tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)

Donation button

Donate to the Ada Initiative

Don't forget to tweet to #lambda4ada when you donate! Suggested tweet, though you're encouraged to use your own words:

I donated to @adainitiative b/c I want @TheOfficialACM events to announce their anti-harassment policy. https://supportada.org?campaign=lambda #lambda4ada



So far, the following people from the functional programming community have donated to the challenge, as well as a number of anonymous donors. If your name appears here, it's because you checked the box that says it's okay for TAI to share your name, for which I thank you as well -- knowing who has donated so far makes it easier for other people to decide whether to donate. If you want to be as cool as these folks, then donate and (optionally) tweet about it!

In addition, I made an additional matching donation of $64 (on top of my usual $80/month), and my fellow challenge organizers Adam Foltzer, Clément Delafargue, and Chung-chieh Shan have donated as well. If your name doesn't appear here, you want it to, and you donated between September 1 and 3:00 PM Pacific Time on September 17, email me at catamorphism at gmail and I'll add it. (If you donated after that, don't worry, I'll be doing more thanks posts!)

In alphabetical order by first name:

Aaron Levin / Weird Canada
Alejandro Cabrera
Ben Blum
Bethany Lister
Carlo Angiuli
Chris Martens
Colin Barrett
Colin Gourlay
Dan
Dan Peebles
Daniel Ross
David Van Horn
Dylan Thurston
Edward Kmett
Florent Becker
J. Ian Johnson
Jon Sterling
Joshua Dunfield
Lars Hupel
Manuel Chakravarty
Pat Hickey
Prabhakar Ragde
Wouter Swierstra

Thanks as well to everybody else who has tweeted under #lambda4ada so far! Keep it up.

To all of you on this list, as well as to the donors who preferred not to be named: thank you! And if you haven't yet donated, you still have until Friday, September 19 at 5 PM for your donation to count towards the challenge. We have more than satisfied our initial $4096 goal, and are trying to raise $8192 by Friday. [Edit: We have raised $8678 and are now aiming for $10,000 before the end of business, Pacific time, on Friday!] What's more, if we raise $16,384, then the four of us will record a version of "There's No Type Class Like Show Type Class" and share it with the world. We appreciate your past and incoming donations, tweets, and blog posts!
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
I'm happy to report that the community challenge has raised $4394 for the Ada Initiative as of this writing, passing the $4096 mark just five hours after the first blog post. Thanks to Adam, Clément, Ken, and everyone who has donated so far!

Since leaving our friends who were just getting ready for bed when the original blog post went live wouldn't be nice, we're increasing the goal to $8192. If we raised more than $4096 on the first day, can we raise a little less than that with three days to go? I think so!

[Edited to add: With 6 hours left, we've raised $8678 and are aiming for $10,000!]

Donation button

Donate to the Ada Initiative
But that's not all! We're adding a stretch goal: if we raise $16,384, then Adam, Clément, Ken, and I will record Ken's classic filk "There's No Type Class Like Show Type Class" and post the recording on YouTube (or another video sharing site of our choice), illustrated by some informative graphics explaining topics like "polymorphic recursion" that the song mentions. We are putting our mouths where your money is. Tell your friends! Tell your colleagues! Tell everyone who doesn't wish you any specific harm!

Remember: donate, then tweet:


I donated to @adainitiative b/c I want @TheOfficialACM events to announce their anti-harassment policy. https://supportada.org?campaign=lambda #lambda4ada


I'd love to link to more blog posts from folks writing about why the Ada Initiative's work is needed, and why our conferences need strong and clearly advertised anti-harassment policies. Just drop me a line (full contact details in my original post).

Still no response (as of this writing) from [twitter.com profile] TheOfficialACM after 15 mentions -- maybe 15 more will do the trick?
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
The following is a guest post from Adam Foltzer ([twitter.com profile] acfoltzer).

Our Challenge

Donation button
Donate to the Ada Initiative

This fall, I'm joining with Tim Chevalier, Clément Delafargue, Eric Merritt, and Chung-chieh (Ken) Shan to challenge the functional programming community to help make computer science conferences more welcoming to more people. We have two goals:

  1. Support the work of the Ada Initiative by donating $4096 $8192 by 5pm Pacific time on Friday, September 19th. Use and share the URL https://adainitiative.org/donate/?campaign=lambda so that we functional programmers may be counted!

    (Edited to add: We reached our initial $4096 goal at 1:15 PM Pacific time on Tuesday the 16th, so we are now aiming to raise $8192 by Friday!)
  2. Call on the ACM to definitively support and publicize their anti-harassment policy for their conferences. If you're on Twitter, tweet @TheOfficialACM with the hashtag #lambda4ada with something like:

I donated to @adainitiative because I want @TheOfficialACM to stand behind their anti-harassment policy https://adainitiative.org/donate/?campaign=lambda #lambda4ada

Being part of the functional programming community has been an incredibly valuable and rewarding part of my life. Much as Tim says in his post, conferences like ICFP offer a wonderful recurring dose of friendship, support, and belonging.

However, conferences like this are not necessarily as welcoming to folks who aren't white, cis, hetero, well-off men like me. This isn't usually due to any overtly toxic behaviors as in other communities (hi, fellow atheist gamers!), but due to a combination of incidental condescension, microaggressions, and other subtle ways that often well-meaning people can exclude those who aren't already part of the in-crowd. We can push back against these exclusions by supporting the work of the Ada Initiative and making sure ACM stands behind their anti-harassment policy.

In the last year I have become a member of the Haskell.org committee, donating my time to help improve our community, but I am under no illusions that the balance is equal. Because of functional programming, I have a career so cool I could not have imagined it, I have friendships of great depth and strength, and I have the privilege of constant learning as we discover and invent together every day. Laying down this challenge is part of what I can do to repay this debt, and I hope you will do the same.

The Ada Initiative does important work supporting women in a broad range of technology fields through the development of codes of conduct, anti-harassment policies, advocacy, and education. Their model anti-harassment policy is the basis for the ACM's, and their work informs much of what we are working on in the Haskell.org committee to improve the inclusiveness of Haskell specifically.

The Ada Initiative does valuable work worth supporting. Every month I donate $32, and for this challenge will be donating an additional $128. Join me in reaching for that $4096$8192 goal (powers of two, y'all!): https://adainitiative.org/donate/?campaign=lambda

The ACM has done well to adopt an anti-harassment policy, but to have impact it must be consistently supported and publicized along with their conferences. Join me in calling on them to do so:

I donated to @adainitiative because I want @TheOfficialACM to stand behind their anti-harassment policy https://adainitiative.org/donate/?campaign=lambda #lambda4ada

And finally, as a functional programmer, you probably know at least 5 other people who have benefited from being part of such a weird and delightful community. Pass this challenge along to them and give them the chance to help us reach our goals. Let's make it happen!

tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)

Make Functional Programming Better by Supporting the Ada Initiative and Petitioning the ACM

Edited to add: we reached our initial $4096 goal in just 5 hours! Can you help us raise it to $8192 and double what we hoped to raise? Edited again to add: We've now exceeded our goal of $8192, six hours before the end of the challenge! Can you help us bring it up to $10,000?

