A job you like where ~10% of your colleges leave is a job I would probably enjoy a whole lot less.
I conceptually like non-profits, but that seems tangential. Why would I discount my work due to comparison with a hypothetical alternative that is more efficient at doing good.
>especially one that just makes blogs
What's wrong with blogs? I like blogs.
One of the things I liked about selling software is the knowledge that customers do value your software. If they didn't then they wouldn't put their hand in their pocket.
I think people are generally confused by things like insulin, where there are newer and better versions coming out continually, despite it being invented in the 1920s.
At Walmart it is $25 for 1,000 Units of Novolin N [1], with no insurance or prescription. 1000 units is about a month for a lot of people. Novolin N is a third or 4th generation Insulin approved in 1950.
You can get 1000 units of Humalog (Approved in 1996) for $43 at walgreens or most pharmacies (or 19.99 with a Walgreens coupon) [2]
The more recently approved version of Insulin Afrezza, (approved in 2014) costs about $2,000 for a monthly supply.[3]
There has been a fairly consistent march of insulin improvements since the first versions were sold in 1926. [0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_(medication)#History
https://www.walmart.com/cp/relion-insulin/8418641?action=Sig...
https://www.goodrx.com/insulin-lispro
https://pharmacy.amazon.com/afrezza-180-Cartridge-Pack-Insul...
The sentence is still true regardless of whatever noun you put in it. If the noun itself changes your mind then you should either clarify or reconsider your position
This seems like a pretty big "if". Arguably, Automattic is better than most for-profit companies since they develop a FOSS product, and I think you can make an argument that any sort of FOSS makes the world better.
OTOH, it's not clear to me that making it easier and cheaper to blog or host websites makes the world better. I'm sure there's lots of people using WordPress and similar products for horrible things, like tobacco companies, arms manufacturers, animal ag companies, etc. And that's not to mention the no doubt plenty of personal users who are blogging about conspiracy theories, white supremacy, or Hindu nationalism.
I think the best case for most software is that it's net _neutral_. I work at a database company. Our products are used by many, many different companies, non-profits, and governments. I think some of our customers are horrible, some are great, and most are neither. But that would be the case for me at nearly every software company I might work at.
That said, you are right in that these judgments certainly depends on your mental model of the world. Ex. Are blogs and websites good or bad. A proponent of radical back to the trees movement would probably disagree. I tend to think logs are a good thing for the world
If Billy Bob wants to out himself as a white nationalist, I'd rather he do it out in the open. If it's really a terrible idea then it won't get any traction.
When you censor these people it gives them even more reason to get angry and people start supporting just to fight the perceived injustice. This was a key driver in Jan 6th.
Where in my comment did I call for censorship?
All I said was that it's not clear whether FOSS blog software makes the world a better place. I don't understand how you get from there to censorship.
Being relatively far-left, much of the tech industry is indoctrinated into it.
It seems to them like a not-unintelligent, non-controversial, or even obvious viewpoint because they’ve been swimming in that water their whole lives. It’s a first principle to them and they don’t even know it.
That is fairly left when compared US averages.
You can enjoy your job, and I do too, but I don’t claim to be doing anything extraordinary.
Of course, as stated, "believe in the work" is an imprecise sentiment. Believe what exactly? They probably don't believe it is bad tho, haha
And if indie content creation moves to TikTok that's because it's what the next generation wants.
I don't see a reason to exclude those from my earlier comment at all. Yes, they are very much a part of the deal too, whether ecom or whatever business they are in. Having independent "wp shopping carts" replaced by generic Prime dropshipping with both sides at the mercy of a monopolist would also be very sad. If there are people dedicated to improving the standalone alternative software and sustaining those efforts by making money off of it, i view it as a 100% positive.
People routinely make choices that have long term outcomes they don't agree with; and we all know they do and thus the information industry quite explicitly exploits this - the difference between what we "really" want and short term impulses has never been larger due to such intentional exploitation.
Secondly, network effects. The way intellectual property happens to work allows platforms to effectively own networks their user's create. A group of entirely rational users might well each individually choose to join a network since for them doing so is extremely valuable, even in the knowledge that it'd be better for everyone to choose a different alternative if they could manage to do so collectively, especially since IP laws mean it's quite unlikely for any such alternative not to eventually develop similar weaknesses. Business plans work when profiting off content involves controlling it simply because that's how the law pretty much defines it - IP doesn't support creativity directly, it supports monopolies and leaves the support to exploiting that monopoly.
The implied argument sort of infers a cause by default - people are choosing the proverbial tiktok (or whatever other new thing), people are rational, therefore there must be a reason, therefore tiktok is better for people (and we don't need to know why). But each of those steps is quite weak; the overall link is tenuous at best.
The way I read it at least, it was a simple reference and sentiment, not a comparison.
