> But the second I need to use an IDE for Windows development, it's too slow to bear.
This very much depends on your machine. For example, I have an office machine running an older i7 with 16 GB of RAM. I give my VM's 6 cores and 8 GB of ram and I don't run into the issues you describe.
I also precreate the disk (instead of using dynamic) and shut off things that tend to be I/O intensive in Visual Studio, but once done I've not noticed a performance difference between it and native.
> I've heard stories from several female founders/VC's (not naming names or specific details to protect anonymity) who have experienced repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other. That's not as egregious as groping (one of the accusations in this article), but that's still sexual harassment by the letter of the law and slimy as hell every other way.
While I don't know the details of what happened here, there's nothing wrong or illegal about approaching someone and I'm more than a little miffed that anyone would consider it necessary (or good) to make "unwelcome advances" illegal. Yes, even unwelcome advances to married women.
VCs have a position of power when dealing with entrepreneurs. It is never okay to flirt or proposition someone whom you have temporary or prolonged power over. This is well accepted in modern society.
Bosses, professors, doctors, interviewers and every other situation I can think of have a bright line where it's not okay to try and romantically or sexually engage someone when you're in a context that you have power over them, even if it is ephemeral. VCs are no different.
I'm not even going to try and address groping or other forms of harassment, which are wrong even when a power dynamic doesn't exist.
I think you're talking about something different to the main thread here. Most people here are talking about a professional context where there is a significant power imbalance between the parties.
I was specifically responding to the claim that 'unwanted advances' could be considered sexual harassment under the law.
yes, technically you could consider rape to be an 'unwanted advance', but no reasonable person would ever characterize it as so. The very fact that it's characterized as an unwanted advance tells you it's not sexual harassment, it's just someone chasing another person.
> Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Very generally, “sexual harassment” describes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
Unfortunately the majority of these individuals haven't actualized that things in life aren't completely binary and attempt to apply a binary algorithm to solve non-binary problems.
According to the accounts I have read (that have not been upheld in a court of law "beyond all reasonable doubt" or whatever the standard for these things is), this man was definitely in the wrong and had to be stopped. I applaud those women who selflessly put their names out there to stop him.
However, it seems to me, as a non-American, that the US is pretty hysterical on this topic. Humans make each other uncomfortable sometimes, some situations are inherently awkward, emotional anguish is inflicted on good people (I've had to fire a few... that's horrible on both sides of the desk)... there's no reason society should be ascribed the duty to guarantee that nobody ever finds themselves in situations they are not comfortable in.
As I mentioned, my partner pushed my boundaries a bit, but I'm doubleplusgood happy she did. In hindsight, my initial reticence was an error, and by persisting she allowed me the opportunity to correct that. Now our lives are significantly enhanced as a result. I don't see why such behaviour should be subject to censure. Did it make me uneasy? In a transitory way, yes. But it's part and parcel of existing in a social fabric.
> Women who don't say "no" for the first time are widely considered low-moral
There is no "low morality" in a woman accepting an invitation to go on a date even in the most hidebound parts of the United States. But that's not what you mean. You don't mean "interact". You mean "screw". That you're conflating the idea of "regular, not very confident or skilled people" interacting with women with its very small subset, screwing, is telling as to your worldview and how you regard the women under discussion.
Of course it's no low morality in accepting a date. But I thought we discuss this in context of loose sexual behavior (implied by the article events), not of going on dates or making relationships. As of interact vs screw, it is the matter of accent, not of an objective view. Please don't take my words out of context, nor make a personal diagnosis. Proving [not your] point by attacking the person under his uncertain inferences is not a great way to deliver an argument anyway.
That's short sighted and incorrect. Rental is only going to cost more than ownership if multiple people aren't sharing the cost, but the whole point of autonomous cars defeats that idea, renting will be vastly cheaper than buying.
> but personal vehicles are not going to go away.
For the vast majority of the population, yes, they will go away.
That's not good analogy (living in hotels), better would be to compare how many people own their flat/house and how many rent it. Which would imply that a lot of people will still own their car ...
Why should rental be more expensive by definition? A fleet of autonomous vehicles can operate 24/7. Your own personal car gets a trip to work and a trip back home every day and maybe another round trip to an activity or chore.
Uber has better quality service from my experience. I still remember, Sat AM in NYC, and Lyft wanted to charge surge pricing when the city is far quieter than during a weekday. Uber did not charge surge pricing on a Saturday morning!
Not certain why downvoted and no explanation provided for providing a fact. I think most would agree that Lyft charging surge pricing during a non-surge time is ridiculous. Uber to their credit did not try to rip me and other customers off.
Or the he previous comment about lifestyle is applicable but only manifests itself for fathers as a result of society only recently starting to transition to women being able to be breadwinners.
I would never allow a new dev to come in and ask us to completely move away from a tech stack in a project that we're already underway in.
It's one thing to try something different in a new project if it can legitimately solve problems we've been having in old projects.
But this idea that you can do that and most "reasonable people" are going to get behind you on it is balderdash. Most reasonable people are going to tell you no because there's not a strong reason to.
Much better to just move on if you don't like the tech they're working in.
And this is coming from someone who dislikes CoffeeScript, and always has. I would never suggest an active project rewrite their CS in something else.
This very much depends on your machine. For example, I have an office machine running an older i7 with 16 GB of RAM. I give my VM's 6 cores and 8 GB of ram and I don't run into the issues you describe.
I also precreate the disk (instead of using dynamic) and shut off things that tend to be I/O intensive in Visual Studio, but once done I've not noticed a performance difference between it and native.