Donation button
Donate to the Ada Initiative

Clément Delafargue, Adam Foltzer, Eric Merritt, Chung-chieh (Ken) Shan, and I are orchestrating a community challenge to both raise money for the Ada Initiative, and make computer science conferences (specifically, the many technical conferences that the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) organizes) better. We are challenging anybody who identifies as a member of the functional programming community to do two things:

  1. Donate to the Ada Initiative, a nonprofit organization that is working hard to make it broadly possible for women and people in a variety of other marginalized groups to work in technology.
  2. Call on the ACM to consistently publicize their own anti-harassment policy for all its conferences. That is, I'm asking that those -- at least those of you who use Twitter -- tweet a statement like the following one (use your own words, just include the #lambda4ada hashtag and try to include the donation link):

    I donated to @adainitiative b/c I want @TheOfficialACM events to announce their anti-harassment policy. https://supportada.org?campaign=lambda #lambda4ada

Our goal is to raise $4096 $8192 $10,000 for the Ada Initiative by 5:00 PM Pacific time on Friday, September 19. If you use the URL https://supportada.org?campaign=lambda, your donation will count towards the functional programming community challenge and help us reach the $4096 $8192$10,000 goal. I have personally matched the first $1024 of funds raised -- that is to say, I already donate $80 per month to TAI, so over a year, my contributions will add up to $960. On Tuesday, Sept. 16, I donated an additional $64 to round the amount up to $1024. I've spent the past couple years struggling to pay off student loans and medical bills despite being generously compensated for my work -- nevertheless, I support TAI every month because I see it as an investment in my continued ability to work. I hope that my example inspires those who have a bit more financial freedom than I do to donate accordingly.

If you are reading this and you have benefited from your involvement, past or present, with any part of the functional programming community, we need your support. It is up to you how much to give, but we ask that you consider how much you have gained -- materially, intellectually, socially, perhaps even spiritually -- from what you have learned from functional programming and from the people who love it. Particularly if you are currently making your livelihood in a way that would be impossible without the work of many people who have and are making functional programming languages great, consider giving an amount that is commensurate with the gift you have received from the community. If you need a suggested amount and are employed full-time in industry who is using functional programming or doing work that wouldn't be possible if not for the foundations laid by the FP community, $128 seems pretty reasonable to me -- and at that rate, we would just need a total of 32 people to donate in order to reach the goal. I think there are far more people than that who do FP for a living!

If anybody assumed that Clément, Adam, Eric, or Ken endorsed anything in the remainder of this blog post, that assumption would likely be wrong. In what follows, I am speaking only as myself and for myself. I am an employee of Heroku, a Salesforce company, but neither Heroku nor Salesforce endorses any of the following content either. Likewise, I don't necessarily agree with everything that Ken, Eric, Adam, or Clément might say in support of this challenge; we are all individuals who may disagree with each other about many things, but agree on our common goals of supporting the Ada Initiative and raising awareness about the ACM anti-harassment policy.

If you've already gone ahead and made a donation as well as tweeting your support under #lambda4ada, great! You can stop reading here. If you're not sure yet, though, please read further.

Why ICFP Is Fun... For Some

  • Young man, there's no need to feel down
  • I said young man, put that old journal down
  • And come publish at... I - C - F - P
  • It's fun to publish at... I - C - F - P
  •  
  • When your lambda is tight, and your theorems allright
  • You can come, on, down, and publish at... I - C - F - P
  • You know I'm talking 'bout... I - C - F - P
  •  
  • There's a place you can go, and lots of friends that you know, at the I, C, F, P.

          -- Nathan Whitehead, paying homage to The Village People

ICFP, functional programmers' annual "family reunion" (to borrow a phrase from one of the organizer's of this year's ICFP, which took place two weeks ago) feels to me like more than just an academic conference. The lone academic publication that I can claim (second) authorship for appeared in ICFP, but it's more than just the opportunity to hear about new results or share my own that keeps me coming back. Maybe that has something to do with the affiliated annual programming contest, or the copious number of co-located workshops revolving around different language communities, or maybe it's just about folks who know how to keep the "fun" in functional programming. It's a serious academic conference that occasionally features cosplay and [PDF link] once had an accepted paper that was written in the form of a theatrical play.

Putting The Fun Back in Functional Programming and How the Ada Initiative Is Helping Us Do It )

tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

"We all travel together as passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil; all committed for our safety to its security and peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and -- I will say -- the love we give our fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate, half miserable; half confident and half despairing; half slaves to the ancient enemies of mankind and half free in a liberation of resources undreamed of until this day. No craft, no crew can travel safely with such vast contradictions. On their resolution depends the survival of us all."

Adlai Stevenson, 1965

"Listen to the voice of the soldier
Down in the killing zone
Talking about the cost of living
And the price of bringing him home

They're already shipping the body bags
Down by the Rio Grande
But you can fight for democracy at home
And not in some foreign land

And the fate of the great United States
Is entwined in the fate of us all
And the incident at Tschernobyl proves
The world we live in is very small

And the cities of Europe have burned before
And they may yet burn again
And if they do I hope you understand
That Washington will burn with them
Omaha will burn with them
Los Alamos will burn with them"

-- Billy Bragg, 1986

tim: A warning sign with "Danger" in white, superimposed over a red oval on a black rectangle, above text  "MEN EXPLAINING" (mansplaining)
Or: Lessons I Learned From Years Of Flouting Them
Or: Don't Do What I Did

The following is a list of tips derived from what I think has helped me enjoy computer science conferences more (and possibly learn more from them) as time has passed. I don't assume that they will be helpful to anybody else, but perhaps they're worth thinking about! I expect this list will be the most useful for grad students starting out, and other people who haven't gone to conferences before. If you are more experienced, you can always tell me why I'm wrong or whatever.

1. Pace yourself.

Skip talks. No, really. Going to every talk should not be your goal. Most people can't go to every talk and understand everything. (Don't even expect to understand everything in any one talk.)

Try to highlight talks you especially want to go to in the program in advance. You can do this during the first coffee break or during the first talk when you get there halfway through; it's okay :) Be open to adding or dropping talks (adding can be if someone tells you "hey, X's talk is going to be good" or if you happen to see the beginning and are drawn in; dropping can be if you feel tired, want to get some exercise, or get into a good conversation with somebody). I promise you that even if your school or employer is paying, nobody is going to exhaustively quiz you on the contents of every talk when you get home.

2. Pace around.

If it's possible -- not too rude and disruptive given the room layout, and physically possible for you -- try pacing around while you're listening to talks. At ICFP this year, the room had a big space in the back without chairs, which some people used for standing, lying down, doing yoga, and other such things. I don't know if this was intentional, but it worked well. Sitting in the same position all day is not good for most bodies. Don't be afraid to move, stretch, or even sit on the floor or lie down while listening to talks. If you're me (and possibly even if you're not me), this will help you listen better. Just because most people are sitting (too close together, on chairs that are probably uncomfortable) doesn't mean you have to.

Another advantage of standing is that it discourages you from opening your laptop, if that's a compulsion for you.

3. Take notes.

Not everybody focuses better while taking notes, but I certainly do; if my hand isn't moving, my mind checks out. But taking notes does more harm than good unless you do it effectively. it took me years to learn that note-taking isn't about writing down what the speaker says in complete sentences. If you hear something that makes you think, "That's interesting! I wonder...", write it down. If you hear something you want to read more about, write it down. Notes can be illegible to anyone else (so long as you can read them later!), in incomplete sentences, structured as bullet lists, etc. Nobody else gets to see your notes unless you let them.

Sometimes notes are write-only, and that's totally okay. You might never look at them again, but the act of writing will still have helped you remember what you learned.

