DenverCoder99

With the economic downturn coming, companies are really going to ask themselves who's necessary. Those white collar workers that have plenty of leisure time are going to suddenly be out of work, and will be forced into the blue collar market, only they are going to have to compete with blue collar workers that have been in the market for many more years than they have. Guess who the company's are going to hire...

As for the white collar workers that made the cut, their job isn't going to be as cozy. You're trading in back-breaking work for mental-straining work with severe time constraints.

The lack of a human face and inflections in voice can make anything come across as passive aggressive. Reading the question "why did you build this" can come across as many different ways, including condescending.

What usually happens in my case is I start off writing a simple program in Bash, then it unexpectedly becomes complicated as I add more and more to it.

It's not exactly the credibility that's the problem. There are dedicated editors on Wikipedia that are not only removing updates to articles, but are putting up false information, and are hiding behind Section 230 to avoid any repercussions. At the very least, regular news agencies have to issue corrections, or face lawsuits (granted, regular news agencies frequently put out false information and issue corrections only after everyone has already read the article).

It's not just that Wikipedia is vulnerable to human error just like anything else, it seems to be driven by activists. Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia's co-founders, has been trying to warn people that his own creation has been bastardized.

I still use Wikipedia for pure STEM subjects, but beyond that, I wouldn't trust it.

If the social media platforms in question are taking down posts on the recommendations (or demands, take your pick) of the White House's senior staff, then I think it's fair to say that they are State Actor's.

Who's the authority on what's disinformation?

What would you say if Youtube did that to you?

I've grown pessimistic about distributed networks and the Fediverse. The Pareto distribution is this neverending bastard of a phenomena that creeps up into everything we touch.

If a distributed network ends up displacing Youtube, what's going to inevitably happen is one section of the network is going consume the vast majority of the viewership and content, and they're going to start repeating the same shit that Youtube is doing right now.

I'm not saying we shouldn't promote alternatives, but I am saying we haven't really figured out how to properly integrate social media into our society without it disintegrating into what we're seeing now (or worse).

How do you know that Youtube is always going to be correct when they take down anything for disinformation?

What classifies as distribution?

Can someone explain why Spring, or J2EE in general, is a necessity for its target audience, and for that matter, what its target audience is? I've only worked on Spring applications when I had to, so forgive my ignorance, but every time I've worked on a Spring application, I never found a good reason why Spring was necessary.

I always thought that Spring was meant for maintaining large codebases with many interconnected parts that you might want to swap out at a given notice. We can talk about whether or not Spring is a good fit for that scenario, but I at least understand why you would use it. But the applications I've worked on that used Spring were offline, single-purpose, non-changing, and (relatively) small. I would then ask why we're using Spring for this, and I basically get the same responses as the parent post with a facial expression that's pondering if I'm high.

Am I missing something?