1_2__4

If there is a labor shortage then why are the jobs being created of the kind that are less advantageous to workers? Isn’t the market supposed to “correct” in favor of labor in that scenario? Because it looks like the opposite has happened.

Amusingly that’s where I pulled the ripcord on this article too.

I really wish people like you would stop pooh-poohing legitimate complaints about attempts to prematurely retire tech just because companies have found something more lucrative for them.

We’re not luddites. We’re not short sighted. We understand tech moves on. That’s all fine and also irrelevant, because the situation here is that real tech used be lots of people every day with no real replacement is being yanked out from under us in the name of profit. Stop acting like you’re woke and the rest of us just need to catch up. It’s insulting as hell.

I feel like this should be a banner on every comment page: your anecdotal experience is completely irrelevant when discussing something on a country-wide scale. What you personally choose to do has no bearing on the conversation.

Maybe this isn’t an appropriate comment for HN.

My last company was like this. Desperate to get people to write reviews their first week.

As a non-Rust developer my first thought upon seeing the optimized version was “On the other hand let’s not visit Rust, ‘tis a silly place.”

You seem to be just playing with semantics and claiming it offers a new way of thinking about I/O.

It always seems odd to me that people want to readdress solved problems. When I mean solved in this case I mean reached a level of usability where the design became stable, then familiar, then standard/de jure.

The oppprtunities for improvement here are minuscule, and nonexistent if you take into account familiarity and expectation. We should save this kind of blue sky redesign for new or less solved design problems and stop making people’s experience worse in pursuit of some noble but misguided strive for constant and relentless disruption.

I’m watching tech companies be more and more infested with these business types. As in, it used to be you’d see technical product managers, but they’re largely MBA types now. Ditto for engineering upper/exec management. Ditto for sales engineering. Ditto for professional services. Ditto for customer support.

They churn through technical H1Bs at a shocking rate, treat engineering like shit, and add almost no value beyond blowing hot air and shorty software development practices. They always have lots of reasons why things aren’t getting done predictably and slide decks on how to fix it, all of which involve further neutering engineering and especially engineering management. They like to build fake engineering teams outside the engineering organization with absolutely atrocious engineering practices but because they deliver on short notice - never mind what they’re delivering is garbage - the sales idiots and execs love them to death.

They and PMO are cancers on the tech industry and it’s just getting worse.

So all states are corrupt equally and there’s no point in having a discussion about it? Is that your assertion?

I would argue the exact opposite is true. Can you cite examples?

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say with my "charitable interpretation", you articulated it much better.

You’re being so pedantic as to be completely wrong. Affordable does not mean that at least one person on the planet could theoretically purchase it.

I hate sounding both old and weird but I cannot shake the feeling that much of the claims of economic health and growth in the US is... if not fake (I’m not totally nuts) but not accurate. My most charitable interpretation if I’m right is that we’re using the wrong metrics (possibly intentionally) that give a distorted view of the economy. But I keep hearing employment is great, productivity is great, stock market is great, and yet it seems like most anecdotal evidence I see and read about suggest this is all hollow, and things are actually really bad for the average American.

I don’t know. I know how it sounds. But I can’t stop thinking that stuff isn’t adding up. And this article is one more to add to the pile of “how can this be happening if the economy is actually healthy, at least in a way that means people’s financial lives are healthy and prosperous?”

People are mentioning (not complaining) that it's not a replacement for vim/emacs because the discussion is on a web site largely frequented by software professionals. Toy tools are not well-regarded here, nor should they be.

It's like complaining on a site oriented towards construction workers to stop comparing something to pro-grade tools and just bask in the wonder of someone making a slightly better Craftsman ratchet. Cute idea and maybe worthwhile, but not especially relevant to professionals.

Maybe they HAVE thought of these things, and what you think consumers want in cameras is wrong? I disagree with almost everything you want for cameras and would consider them worse products if they implemented them. Not everything should be a shitty tap-screen mobile interface awash in whitespace and crappy icons. Physical controls are better, when you don’t have time or attention to fiddle with displays. That you don’t understand that is not a failure on the part of camera companies.

Not really, the traditional conservative answer would be more along the lines of companies should be allowed to do whatever they want because ultimately that's better for the individual. The neoliberal argument is closer to one of the inevitability of markets, both in the negative in the positive: the invisible hand will solve this, and the invisible hand is inexorable so it's futile and wrong to try and do anything except let it do its work.

> Training requirements should be based on safety requirements, which are the same whether you're on the road for 6 hours a week or 60.

While I agree with you in principle, there's no indication that this is anything but regulatory capture. There's no municipality in the western world that requires this much training for Uber drivers; would you say there's a problem there that needs solving, and that Quebec's legislated response is a reasonable solution? I'm personally skeptical.

> Why haven't product liability laws caught up with information services?

I fear that the simple answer is because we no longer live in a country (or political climate, if you prefer something more optimistic) where regulatory and legal structures like product liability are thought of being the role of government. The neoliberal response to this is "the market will punish Equifax and other, more responsible competitors will take their place or force them to change their ways." The very concept of human beings exerting political will to make a company do something is almost unfathomable these days.

I don’t know which is worse, the story topic or Medium’s floating “open in app” desperate plea.

THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM

Because the consumer doesn’t matter? What exactly are their alternative options if the only game(s) in town decide to only sell a particular level of product quality?

Not asking rhetorically. What exactly is it you’re suggesting these “quality conscious” consumers do?

Markets and naked capitalism as solutions go these issues have proven ineffective. This article is evidence of it. And all you suggest is some naive, Econ 101 platitudes.

The cynic in me says most startup types would witness this behavior, snort derisively and say "they're not our target market".

> Ultimately, this just goes to show that the media has become a protected class, which -- just in case it isn't evident -- is a bad thing.

No... no it does not. You might as well have posted pictures of kittens and claim they lead to the same conclusion.

The cry of the neo-liberal: "The market will sort this out!", usually in response to an event demonstrating the exact opposite.

You often carry around two laptops and a tablet? For what? And your arm muscles must be massive.

Can you explain how?

And likely not letting a crisis go to waste.

I'm surprised nobody's brought up the US real estate market parallels. Arguably China is already in a position to exert significant influence over multiple markets in the US with nothing more than threats - real or implied - of enacting currency controls. Entire markets - if not the entire RE market in the US - would collapse overnight if China decided to prohibit the free flow of money into US properties.