4. If you don't understand, assume that it's not your fault.

This doesn't mean getting aggro at the speaker because they were unclear. It does mean not bearing all of the blame for every single talk you don't follow. It also means asking questions (sometimes) without thinking it will expose your horrible ignorance. Chances are, if you have a question in mind, ten other people do and won't want to say it. If you ask, you'll be helping all of them.

It's possible that it is your fault, but more often, somebody just didn't put in the time/didn't do practice talks/other things to improve talk quality. At least at the conferences I go to, papers are selected solely based on the quality of the ideas and writing, not the talk (since when the authors submit the paper, they haven't prepared the talk yet!) Someone can write a great paper with a great ideas, but still have no idea how to organize slides visually or structure a talk. The academic system affords very few incentives to learn how to do that, other than an individual's intrinsic motivation and/or peer pressure.

5. If you can't pay attention to the content, critique style -- INSIDE YOUR HEAD.

I mean, it's educational for you to think about what methods do and don't work for slides ("wow, that hot pink background with white text is hard to read..." "wow, I don't like Comic Sans and only SPJ gets a pass"), but just to be clear, nobody else (especially not the speaker) wants to hear your bikeshedding. That said, I find this is a way for me to actually get more out of the talk content, because if I'm noticing how I could have done the talk better from a purely visual POV, I'm not thinking about how much of a doof I am for not understanding the content.

6. If possible, stay physically nearby.

At least at the conferences I go to, the conference is usually at a hotel, and you can also stay at the hotel, though the hotel the conference is in is usually outrageously expensive (not an issue if your research grant or company gives you an unlimited budget, but for grad students, faculty at small schools, and unaffiliated people, that can be a problem). That means you can theoretically travel to an exciting, cosmpolitan city for a conference, and never leave the hotel except to go back and forth to the airport (if you're willing to eat hotel restaurant food). The drawback is that there are usually much cheaper options, but generally a significant distance from the conference. It's up to you to set your own budget priorities, but even though I wish they weren't so exorbitantly priced, there really are advantages to staying in the same hotel as the conference. This is true even in European cities where you can walk or take an easy light rail ride everywhere -- the time it takes will add up, and you're spending enough time attending, going to dinner, and staying out late shooting the breeze that every minute counts (and sleep is crucial to everything else working out).

Staying at the hotel also makes it easier to show up on time for the first talk in the morning, which saves you guilt about missing it (especially if the conference puts invited talks first, which is cruel and unusual punishment if you ask me -- signalling that a talk is expected to be especially good by scheduling it at a time when it's difficult for many of us to be awake). It also makes it a snap to go back to your room for a nap, break, or just some alone time when you need it.

7. Know your limits.

I don't mean alcohol so much as people and new information. It's okay to tell yourself that your brain is full and go take a break. (Taking notes makes this easier, since you know you'll be able to resume easily.) This is true whether you're an introvert, extrovert, or the (probably-majority of us) who don't fit neatly into one of those categories. The limits may vary wildly for different people, but almost everyone has them. When you hit your limit, you'll know.

8. Ask questions.

Many conferences have a few people who seem to dominate the Q&A sessions for almost every talk. Session chairs usually know this, and some will try to call on less familiar faces. But for that to work, people have to step up. So every question you ask -- as an outsider, newcomer, or whatever -- means that many more fresh perspectives that the whole conference gets to hear.

Often, not everybody gets to talk in a given Q&A session, but it's okay and encouraged to approach a speaker later and say you liked their talk and are wondering about ____. This is also totally okay if you're just too intimidated to ask a question in front of a large group. Personally, when I've given talks and no one has said a word to me about it later -- or if all anyone says is the equivalent of "great talk!" -- I worry.

9. Know how talks get selected.

At least at the academic conferences I go to, program committees don't select talks based on presentation quality, because they don't get to see the talks first or figure out how good a speaker the presenter is (in fact, often they don't know who will speak, because papers usually have multiple authors and only one will give the talk.) They select talks based on their assessment of the quality of the papers that go with them. Selection also isn't an objective process; political, messy, human one (just ask anyone who's been on a PC). Inclusion in a given conference, even a conference with a good reputation, doesn't imply lasting value. Rejection doesn't imply absence of value.

I'm saying this to encourage you to go easy on yourself if you miss talks or don't get much out of one or many talks. It doesn't necessarily mean that you had a great opportunity to learn something, and you (and only you) squandered it. When choosing talks to go to -- or choosing how hard to listen! -- trust your own judgment and don't assume everything is a pearl of wisdom.

10. Know that sometimes a great idea is buried in a bad talk.

Even if a talk leaves you reeling and not in a good way, maybe it just means you should read the paper. Different people learn differently, but for many of us, it's easier to understand something when we can go back and read the same sentence six times before continuing. You can achieve something similar by re-watching the video (if you're at a conference that records talks) later, which also has the advantage that you can rewind parts you want to listen to again and fast-forward through parts you don't. All of this only applies if the idea actually interests you. There's no obligation. In my experience, the most common scenario is a terrible talk based on an alternately lucid and confusing paper about a cool idea.
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
The following question was posted on a closed support group that I read on Facebook:
I'm applying for residency to become a family medicine doc. Chronic pain and illness is a huge part of taking care of patients, and I want to know your opinion on your healthcare experience. What did you like/dislike/need/receive/not receive from the healthcare field. What is a small thing that would have made a big difference? How can I become a great doctor for my patients? How can I teach others/emulate behaviors for others to become better doctors? Thank you!

I'm copying my reply here to save it for posterity:
I would love it if more doctors understood Health at Every Size (HAES) - specifically, the role of weight stigma, largely inflicted by the medical profession, as a barrier to health care and cause of stress-induced illness and shorter lives for many fat people. It would be great if they understood it comprehensively, but even if they just understood that there is no evidence that intentional weight loss improves health outcomes, that would be great.

Understanding that trans people are biologically the sex that we affirm ourselves to be would be great.

Understanding that the boundary between physical and mental illness is political, not scientific, would be great, as well as the role of abuse culture manifested through childhood trauma in causing both, and how widespread PTSD and CPTSD really are.

If you haven't, read everything by Paul Farmer that you can (especially _Infections and Inequalities_ and _Pathologies of Power_.)

Finally, I wish more doctors would treat a patient who does their own research on their own condition the way they'd treat a student they were mentoring, rather than shaming such patients for 'going on the Internet'.


If you have anything else to add, I'll try to pass it on to the person who asked, as best I can!
tim: A warning sign with "Danger" in white, superimposed over a red oval on a black rectangle, above text  "MEN EXPLAINING" (mansplaining)
I wrote this as a comment on a friends-only LiveJournal post, so I'm reproducing it here.

"I figure that since my employer doesn't monitor how I spend my paychecks to make sure I don't spend it on booze, drugs, porn, etc. but rather only on nutritious food and sensible clothing, I am going to give to people on the street, and in fact I am going to assume giving to people on the street does more good than giving it to white people with good salaries who decide which people on the street are deserving (which is more or less what [REDACTED] said, I'm just agreeing with her).

Since I believe that I am rather good at figuring out how to spend money on things I want and need if someone just gives it to me, I'm not going to condescend to poorer people and assume they're not as good at it. (In fact, they're probably better at it, having managed to survive this long.)"

I'd add to this that I see an analogy: donating money to disease-specific charities (especially for diseases whose cures are open-ended research problems and that tend to affect people who are privileged enough not to die young of an infectious disease) : supporting global public health efforts :: donating money to white people with good salaries who will then decide how to allocate it among the poor (after taking their own cut) : giving money on the street to people who ask for it.

