it's okay if some of them believe differently.
If only they believed differently. ;-) It's no coincidence that children tend to adopt the same beliefs as their parents, no matter the country or region.
> I am more concerned that in the last 20 years we've progressed to the point where secularism has for some become as militantly evangelized as any religion.
The last 20 years? The First Amendment of the US Constitution begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The principle of separation of church and state is more than 200 years old.
> kids are not the communities children, they are their parents children
I don't know what label you'd want to put on me, but I would say that kids do not belong to anyone. I find the notion of ownership to be noxious, practically slavery. We have a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (yet), but that doesn't mean children are simply the personal property and playthings of the parents. I think it's a disservice to a child to place them in a bubble and shield them from anything the parents don't happen to like.
> The shift towards enforced collectivism, away from individualism
"they are their parents children" is not individualism, or certainly not individualism from the child's perspective.
Morover, from what I've seen and heard from homeschoolers themselves, they do tend to form, or indeed come from, specific communitites, and are not simply "lone wolf" homeschooling parents.
I suffer from severe anxiety that is nearly crippling, it basically rules my life. Disclaimer, it's not social anxiety, more of a general crushing anxiety a majority of the time. But I wanted to write to offer some reassurance.
You are young, and with that is great and abundant hope for you; it may not seem so now, but your future could be very bright. When I was young, I felt that I would never be strong enough to make it past all of the sociological hurdles necessary to move in and up in this field. Like you, I do not feel that therapists have helped at all - honestly, for me I feel talking about things sends me into a tail spin of much deeper anxiety. It can be difficult making clinicians aware, but there are pharmacological solutions that do help - you need to be a team with your doctor, rather than letting them simply run the show (not to be presumptuous, you may already have this sort of relationship).
I managed to break into my field by doing a project on my own and showing what I was made of, then presenting it to the group I was displacing with the internal hope of selling it. Instead it landed me my first job - wherein I was initially underpaid, but it was still more money than I dreamed of making at that age (I was in my early twenties). I was quickly identified as a passionate (and opinionated) expert and received very large raises over the next several years with them. When I did finally leave, the experience I gained there, made bargaining a lot easier. It's important at that stage not to be manipulated, you still may find yourself too-fresh in areas of negotiation and end up going backwards in your career. So perhaps aim for folks who aren't used to hiring software engineers, so you both have some equal footing on the negotiating experience. After one or two jobs, your experience will speak for itself, and any "quirks" people may see with you, will be dismissed as "everyone is different" and you can be accepted for the brilliance you provide rather than the image you worry your anxiety elicits.
TL;DR, aim for small non-IT shops (eg. state & local government, factories that need programming, companies breaking the small to mid-size barrier that now need programmers), do projects to show your worth (maybe even work that would benefit them). Make a name for yourself and show your true brilliance.
You can publish a .NET Core application to bundle the necessary "VM" stuff, if distributing the baggage of a framework is your concern. I know this isn't really the same as native AOT though. I'm targeting many of our applications to EL7 (eg. CentOS 7.x) distributions as standalone RPMs that install on a clean Linux box and work without installing .NET Core. I install the application to /opt/my-widget and symlink the main binary to /usr/bin.
I am frankly both surprised and unsurprised at the same time with the comments from those supportive of government regulation of software engineering. If your a hack who didn't learn to program until you went to school, I suppose I understand, you want to limit those entering your field to those who paid the same to play. However, how about all of those who are likely far smarter than you and learned to program as children and got into the industry right off the bat - does your jealousy dictate that they should have to pay some sort of admission cost?
It's pretty cute how the same yuppies who are supportive of strict regulation are lining up to praise childhood programming courses. By the time our children are grown, programming will be illegal without a license - ushered in by the mayhem created by hipsters programming insecure IoT devices. These are the same people who praise curiosity out of one side of their mouth, but insist no one should practice cryptography because it's far too hard for mortals to understand.
I would be delighted if academic America would get off it's high horse. You're starting to look an awful lot like Hollywood circa 1998.
A few moments of reviewing your comment history in this thread indicates that you are not far from inferring a general complacency with the state of affairs - and it's okay, you aren't alone in this thread.
However, that is the problem - people shouldn't be pushed around by bureaucratic functionaries because he hasn't paid the cover charge to use the title that is appropriate for his trade. He was sending an intelligible email with genuine, well researched claims - he was disrespected, fined and suppressed.
I wonder how many emails Oregon is receiving now from engineers?
I suggest you spend more than a few moments on it as my arguments seem to have sailed completely over your head.
Did you read any of the primary source documents in the article? If not then this is going to be a waste of time. If so, please reconcile your arguments with the fact that Jarlstrom initiated contact with the board in an attempt to push a city authority around, and then broke the agreement he made to abide by Oregon's code when it was explained to him absent any kind of bureaucratic sanction.
I used to use PuTTY as my go-to windows SSH client. After some time I decided to integrate a piece of software with Pageant and I decided to open up the source to PuTTY. The poor quality of the source code terrified me, it seemed sort of "all over the place" and there seemed to be little to no concern for security and defensive programming.
Secure software design and development is what I do for a living, so perhaps I am a bit more paranoid than the casual user - but this is one of the most widely deployed security tools in an enterprise, this shouldn't be "okay". Some defensive efforts are just common sense and are recommended by your compiler (eg. don't use sprintf and strcpy when you can snprintf and strncpy). Also, it doesn't hurt to check error conditions consistently.
PS. To echo what a lot of folks have already said, how on earth can the author implement cryptographic algorithms and simultaneously think there is any value in publishing a hash of the binary "for security". Using a hash as a means of integrity validation in the context of security raises huge red flags about the authors mindset.
I say live and let live, parents should be free to teach their kids whatever belief system they want without political interference. Much to the dismay of the left (and I say this, being a left leaning moderate... I know, bad word today), kids are not the communities children, they are their parents children, full stop. The shift towards enforced collectivism, away from individualism, is only putting fuel to the fire in this surge in global fascism. At the risk of sounding too kumbaya'ish, we all just need to accept each other and recognize the real enemies to society is a global loss of empathy and the rise of transactionalism. Now that is something I could really get behind, forced empathy courses! :)