In reply to:
The statement '@peterevoss 1000%' is a reply in a conversation about the state of computer science education and the dominance of certain methodologies over others. The tone is one of agreement with the previous statement, and the intent seems to be to emphasize strong concurrence with the opinion that the 'monoculture' in computer science is detrimental to progress. The content, however, is minimal and does not provide substantive engagement or further elaboration on the issue.
- The statement does no harm with words and actions. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others; it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion due to its lack of content. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue due to its brevity and lack of elaboration. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement does not use influence for the betterment of society in a substantive way due to its lack of content. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.