That said, I won't usually give on the street when I'm with other people, since in my experience that leads to pressure on the other people to give too, and I guess I put my friends' comfort first... which may not be the right set of priorities. I also don't give every time I'm asked, but I would like to give more often. My reflex (trained into me through years and years of living in cities and being influenced by people who were anti-giving) is just to say "no". And truthfully, I read this one _Babysitters' Club_ book when I was six or so where one of the characters opens up her wallet to give money to a panhandler and the more street-wise character scolds her with "he's just trying to get you to take out your wallet so he can steal it", which left its imprint on me (the bad thing, of course, wouldn't be losing my wallet, but shamefully being "gullible" which is obviously the worst thing you can be). Anyway, I'm trying to train myself out of those reactions.
tim: A warning sign with "Danger" in white, superimposed over a red oval on a black rectangle, above text  "MEN EXPLAINING" (mansplaining)
In 2004, I attended ICFP in Snowbird, Utah. At the time, Paul Graham was on the schedule to give an invited talk entitled "Don't make the wrong mistakes: programming as debugging".

That might have been an interesting talk. The talk Graham actually gave was "storytime with Grandpa about the dot-com bubble" (which was all of three years ago, at the time.) I don't remember much about the talk, which was quite inane. I do remember the quotes I wrote down on LiveJournal at the time, which I approved of (shamefully... but it was ten years ago):

"It's no coincidence that I'm dressed like this... it's to make an important point. The coincidence is that I'm always dressed like this." -- PG
"Nerds dress informally as a prophylactic against stupidity." -- PG
"If you go to Google and search for 'nerd', I'm what you get." -- PG
"If your code miscalculates the path of a space probe, you can't dodge your way out of it by saying that your code is patriotic." -- PG


There is a liberally rewritten transcript of his talk on his web site. It still has nothing to do with the abstract he submitted to ICFP for his talk. (Full text for all you non-ACM-members out there. I'm pretty sure it's short enough to qualify as fair use.)

Anyway, what's not in the liberally rewritten transcript was the bit where, in the Q&A session afterward, someone asked him his opinion of outsourcing. And Graham said -- I'm paraphrasing -- that he thought outsourcing would be a self-limiting trend, because, "You can send things to India all you want, but eventually you realize you have to hire real programmers."

This is notable because while racism is thoroughly shot through Silicon Valley, it's rarely stated that overtly, that unashamedly, and by someone with some degree of social capital.

In any case, I guess Graham was namesearching on a Friday night, since out of nowhere, he replied to a tweet of mine that was about something else, giving me the occasion to post the tweet that is the pinnacle of my career.

Achievement unlocked: being told by Paul Graham that I should be ashamed of myself.
tim: text: "I'm not offended, I'm defiant" (defiant)
So far, the responses to my article "Killing the Messenger at Mozilla" on Model View Culture have been almost completely positive. (That's almost a bit disappointing, because if no one gets shirty about it, then I worry that I haven't done my job.)

But there's one response that may superficially seem compelling. I thought about addressing it in the article, but ended up leaving it out for space reasons and because I felt like I, and others, had talked about it over and over, and that at this point, if someone is still using this argument, they are simply not listening. I'm an eternal optimist, though, so I want to summarize my thoughts on it one more time. The tl;dr version is that concern over "forcing the resignations of CEOs over political donations" is a red herring. The concern is not really about political donations, but about forcing the resignations of CEOs over the kinds of political donations that white heterosexual cis men tend to make -- thus, the concern is really about excluding people in that narrow social clique of folks who have always taken for granted that they will be included in any space they want to be in.

Who pays for free speech?

A representative example of the argument is:

"...but I remain unconvinced that we really want to force the resignations of CEOs over political donations." -- Jason Pontin

(I'm picking this tweet for concreteness, not out of a desire to portray Pontin's specific comment as uniquely heinous.)

It makes me viscerally angry that this is still a tenable response to critiquing putting bigots in charge of public interest organizations. I think it makes me so angry because it's so disingenuous. Literally nobody believes that there is never an occasion when a CEO could make a political donation that is incompatible with the mission of their company or organization. The debate is about which donations are acceptable, and it frustrates me to no end that folks make such an absolutist, obviously shallow argument to avoid confronting the real issue.

The hidden assumption is that public spaces belong to heterosexual men. Everyone else dwells in public spaces at the pleasure of heterosexual men. Therefore, to exclude a heterosexual man from such a space -- especially from a leadership position! -- requires far more basis than excluding anybody else.

I want to be absolutely clear that I don't think this response is quite the same response as the even shallower (but still popular) "Everybody has the right to do and say whatever they want and keep their jobs, because free speech." This response has been addressed exhaustively (see Valerie Aurora's "What Free Speech Really Means" for just one example), far beyond what the time and effort it deserves.

The question "do we really want to drive someone out because of a different opinion?" is different because rather than appealing to shady constructions of individual rights, it raises a question about the public good. Latent in the question is the liberal (with a small 'l') notion that diversity of ideas is always a good thing. Subscribers to this, the liberal viewpoint, say that if we merely include people with a variety of ideas and opinions in our community, the best outcome will naturally happen rather than if we made any intentional effort to actually make a variety of people feel safe in that community.

Donations, by the way, are definitely speech. A political donation is political speech, and as such, is necessarily public. Don't trust me on that one -- just ask the Supreme Court. Donating money is absolutely a form of speech, and as such, should be assessed in the same way as other kinds of public speech would be.

But what about the "public" part? There is a very good reason why political donations are public. It's not, as some have suggested, a procedural accident that means Eich's donation record should be politely ignored. The privilege of privately donating money to influence the political process and thereby affect the public is inseparable from corruption. Put another way, if you are going to interfere with my life, you don't get to keep your own identity a secret from me while doing so -- if you want privacy, you always have the option of not interfering with my life. Given that I can't opt out of a law preventing me from marrying, it's only fair that the people who underwrote that law can't opt out of me knowing who they are.

While it's a bit more sophisticated than "but free speech?", "do we really want to drive someone out because of a different opinion?" is still the wrong question. I think a better question is, "Is a man who paid money to run advertisements insinuating that dozens of his employees rape children, not because they have actually done so but because they have queer relationships with adults, someone who is well-equipped to carry out the mission of his company?" Details matter.

Not only is it the wrong question, it implies a false equivalence. The subtext here (made much more explicit by various voices online) is that anti-queer bullying -- including bullying backed up with the full power of the state, such as the ultimately-unsuccessful effort to make Proposition 8 law in California -- is exactly the same thing as fighting back against that bullying. "You're just as bad as they are!", say these voices, shaming queer folks with the suggestion that we deserve no empathy, compassion or tolerance because our defiance of oppression makes us exactly like our oppressors.

Not only is it the wrong question, it's misleading, and it's hard to believe that it's not deliberately misleading. While Pontin's question explicitly refers only to donations rather than opinions or beliefs, it's hard to understand it except via an appeal to (once again) the liberal notion of diversity of ideas and tolerance for all ideas (including ideas that would, if broadly adopted, destroy liberalism). Without some belief in the inherent value of diversity of opinion, it would be hard to understand why someone shouldn't be held to account for their political donations. The statement "but I remain unconvinced that we really want to force the resignations of CEOs over their actions" would plainly be absurd. And there is no special reason to grant immunity to the act of paying other people to do things, other than (perhaps) desire to give rich people an additional way to do wrong without accountability. If there was, contract killing would be less harshly punished than any other form of murder. We're talking about actions, not ideas.