For future readers the article at one point said
>On May 1, 1992, a man who’d been horribly beaten by the L.A. police called for calm in five heartfelt, memorable words: “Can’t we all get along?”
This is a reference to a statement by Rodney King near the end of the riot period.
https://archive.nytimes.com/learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...
> I don't think there was a comparison between WordPress and Rodney King
You did not say it “seemed” like a reference, you explicitly said there was no comparison
There is no comparison. there is a reference. A reference is not a comparison.
You also didnt answer my question. You are claiming there is an inferred comparison. If so, please explain what two things are being compared, and in what way.
If I mention that I have a big idea and then mention how a great man also once stated “I have a dream”, do you think I’m referencing MLK with no inferred comparison to my idea?
Referencing something in light of your previous statement out of nowhere for a public blog post is a comparison. If you think this just happened randomly and was completely divorced from the previous context then I struggle to understand how to communicate with you
He made an inferred comparison between his situation and Rodney King, that’s the comparison.
The favorability of the comparison in a positive or negative note doesn’t matter to me. Comparing staying at a job or not over layoffs, to a momentous civil rights events in our living history is not acceptable in my opinion
Can you fill in the blanks of what you think is being inferred. " I think {staying at my job} is similar to {Rodney king} in {_________} way.
I think you very confused about the objects and and relation being asserted. If you think the relational inference is clear, please, again, tell me.
If you don’t believe it was inferred then agree to disagree
you cant even produce one possible comparison.
>If you don’t believe it was inferred then agree to disagree
You have got to be trolling me. In several posts, you have failed to identify what "it" is. what's the implied comparison being made?
If you need it more clearly than that, than we aren’t capable of communicating ideas to each other with our personal world views
George Washington once was alive, and people are alive today too.
If you agree that there needs to be a stronger connection to establish a connection, then why even mention the situation? Do you think the author did it out of complete randomness?
>“Can’t we all get along?” We couldn’t then, and we aren’t, now.
That doesn't mean they think they are a victim like Rodney King. That doesn't mean they think someone is like the cops.
I think the point is that conflict exists as part of the human experience. You can acknowledge that it exists and move forward. It isn't useful to dwell on what could have been.
Again, what do you think they were using the quote to say. Are they claiming to be a victim like RK? You seem to not like it, but have no clue what you think the implication is, which strikes me as wild. "I dont know what you are saying, but I dont like your meaning"
If he had just said something like “Can’t we all get along” without invoking the history, it would not have brought along the comparison.
To put this into the context of software, and assuming he did not intend the conflating, it would be like he invoked a function that updated state on a specific field that he wanted to change, but the function updated other fields as a side effect.
The most charitable interpretation is that it was an accident and he just reached for the first similar example he could think of, the least charitable is that he actually does think it’s the same.
My opinion is that the situations are so wildly different that it was an inappropriate example to invoke
I don't think any completion occurred because I wasn't confused about the two of them being the same. I don't think you were confused that they were the same either.
I don't think there are people out there that would read the paragraph and walk away thinking the author is just like Rodney King. Therefore I think taking offense for possible conflation on behalf of others is overly cynical.
Calling me overly cynical is an opinion I can’t object to, but don’t try and define my opinion
It's fairly obvious that's what it is.
Or they are being forced to post "I stayed", as nearly everyone that I've come across that works there is posting it. To the point where it doesn't even feel organic.
For anyone else that wants the latest drama: Matt seems to be weaponizing Automattic and CVE's against WP Engine now.
> Automattic's security team has responsibly disclosed a vulnerability in @wp_acf to @wpengine. As is standard, they have 30 days to issue a fix before public disclosure. We have reserved this CVE for the issue: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-9529
Basically announcing to the world that there is a CVE in a very widely used ("2MM+ sites") WP plugin, that also can't be patched as they banned the developers accounts from updating said plugin[1].
Literally at this point the only customers this is hurting are standard WordPress users not on WPEngine.
> “The analogy I made is they got Al Capone for taxes,” Mullenweg says. “So, if a company was making half a billion dollars from WordPress and contributing back about $100,000 a year, yes, I would be trying to get them to contribute more.” WP Engine competes directly with the hosting services offered by Automattic and WordPress.com, and Mullenweg argues one of the reasons for its success is the use of “WordPress” across its site. “That’s why we’re using that legal avenue to really, yeah, pressure them. That’s true: we are pressuring them.”
> “I happily provide WordPress.org services to literally every other host,” Mullenweg says. There is “no requirement to give back. WordPress will be open-source forever and ever, and so there will never be any legal requirement to give back.” But WordPress does still “request” that companies contribute something. “It’s better for WordPress if they give back.”
https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/4/24262232/matt-mullenweg-w...
This sentiment of 'believing' does really annoy me. There are individuals whose work is their passion (nothing wrong with that) but they judge everyone else, for example a potential job candidate through the same immature lens.
Uhm, that's pretty reductive. Perhaps that's the difference?