This is not exclusive to the East, but any culture with a high cost of expression. Recent interview with a Russian CEO, talking about how they have "growth across the board, only in the negative direction"
And I suspect that in general more people (and sub cultures) in the US will start using more non-committal language in the coming decades. When repression grows harder it might become more important to not be noticed.
It would be interesing to know if the regional differences in the US that people are talking about here could be traced back to those places having a more homogeneous population with regards to hierarchical religious practices, country of origin, single-ish way to make a living or similar so that it is very important to not be cast out of the group.
Another perspective is also how this phenomenon relates to what I think is called "code switching" that individual persons from oppressed groups often use in contact with an individual from the oppressing group in daily life. Like how BIPOC interact with white people, women with men or young people with adults - where a not insignificant part of the interaction is about keeping the oppressive party calm and content.
----
English is not my language and I'd like to learn better. Please help me by correcting spelling, expressions and idioms.
Nothing wrong with the attributes the author groups under 'transparent leadership', but the article shows a certain misunderstanding of servant leadership.
At the core of servant leadership is the idea that leaders shouldn't hoard power, but instead share it and empower their reports. That they are accountable to their reports, rather than the other way.
Nothing to do with acting like a parents and becoming a single point of failure.
So... clickbait title for an article that could have been called "Delete flakey tests"...but then and most of us would have just gone "yep" and not clicked.
Hyrum's Law especially applies when you have consumers of your APIs that violate Postel's Law. To minimise those in the past, we've introduced intentional jitter in our API responses that while didn't violate the schema prevented unintentional reliance on behaviour that wasn't intentional[1].
> Add: '-site:pinterest.com' to your Google image search to avoid pinterest results.
Even though I usually remember to include this manual filtering for images in my searches, it's cumbersome and inconvenient to need to type it, and I definitely don't want to have an extension that handles it for me. And even worse, is the enormous and growing proliferation of sites that just scrape StackOverflow and spam the top 10 places of code-queries with their robot-written word-salad of stolen results.
I've even thought about writing a terminal script that includes all of these sites, and which I could use as an intermediary step for opening searches in my browser. But honestly - a simple exclusion list should be a part of the built-in search.
edit: btw the exclusion needs to be '-site:pinterest.*' to totally exclude this pestilential image-stealing 'service' from results
Good point. I do indeed do this in my personal searches. But much of my searching is in front of students. As an art/design teacher, image search has become an invaluable part of my teaching. Much of this is ‘performative’… searching whilst teaching. Having to include Booleans adds an extra layer of complexity to what should be a simple operation. I don’t want to lecture on Google-foo when I had planned on lecturing on Post-Impressionism.
Would super-love the ability to ‘own’ my search criteria. Ideally, via defined profiles.
Due to ideas like this, I learned that Google limits you to "32 terms" in your query. Bing is a little more generous, but also breaks horribly with queries that are long for various reasons (like site restrictions or exclusions).
More information: Wei Li et al, High potency of a bivalent human VH domain in SARS-CoV-2 animal models, Cell (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.007