People keep talking about how Brendan Eich shouldn't have been held accountable for his views about "homosexuals", or his views about "traditional marriage", in one breath, and in the next breath about how his donation doesn't reveal anything about his views about "homosexuals" or marriage. You can't have it both ways. In point of fact, I agree with Eich's defenders about one thing: we don't know anything about Eich's views on queer people, marriage, or anything else pertaining to Proposition 8. We only know about his actions, which can and should be judged in their own right. If the conversation we're having was about Eich's "private" beliefs, we wouldn't be having it, because we wouldn't know anything about those beliefs! That's the definition of "private", after all.

If we take it as a given that the conversation is about actions rather than beliefs, the question remains of how to evaluate Eich's actions. Here are some concrete effects that the campaign for Proposition 8 had:

  • It caused more people to think that queer people are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals are (actually, the opposite is true), and/or strengthened their existing misconceptions to that effect.
  • It provided further moral legitimacy to those who terrorize queer youth (and queer adults) with physical and verbal violence.
  • It contributed to the levels of fear and stress experienced by queer people, especially young queer people. The copious deleterious physical and emotional effects of chronic stress are well-documented.
  • It incited kids and teenagers to bully their peers whose parents are queer.

Here are some concrete effects that the campaign did not have:

  • It did not strengthen marriages between heterosexual men and heterosexual women. (As far as I know, the divorce rates are still where they were before.)
  • It did not result in the passage of the legislation it purported to pass.

The second point is worth dwelling on. Proposition 8 proposed an unconstitutional law. There was nothing particularly subtle about this. In his Perry v. Brown decision, Judge Vaughn Walker noted the absolute vacuity of all the arguments that were presented in favor of the proposition's constitutionality. If the case was Prop. 8 supporters' best effort to show that the state of California had a compelling interest in regulating intimate relationships, they failed spectacularly. It's hard to imagine that they didn't see that coming. I'm sure many people who voted for and financially supported Prop. 8 believed it would be feasible to make it the law of the land, but I think the folks who campaigned hardest for it were probably bright enough to realize it was doomed. It's hard to imagine that in their minds, the expected value of sneaking an unconstitutional law through the legislative process exceeded the expected value of conducting a smear campaign against members of gender, romantic, and sexual minorities.

It frustrates me that the folks saying things like what Pontin said refuse to own up to what the vague language of "political donations" actually refers to here: violence. This is not hyperbole -- according to the World Health Organization, violence is

"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." -- WHO Violence Prevention Alliance

As per the WHO's typology of violence, political donations like the ones made in support of Prop. 8 fall under the category of "collective violence": "violence committed by larger groups of individuals and can be subdivided into social, political and economic violence."

Let's try rephrasing that comment yet again:

"...but I remain unconvinced that we really want to force the resignations of CEOs over violence."

I'm not going to say that no one would sincerely make this statement -- after all, many people leapt to the defense of Scott Kveton, who was (at most) obliged to take a leap of absence. But it's harder to defend than the initial formulation. If you want to argue about whether or not it's really violence to fund a propaganda campaign aimed at encouraging scapegoating of a vulnerable minority group, I guess you can. It would at least beat disingenuously claiming that everybody should find any political activity their supervisor undertakes to be acceptable.

I do think it's difficult for some people to understand the difference between "differences of opinion" and violence aimed at a vulnerable minority group. If you have ever been in a vulnerable minority group, you know the difference. I've been over this before in "A Problem With Equality".

What if I want something that hasn't got spam in it?

As I also wrote about in "A Problem With Equality", some points of view have the effect of dominating discourse and making it hard or impossible for other points of view to flourish.

An analogy is weeding a garden: even people who love plants need to get rid of plants that use a disproportionate share of space. While there's nothing wrong with letting your front yard grow wild (so long as you aren't subject to an HOA's rules, anyway), you will probably have fewer different species of plants as a result than you would if you pulled weeds and made a deliberate effort to plant many different kinds of flowers. Likewise, people responsible for parks and open spaces make an effort to reduce or eliminate the share of resources taken up by invasive species. This isn't because they want less diversity of plant species -- it's because they want more diversity of plant species.

Ideas are like that too. If you believe that all opinions are worth listening to, I suggest that you try turning off your email program's spam filter for a week and see if you can still conduct your professional and personal life. In truth, no one believes that all opinions are equally desirable. If this was really a widely accepted truth, your city or town hall would be covered in Lyndon LaRouche flyers, you wouldn't be able to attend a conferences without someone standing up during the question and answer period to talk about chemtrails, and you would say "yes" whenever a street canvasser asks whether you have a moment to spare for the environment. The world would be a very different place. It's not just that everyone has their own set of preferences for which opinions they listen to, tolerate, or detest. It's also that everybody recognizes that the presence of some kinds of speech makes the metaphorical garden of ideas less diverse, not more, just as invasive plants make literal gardens less diverse. It's why we have spam filters, the do-not-call list, and "No Soliciting" signs. If we didn't have these things, we wouldn't have any time to develop our own ideas -- we'd be too busy listening to people trying to sell us something.

Given that the supposed goal of anti-queer activism is to make everybody heterosexual, I think the analogy with invasive species is apt. At least Scotch broom doesn't try to turn other plants into Scotch broom besides just taking away their room to grow! Really, though, I think most anti-queer activists probably know that other people's sexuality is non-negotiable, and merely seek to make queer people's lives as difficult as possible.

It's hard to grow and thrive when people around you are telling you that you should change fundamental aspects of your self or that you don't belong in your community because of those fundamental traits. It's especially difficult when those people are your managers or the heads of your company. Given the choice, you might just choose to go to a company where your managers and executives won't say those things. If they're not telling you those things directly, merely making it a matter of public record that they want your life to be harder than it is, that's not necessarily any easier to tolerate. Even if bigotry-underwriting CEOs are always nice to you to your face, never treat you in a way that's obviously unfair, their presence corrodes your ability to trust the fairness of your organization's decision-making processes. In an environment of fairness, you can be sure that if your manager criticizes your performance, it's because they think you need to work on improving something. When your leaders' support for bigotry is on the public record, it's impossible to be free from the nagging question of whether it's really about your work, or the fact that somebody up there wishes you didn't exist.

Different goals, not different tactics

Returning to Pontin's words, "...we really want to..." raises the question of who "we" are and what we want. Perhaps he and I just want different things.

I want to encourage diversity of opinion, and tactically, I would advise anyone else who wants the same thing to make a specific effort to include points of view that usually get marginalized. The points of view that enjoy majority endorsement will take care of themselves. Of course, other people might not want what I want. But I don't think it's so controversial that all other things being equal, a public organization should strive to encourage diversity of opinion within their ranks -- indeed, this is exactly what many of Eich's defenders have said.

So if we assume for the sake of argument that we all want to encourage diversity of opinion, how are we to go about doing so -- concretely, in the organizations where we work or volunteer? One approach is the laissez-faire method: just let it all hang out. But if you've ever attended a meeting without a moderator, you know that approach doesn't work. The people who can yell the loudest will get heard, leaving everybody else to fight just to get a word in.

