[conspire] Update for BALE

[Michael Paoli]

> From: Texx <texxgadget at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [conspire] Update for BALE
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:59:27 -0800

> Re LUGs outliving usefulness.
> What we used to get out of lugs, is now in online forums (including this
> one).
Well, your experiences/perceptions are ... *yours*.  ;-)

> The amount of in person benefit, not so much.
Speak for yourself.  :-) (Yes, you do.)

> There are a few exceptions.
I can (easily) think of lots more than "few".
> Kim got a lot out of in person than most people and it appears to have
> worked.
Probably quite a bit ... but I'd reasonably presume Kim didn't limit or
mostly limit herself to LUGs, but also well availed herself of many
other useful resources, and probably also didn't (just or mostly) sit
around and wait for LUGs to do stuff for her, and complain about it in
the meantime.

> Re Python:
> I dont have the buck$ for Udemy, but the Youtube thing I took a glance at
> and will eventually
> sit through it.
Can't be *all* that difficult to get started with Python, e.g. recently
brought to my attention:
Coding for Beginners Using Python
by Louie Stowell
2017
$12.96 USD
Ages: 9 years and up
An introduction to coding for complete beginners, this friendly and
accessible book will teach children the basics of Python (a widely used
programming language), allowing them to get inside the code of their
computer and create simple games and animations on screen.

Oh, and another tip for learning Python ... well, applies too to many
programming languages.  See if you can find some challenging but feasible
projects you're quite to highly interested in programming that are very
feasible to do in the language you're looking to learn - and preferably
infeasible in most or all other languages (or at least all the others
you already know).  I certainly found that useful, e.g. when I was
learning Perl.  Some of my early non-trivial Perl programs are ones that
were infeasible to do in any language I already knew, but were a
good/excellent fit for Perl.

> That guy isnt trying to turn it into some schlocky amateur TV show like
> most of Youtube and
> Im reassured.
YouTube ain't what it used to be.  This is 2020, not 2006.  It's a
helluva lot easier to sort the wheat from the chaff, and that applies to
most of The Internet, despite volumes of chaff having increased more
than volumes of wheat.  For the most part, no shortage of wheat.

> Its refreshing since much of what Ive seen on Youtube is "Hole mah beer in
> watch dis" type Jakass vids, or "Hi my name is Troy Mac Clure and you might
> know me from 'Hole mah beer, in watch dis!' and "Watch dis if yahll will
> hole mah beer' "
Well, if that's what you mostly watched on YouTube in 2006, and have
continued to do so, I'm sure it will "learn" that as your viewing
preferences and continue to "recommend" that to you and serve it up to
you.  ;-)
But if your preferences change, or one bothers to (mostly) pick other
than default recommendations it serves up, there's no shortage of
good/excellent material there too (along with tons of crud, which one
can mostly ignore) ... as goes most of The Internet.

> I believe one of the reasons online replaced in person LUGs is that the
> LUGs dropped the ball.
Perception?  Or more *also* available from additional resources?
Perhaps more, LUGs evolve more to cover what can't be done (or done as
well) remotely ... e.g. hands-on-hardware ... yummy shared food/dining,
in-person asking/answering of questions & knowledge share - live &
interactive without screen or the like "in the way", lovely place for
in-person gathering, ...

> Keep in mind, that I do not consider Cabal to be a LUG as it never claimed
> to be a LUG.
Oh really.  Must a shoe claim itself to be a shoe for it to be a shoe?

> The LUGs, on the other hand, I hold to their stated mission.
Stated mission?  Surely you jest.  LUGs may be organized, ... but
typically not *that* organized.  But hey, if you want mission statements
or the like, you can round up 3 or more reliable persons (and additional
backups) per [L]UG to be officers, and pony up the >~=$600 USD or so (or
whatever it's up to now) to handle all the paperwork and filings to be
a registered 501(c)(3) organization or the like.  And sure, in those
papers, will probably have a "stated mission" or purpose, or something
like that.

> Im railing against LUGs claiming to be a LUG and not walking the talk.
> Im annoyed by the false advertising.
What advertising?  Who's the ad agency?  Are you going to organize a
consumer boycott or something?  Get the TV and radio shows to drop them
as advertising sponsor?

> If you are going to be a "Go out to dinner and stare into your laptop all
> night group",
> dont claim to be a user group, tell the truth and advertise yourself as  a
> dinner group.
Hey, it's got users, they're grouped.  Seems qualified to me.
Is somebody wanting to become the self-appointed judge of what
is/isn't a [L]UG?

> So yah, Im listening, and Im paying better attention than you think.
s/Im/I'm/g
Or are you having keyboard problems?
How 'bout:
im=$(echo I\\47m)
echo ... ${im} ...

Oh, and semi-random tip.
Let's say you're a potential employer, deciding between two otherwise
equally qualified candidates.  Let's say you Google 'em.
Let's say Candidate A, you find mostly bad-mouthing LUGs and complaining
about LUGs being not useful, not as advertised, etc., whereas
Candidate B you find engaged with LUGs, reporting on useful stuff/tips
they've gotten from LUGs and/or lists thereof, asking how they can
help/improve and contribute to LUGs, thanking folks for cool
tips/learnings they've gotten from LUGs/lists ... so, now, all other
factors being equal, are you gonna hire Candidate A or Candidate B?
And too, The Internet has memory.  It may be spotty, and very/highly
uneven, but it also tends to often be a very *long* memory ... at least
in parts.