“so much of the American Right is actually driven by fear of change and paranoia”
Someone who writes this couldn’t pass an ideological Turing test, especially, and what comes across from that post, that his life operating assumption is that conservatives are just dumber than liberals.
Hanania, like Bill Buckley will choose to be governed by random people listed in the Cambridge phone book. But they aren't signing up to be governed by random people from Back Hollar, Kentucky.
And that's fine. But don't denigrate the people from Back Hollar. That just makes you a prick.
I agree completely on the “if it ain’t broke” point. It seems to me that it’s always right to fix something if you can. The issue is rather one of prioritization. When does “fixing” something become a distraction from doing or fixing something else that’s more important or could be achieved with less effort.
Creating something is somehow a process of discovery in and of itself. By going through that process, it’s so much easier and better to start over and apply the lessons learned to a clean sheet of paper.
Back in the good old days, if the power went out, you lost whatever work you’d done on your computer since the last save. I had a college friend who accidentally kicked the power cord out of the wall when taking a congratulatory stretch after four hours working on a lab write up. Of course, she hadn’t saved it in quite a long time. (I was there. It was funny.) But also of course, she was able to re-construct it in a very short amount of time. And I suspect it was better the second time around.
I'll reprise a comment I've made several other places regarding blaming software for the SW meltdown.
Of course the system should have been fixed or replaced. That's tautological, it failed to perform its primary function. However, in my experience as a IT professional, the first thing the business does when a decision has been reached to replace a system is stop any maintenance or upgrades to save money, which is about like not changing the oil in your car to accumulate cash to buy a new one. And since one of the justifications for implementing a replacement system is always 'save money', the replacement project is usually underfunded and under-resourced. That means when the replacement project is either abandoned or forced into production anyway, the business is left with an inferior system to the one they would have had if the existing system was properly maintained and enhanced. Mr Kling's experience was a happy accident.
Kling is wrong about rewrites, but perhaps he has an excuse. Rewrites are only viable for very immature systems, serious systems embed too much inarticulated knowledge to be rewritable.
But such systems requite constant change, which we call maintenance. And this maintenance is expensive.
If you are short-sighted you will only change software to add business-vidible features. This leads to the kind of shitshoe that Southwest seems to be describing.
"The religions in medieval times were a combination of ancestor worship and nature worship." This is the worst statement I've read this year. Did medieval people worshipped nature in Hagia Sofia and Notre Dame?
Torenberg is correct- the modern left looks exactly like a pagan religion, and probably is exactly what it looks like. The human sacrifices are probably not all that far into the future, though they probably won't start out with the removal of beating hearts.
“so much of the American Right is actually driven by fear of change and paranoia”
Someone who writes this couldn’t pass an ideological Turing test, especially, and what comes across from that post, that his life operating assumption is that conservatives are just dumber than liberals.
He literally endorsed the Republican Party right before the midterms.
Hanania chases the Current Thing with a level of shamelessness that is pretty amazing.
Hanania is a troll who attacks everyone to keep reader engagement high.
Hanania, like Bill Buckley will choose to be governed by random people listed in the Cambridge phone book. But they aren't signing up to be governed by random people from Back Hollar, Kentucky.
And that's fine. But don't denigrate the people from Back Hollar. That just makes you a prick.
I agree completely on the “if it ain’t broke” point. It seems to me that it’s always right to fix something if you can. The issue is rather one of prioritization. When does “fixing” something become a distraction from doing or fixing something else that’s more important or could be achieved with less effort.
Creating something is somehow a process of discovery in and of itself. By going through that process, it’s so much easier and better to start over and apply the lessons learned to a clean sheet of paper.
Back in the good old days, if the power went out, you lost whatever work you’d done on your computer since the last save. I had a college friend who accidentally kicked the power cord out of the wall when taking a congratulatory stretch after four hours working on a lab write up. Of course, she hadn’t saved it in quite a long time. (I was there. It was funny.) But also of course, she was able to re-construct it in a very short amount of time. And I suspect it was better the second time around.
I'll reprise a comment I've made several other places regarding blaming software for the SW meltdown.
Of course the system should have been fixed or replaced. That's tautological, it failed to perform its primary function. However, in my experience as a IT professional, the first thing the business does when a decision has been reached to replace a system is stop any maintenance or upgrades to save money, which is about like not changing the oil in your car to accumulate cash to buy a new one. And since one of the justifications for implementing a replacement system is always 'save money', the replacement project is usually underfunded and under-resourced. That means when the replacement project is either abandoned or forced into production anyway, the business is left with an inferior system to the one they would have had if the existing system was properly maintained and enhanced. Mr Kling's experience was a happy accident.
Kling is wrong about rewrites, but perhaps he has an excuse. Rewrites are only viable for very immature systems, serious systems embed too much inarticulated knowledge to be rewritable.
But such systems requite constant change, which we call maintenance. And this maintenance is expensive.
If you are short-sighted you will only change software to add business-vidible features. This leads to the kind of shitshoe that Southwest seems to be describing.
"The religions in medieval times were a combination of ancestor worship and nature worship." This is the worst statement I've read this year. Did medieval people worshipped nature in Hagia Sofia and Notre Dame?
Torenberg is correct- the modern left looks exactly like a pagan religion, and probably is exactly what it looks like. The human sacrifices are probably not all that far into the future, though they probably won't start out with the removal of beating hearts.