Another approach is to maintain a social contract that explicitly calls out inclusion. It's best when such a contract is explicit rather than implicit, because it's not fair to expect people to follow rules they don't know about. I think this is a better approach than the laissez-faire approach, because having explicit policies makes it possible for everyone to be heard, not just those who can yell the loudest and longest. Part of such a social contract can be the expectation that people will refrain from public speech that has a chilling effect on the free speech of others -- particularly on the speech of those who are most vulnerable to oppression, since protecting the free speech of people who are politically powerful is superfluous. Sometimes these contracts are called codes of conduct.

Another thing that's very frustrating about the "do we really want to drive out a person for? ..." approach is that it mistakes a difference of opinion about goals for a difference of opinion about tactics. I don't think someone asking this question has the same goals as I do. I can only conclude that they have the goal of making corporations safe places for people who have any opinions that a white heterosexual man would be likely to have, while I have the goal of making them safe places for everybody who is willing to work respectfully with others. It's easy for other heterosexual men to defend Eich because they can imagine themselves being in his shoes, but can't imagine what it's like to be a queer person in a heterosexual world. I realize that it's easier for someone who looks a lot like Eich to imagine no longer being welcome in their job because the world has made progress that they haven't caught up with than it is for them to imagine dealing with the daily microaggressions that come with being part of a minority group. But it's still frustrating for me that they refuse to even try to take another point of view, given how much time I have to spend taking their point of view just so I can survive.

False equivalences

"It's important to be able to work with people who you disagree with." I can't count the number of times this has been said about the Eich crisis, and it's closely related to the idea that we don't really want to force the resignations of CEOs over political donations. It's smarmy, condescending, and erases power imbalances.

It is condescending to tell me I need to be able to work with people I disagree with when if I refused to work with people I disagree with, I would immediately be unemployed and, shortly afterward, bankrupt. Working with people we disagree with is a necessary survival skill for those of us whose basic humanity is still up for debate. Not only do we have to work with people we disagree with -- we have to work with people who disagree with us about whether we're people, about whether we're capable of telling the truth about our own subjective experiences. The smarmy folks talking down to us about how we need to be able to tolerate differences will never have to experience that.

It also erases power imbalances to implore us to "work with people [we] disagree with" -- the recasting of structural violence as "disagreement" implies falsely that a queer person who says "no, really, I'm telling the truth when I say I love my partner just as much as you love your spouse" to a heterosexual person has equal power -- is accorded as much respect and credence -- as a heterosexual person who says "gay people's relationships are just about sex, not love". There is a difference between supervising employees who vote Democratic when you vote Republican, and having a boss who (or knowing that someone at the top of your reporting chain) has taken specific action to take away your civil rights.

It is not just outright speech or actions towards the goal of eliminating queer people that hurts us (and when I say "us", I mean everybody, because an environment that tolerates eliminating a group of people because of a non-negotiable trait diminishes everybody's dignity). For many of us, it's insulting as heck when people claim to agree with us, but nonetheless go to the mat for the conviction that whether or not queer people are people should be subject to debate, should be hashed out in the free marketplace if ideas. It is hurtful when someone who claims to be my ally is more interested in fostering open dialogue about the pros and cons of accepting that I'm human than they are in showing solidarity with me.

To say that 'queers are subhuman' is a valuable perspective that improves a community is, itself, an act of rhetorical violence against queer people.

Ethical Culture Fit?

The last reason why I think it's disingenuous to treat "forcing someone to resign over political donations" as an outrage is that in Silicon Valley, people literally get fired (and I mean fired, not voluntarily resigning in order to cease hurting your organization, despite being implored by the organization's other leaders to stay on) -- or constructively dismissed, or rejected for jobs -- for having "different views" ALL THE TIME. This phenomenon is usually called "culture fit". In principle, there's nothing wrong with it, except that a very narrow culture tends to dominate and it's hard for the majority who don't fit with that culture to be in tech.

But if there's nothing wrong with "culture fit" hiring, there's certainly nothing wrong with a person recognizing that his views make him a poor fit with a culture that has changed while he has not, and voluntarily exiting. While I don't think that's exactly what happened with Eich leaving Mozilla, in principle, if an organization has a culture that supports queer people's freedom to be who they are, there is nothing wrong with declining to select leaders who oppose that freedom. At least, if you think there is something wrong with it, you should probably also criticize companies where if you aren't a bearded white guy who wears T-shirts and jeans and likes to drink with your colleagues after work, you will be ostracized to the point where it hurts your performance.

The near-universal acceptance of "culture fit" as a valid gatekeeping mechanism makes it clear that "no one should be pushed out for their opinions", or whatever, is disingenuous. They're not objecting to people getting pushed out for their opinions. They're objecting to people like themselves getting pushed out for their opinions, or perhaps to people getting pushed out for opinions they can imagine themselves holding. More so, they're protesting the fact that they no longer have exclusive control of the discourse -- that somebody other than themselves is now involved in deciding which opinions are acceptable. Most of the time, when you see someone calling for tolerance or acceptance who already enjoys a great deal of tolerance and acceptance, what they're really asking you to do is tolerate their domination of you.

Postscript

Some of the same people who wrung their hands about "people being driven out for having different opinions" when Eich resigned are approaching maximum beardhurt because Steve Klabnik is both a contract technical writer for Mozilla, and a critic of capitalism. To which I say: good.
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
I have a new piece up at Model View Culture: 'Killing the Messenger at Mozilla: Hero worship, “meritocracy” and the Eich crisis.'

Postscript:
I asked MVC to make the following edits to the article, based on comments made by [personal profile] graydon2 and Lukas:
1) change "former Mozilla COO Ryan Merkley" to "former Mozilla Foundation COO Ryan Merkley"
2) change "whether or not Mozilla should have a code of conduct (it never adopted one)" to "whether or not Mozilla should have a code of conduct (it never adopted one, instead adopting a weak set of community participation guidelines)"
tim: Mike Slackernerny thinking "Scientific progress never smelled better" (science)
In case you were wondering, all the jokes are true: San Francisco really is cold and foggy in the summer. The weather's actually varied between cold and warm lately, but there hasn't been a lot of sunlight, even in the supposedly-sunny Mission -- it doesn't help that my bedroom has one small window that faces onto an air shaft. I've been having trouble waking up in the mornings, even though (unlike certain times in the past) I really do look forward to getting out and going to work. So I think it's physiological; I have SAD, and past experience has taught me that supposedly-sunny Northern California doesn't generally provide the sunlight that I need.

I'll only be living here two more weeks anyway, but I wanted to get the benefits of being in the office when other people are, which is the whole reason why I wanted to be in San Francisco for my first month of work. I have a dawn simulator -- this particular model is no longer being manufactured, but it still works fine. I also have a 250-watt incandescent lamp to use with it. Bright lamps are hard to find these days, so I had to go to a hardware store that sold animal supplies and buy one that is usually used for incubating baby chicks. The price was right, though. The lamp, though, is currently in some unknown location in my storage space, and I didn't want to excavate it. So I thought I would just go buy another lamp, which will be useful in my next apartment anyway.

Easier said than done -- it's hard to find incandescent bulbs these days (and I don't want to waste electricity or start a fire, which I was always worried about with the chicken lamp), and most compact fluorescent bulbs can't be used with a dimmer switch, which is basically what a dawn simulator is. LED lights can be dimmed, but they're still very expensive. The solution I finally hit upon was to buy a standing lamp with sockets for three 100-watt bulbs at a thrift store ($10!) and buy three dimmable 26-watt (100-watt equivalent) CFLs (which cost more than the lamp, at $10 each) at Cole Hardware. I would have liked a single bulb, but they don't seem to make them any brighter than that (there was an entertaining giant 500-watt equivalent CFL bulb in the store, but it was non-dimmable).

Then for the moment of truth! Disappointingly, "dimmable" seems -- at least for the particular brand of light bulb I bought -- to mean that it has 3 brightness settings, one of which is "off". Then again, maybe I don't need a very gentle brightness curve to wake up in the mornings. Also, it has the cool feature of flickering when it's at full brightness. Maybe that will wake me up too, though, and give me the relaxing sensation of being at a rave.

The main reason I'm writing this post, besides to entertain myself, is to see if there's anyone else out there who uses a dawn simulator, light-based alarm clock, LED light bulb that can be programmed with a smartphone, or any similar thing, and find out what their experiences have been and what they would recommend!
tim: text: "I'm not offended, I'm defiant" (not offended)
[CW: weight stigma]

Quoted verbatim from a comment I just submitted via the Salesforce intranet (Salesforce is the parent company of Heroku, where I started working a week and a half ago.)
I'm not sure who the right person to contact about this is, but I have some concerns about the content shown on the home page at http://www.getsalesforcebenefits.com/ . For example, right now, there is a panel encouraging viewers to "slim down with the retrofit program". Some employees have -- or are recovering from -- eating disorders, and do not need to see this content, which could be triggering to them. In general, intentional weight loss is not an evidence-based health intervention, and has harmful effects for many people.

The effects of weight stigma on physical health are well-documented and damaging -- I'm happy to provide more information and resources on this topic. http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/why-diets-dont-work/ and http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/the-high-cost-of-weight-stigma/ are both good places to start. I would love to see Salesforce promote the Health at Every Size movement ( http://www.haescommunity.org/ ), an evidence-based, supportive approach to health, as part of its wellness program.

In addition, weight discrimination is illegal in San Francisco: the city's guidelines at http://sf-hrc.org/sites/sf-hrc.org/files/migrated/FileCenter/Documents/LBE_EBO/EBO/Height_and_Weight.pdf state, "Employers must strive to maintain a respectful, non-hostile environment related to weight and height.... Unsolicited comments, advice, or literature recommending weight loss or gain are inappropriate." I think that the content that appears on the Salesforce benefits home page qualifies as "unsolicited advice or literature recommending weight loss", and thus creates a hostile environment for fat employees.

If there is another way I should make this comment, please let me know.

Thanks,
Tim Chevalier

Edit: On July 18, I received the following response to my query:
Hi Ted,

Thanks so much for providing feedback on this communication. I appreciate your concern and candor. We strive to present broad-based wellness programs that help employees find happiness, healthiness and a sense of security. We can certainly take a look at the organization that you suggested. The banner on our benefits homepage has already been taken down based on the rotation schedule.

I'm happy to talk more about our wellness programs (and specifically why we chose to partner with Retrofit) on the phone if you'd like. Thank you again for taking the time to reach out.

Kind regards,
[REDACTED]

(No, I don't know why they addressed me as "Ted" either.) This isn't terribly satisfying, as it doesn't give any indication that the company is going to put effort into complying with San Francisco's anti-weight-discrimination ordinance.
tim: 2x2 grid of four stylized icons: a bus, a light rail train, a car, and a bicycle (travel)
Since it seems that a lot of people don't know what I'm doing (and writing this post won't change that since even if I link it everywhere, the vagaries of various social media software will make sure most people never see it, lol):

I just finished my first week working at Heroku as an engineer on the HTTP Routing Infrastructure team. While most of the first week was spent shuffling ssh keys hither and yon, from here on I'll be writing some Erlang.

I'm living in the Mission (two blocks from Tartine, Maxfield's, and Bi-Rite) for the rest of July, subletting a room in a friend's place.

Since I have the privilege of being able to work remotely, I'm going to take advantage of that privilege for a while (as nice as the Heroku office is). In August, I'll be moving to someplace with lower rent than San Francisco, but within North America (my job is so inflexible ;-) so I can pay off my $30,000 of student loan debt and $12,000 of combined medical and credit card debt more easily. Given my constraints, there are a lot of places in North America to choose from -- specifically, all of them, except San Francisco. Optimizing for relative proximity to people and places I want to visit, proximity to a city with population 100,000+, culture, and low cost of living, I'll probably be looking for a 2 or 3-bedroom rental house in Reno, NV, where I predict I'll be paying about a quarter of the rent that I would pay for a similar place in the Bay Area. Once my debt is paid off (barring anything unexpected, in 6-9 months), I'll probably move back to the Bay Area, but then, who knows what will happen?

It seems that housing is generally "available now", so rather than trying to find a place to live in advance, I'll probably just get in my car at the end of the month and go try to find someplace to live, then return for my furniture and stuff (currently in storage) and my cats (currently staying with a friend in Napa). I'm aspiring to adopt two more cats, assuming I can find a rental place that will allow four cats (and crossing my fingers that my other cats don't hate them).

I would love to hang out with people in the Bay Area while I'm still here, but since I lent my car to somebody for the month to avoid paying half my rent again for a parking space, preferably someplace transit-accessible. I've also been focusing on first-week-of-work panic and finishing-an-article panic, and thus have made zero plans for that yet.
tim: text: "I'm not offended, I'm defiant" (defiant)
"Men are afraid women will laugh at them, while women are afraid men will kill them." -- Margaret Atwood

"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

There's a company called Gittip that helps people make small, regularly scheduled donations to people whose work they like. In principle, this is a great idea, since the free market doesn't magically ensure that artists, writers, and social activists can get paid for their work.

As it turned out, a lot of the top fundraisers on Gittip ended up being women who work for equality in tech: people like Shanley Kane, Ashe Dryden, Lynn Cyrin, Noirin Plunkett, and others. This wasn't necessarily something that the creator of Gittip (a white dude named Chad Whitacre) foresaw or intended; it just happened that way.

White guys in tech love talking about "meritocracy", so you would think they would applaud this outcome as a meritocratic one. The people doing work that was most worthy of support received the most donations, right?

...well, no, that's not quite what happened. Instead, numerous commenters on Hacker News (I'm not linking to these comment threads, since Hacker News is NSFL) excoriated Gittip's top users for being "professional victims" (read: women who resist male domination) and Gittip itself for helping women make money. Incredibly, Chad Whitacre replied to one of these comments with agreement -- showing that, as Sky Croeser pointed out, Gittip supports the harassment that many of its top users in particular.

Shanley Kane and Ashe Dryden, in particular, have written about the massive amount of daily harassment they receive just for being women in tech who speak out about wanting to be treated equally. In particular, Kane recently made her Twitter account private in the hopes of reducing the number of death threats and rape threats she receives.

Whitacre, in the meantime, made a bold move: he wrote a blog post attacking Kane for bullying him. No word yet on whether any of the bros on Hacker News think Whitacre is a "professional victim" as a result. (Also no word on how many death threats and rape threats Whitacre has received for expressing his views.)

I've closed my gittip account and donated the balance remaining in it to Noirin Plunkett. I do want to support people who are doing work that I value, but supporting a company that incites abuse of the same people I want to support isn't a way for me to do that.

In "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" -- required reading for anyone who has ever noticed someone be wrong on the Internet -- Martin Luther King, Jr. distinguishes between "a negative peace which is the absence of tension" and "a positive peace which is the presence of justice". People like Whitacre prefer negative peace -- where abusers abuse in private, and in public, abusers are polite and victims are silent -- to positive peace, where everyone can be heard. The preference for negative peace can be heard in every call for "civility" online that is mysteriously only directed at people in marginalized groups who are criticizing upwards in the power structure, and seen in every finger pointed at Black feminists online for making Twitter "toxic". Negative peace favors abusers and reconstructs oppression. The world that supporters of negative peace want is one where people (like themselves) who have power can hurt people as much as they want as long as they do it with a smile on their face, without using any cuss words.

In short:
  • Meritocracy: still a joke.
  • We need a payment system that's run by and for activists who act in solidarity with intersectional feminism. Otherwise, this will keep happening again and again: literally any service that feminist activists are able to make good use of will become a service that increases the amount of harassment and abuse aimed at the same activists.
tim: "System Status: Degraded" (degraded)
Dylan Wilbanks makes a really great point in this article about farmers versus laborers, as applied to the tech industry. It's a distinction that's been made before, but for the first time, something really clicked in my mind, something saying that I'm not worse than other people because I don't want to write code in my spare time.

And thinking about it, it occurs to me that the way we (as in young-ish tech workers) are being lied to is that our (collective) bosses demand from us that we behave like farmers -- like, in other words, people who own something -- without actually getting ownership in anything. That we take on all the risks of being owners, without actually owning a thing. That's true whether we're talking about expectations that people do open source work in their free time in order to be deemed worthy of a software job, or whether we're talking about expectations that employees work unpaid overtime to increase profits for people working 40 hours a week at best. When you put effort into a (literal) farm, you're getting something back -- you know it's always going to be yours, and if you do a good job, you're likely to gain economic security. What happens when you put effort into a company that someone else owns? How many businesses succeed? And what about working on an open-source project -- you could view this as contributing towards a collective good, but as Ashe Dryden among others have pointed out, the benefits of open-source work are grossly unevenly distributed.

It reminds me of what Lawrence Lessig wrote about socializing the risks and privatizing the benefits, and I'm sure there's a catchier way to put this, but I thought I should write it down.

And as far as the distinction that the article makes, I'm a laborer, and I doubt I will ever be anything else as long as I stay in the tech industry. (I'm a little uncomfortable using that word to refer to work where I get to be seated in an air-conditioned office all day, but there you go.)
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
...that I received today:

"Here's the thing, I don't care if you're convinced.
If you want me to care about you being hurt you have to convince me that you're being reasonable. And if you don't I don't care if you're hurt, and I won't care to convince you that you shouldn't be hurt."

I guess this reflects a fundamental values difference, which is why I'm replying on my blog and not directly to the commenter.

If someone says they feel hurt, I'm going to believe them. They don't need to convince me. That's because as a general rule, I don't want to hurt people. It's important to me to not hurt people. That's more important to me than logic or being right.

So, if someone says "hey, it hurts me when you do that thing", I'm going to stop doing that thing -- assuming, that is, that I don't have a compelling interest in doing that thing. So if "that thing" is breathing, yeah, I'm not going to stop doing it. On the other hand, if "that thing" is using a word that I could easily find alternatives for, then sure, I'll stop using it! Even if I think they're being unreasonable, even if I don't understand why it hurts the person. The important thing is that they're being vulnerable by telling me it hurts (there's no reason for them to lie about it), so why should I keep hurting someone for no good reason?

Here's another example that I've used before. Suppose you are a person who has testicles. If I feel like giving you a swift kick to the crotch, does you have to convince me that it would actually be painful for you if I did that? After all, since my testicles are silicone implants, it doesn't hurt (especially) for someone to kick me in the junk. So why should I believe you when you tell me it hurts for you? If I think you're being unreasonable, does that give me the right to kick you in the junk? (The answer isn't "no, because it's illegal", since that doesn't give us any insight into why it is.)

So if I call you "hypersensitive" because a kick in the crotch hurts you more than it hurts me, when that's really because you were born with testes and I wasn't, what does that really mean? Likewise, if you call me "hypersensitive" and say I need to "grow a thick skin" because I've had experiences that you haven't, and thus am hurt by things that don't hurt you, what does that really mean? Is it different from me telling you that you should "grow a thick skin" by getting your balls removed so that I can kick you more easily?

Saying No

May. 1st, 2014 10:44 am
tim: A warning sign with "Danger" in white, superimposed over a red oval on a black rectangle, above text  "MEN EXPLAINING" (mansplaining)
In the past week, I had two talk proposals accepted: one for LambdaJam in July, and one for Open Source Bridge in June. I ended up declining to give both of them. This was hard for me.

I like giving talks. I don't have any stage fright. I've been told I give good talks. In my field, good speakers aren't very common, but the few good talks I've seen make me want to go do the same thing, in a way that almost nothing else does. I like the performance aspect of it, and it makes being at a conference make sense (I always feel vaguely awkward when someone asks me if I have a talk and I say no.)

What I don't like is preparing talks. I don't see a way around this. It's not like anyone else can do it for me. I think it's because of how feedback works -- I get feedback at the very end, after I give a talk, but it's very hard to get any feedback on intermediate products, and when something isn't closely coupled with my job, I don't really have an audience for a practice talk. Even if I do a practice talk, that's after I've prepared all the slides. I think to make the process less painful, I'd have to have a way to get feedback a lot earlier.

I proposed something pretty ambitious for OS Bridge, which is a hands-on Haskell tutorial. I would have to prepare the tutorial materials -- code with "fill in the blank" pieces -- from scratch. Likewise, for LambdaJam, I proposed a talk on a project I've been wanting to do (a "traveling salesman" approximation implementation in Haskell -- for fun, applied perhaps to a data set like the list of Hosteling International hostels in the US), with the idea being that the talk would give me motivation to actually implement it. But now that I would actually have to write all that code in less than 2 months, it doesn't look as appealing to me.

I think what I need in my life now are things to do in my free time that I can do with other people and that don't feel like work. Unfortunately, preparing talks doesn't meet either criterion: I have to do it alone, and it feels like work. And I can't do it on the clock, since it's related to my job but the talks aren't about what I actually do at work (since not all of it is open-source).

In the past, giving talks has seemed like a way for me to get bonus points at work, but the last talk I gave -- at Open Source Bridge a year ago -- backfired in that sense. My manager (at my previous job) complained that I "gave too many talks" (because I gave one talk in two years) because I spent the two weeks before the talk preparing slides and not doing much else. That experience discouraged me from giving more talks in the future. Since what the talks would be on would be only loosely related to my job, I don't necessarily expect negative feedback for giving them (since all the prep would be in my copious free time), but I don't expect it to be a big positive, either.

So the calculation I did was that preparing the talks was likely to give me more anxiety than satisfaction. And in fact, that would still be true even if I did only one of the talks. So I declined. I still feel like I'm passing something up, but the cost of accepting the opportunity seems too high for me right now. Of course, that could change in the future, and there will always be more conferences.

I still plan to go to Open Source Bridge -- there are too many good talks not to, I'll be passing through Portland anyway, and it's a great chance to see a lot of friends. I don't know what the future holds for me, career-wise, so right now, putting in extracurricular effort to be more established in the tech community doesn't seem like a good investment: I don't know if I'll be in this community in two years. It's uncomfortable to be in this liminal state, but I think the way to deal with that discomfort is to experiment with actually being nice to myself and giving myself enough time to satisfy needs that don't have to do with writing code.

Profile

tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
Tim Chevalier

November 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
23 4567 8
9101112 131415
1617 1819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags