I'm not saying Jira is great. I'm just surprised that people, particularly ICs, hate it.
1,418 karma · joined June 15, 2010
I've used Jira for years and never understood the hate.
The only times I have had real problems have been with particular idiosyncratic configurations or conventions that someone at my end has put in.
You'd be hard pressed to find people who want to abolish the entire field of oncology on the grounds that the treatments are horrible.
It's absurd to take the above-stated "requirement to abstain from causing harm" as a hard restriction out of context without taking into account the main point of the profession which is to help the sick.
The logical conclusion of considering "do no harm" as inviolable above all else is that doctors would have to restrict their treatments to homeopathy and compassionate smiles.
A doctor's responsibility is solely to the patient. When the treatment ends, the doctor has done their job. They may be responsible for long-term damage from the treatment, but that's still about something the doctor did themselves. It's like being responsible for your software randomly running amok and deleting random files on a user's computer.
When a software developer has developed some software, that product continues to exist and can be used by anyone who can run it, to do anything the software is capable of.
Turning this around, given that the doctor's "product" is a healthier patient, it would be like making doctors responsible for the evils committed by patients that they have saved.
It's easy to come up with obvious unethical scenarios, but a lot of harm can come from less predictable unethical uses. If you make your software easy to use, the result is that people outside of any ethically-aware, license-controlled bubble can use it. Where does the responsibility end?
The developers of Excel and Access have almost certainly indirectly contributed to evil software.
A less controversial example would be something like chemotherapy. In fact, a lot of treatments for terminal and chronic ailments are pretty harmful.
Tricky case where both sides have a legitimate reason to believe they are in the right - no costs awarded. Borderline barratry - full costs awarded.
One FAANG sues another - full costs awarded to the winner. Owner of a small corner shop wins against a FAANG - full costs. Other way round, no costs.
Also to set appropriate levels on what costs can be awarded (kinda like the German model). You want to spend 10M on suing a street market stallholder? Knock yourself out, costs awarded = 10k.
That was the point.
You could say that the leadership of the right is desperate for immigration and to get people on benefits. Immigration gives nativists someone to look down on, making them easier to exploit. Paying sub-poverty-level benefits is cheap and makes the workforce desperate to accept just-about-poverty-level wages. The working class exists in order to frighten the middle class. The underclass exists to frighten the working class.
Also bear in mind that illegal immigrants do not get "hooked on benefits", they get deported or exploited by "economic libertarians".
Often, if made redundant by a company, you cannot return to work for them (as employee or contractor) for a year, otherwise you have to pay back your redundancy pay.
That leads to a potentially hilarious conversation about rates.
"I'll do it, my rates are 100 per hour plus 10K if you want me to start before June next year"
The kind of person to lay into you like this is not going to give you a glowing reference whatever you do.
> after a bit of an ear bashing
If someone from my old employer calls and asks me politely for a bit of help with something I know well, I'd help.
If they call to yell at me about how I left behind a fragile system or how I left them in the lurch by quitting, the correct response is to tell them to get fucked, if they then ask for help after that, the correct response is to tell them to go fuck themselves.
Normalising that kind of abusive behaviour is not going to improve the lives of the co-workers you left behind.
This is why it should be a regular and frequent income, rather than giving people a lifetime's worth of money when they turn 18. As it is a regular income that resets every week/month/whatever, it's harder to mess up to that extent. Addiction or unwise Hire Purchase agreements might do it, but with the latter, lenders are likely to be even more aware of affordability than they currently are.
That aside, I would imagine that UBI could make people more charitable towards those who are thoroughly down on their luck. Partly because if someone is destitute under that system, something must be really wrong in their lives.
One problem with poverty at the moment is that it is so big. When problems are really big (see also climate change), people feel that effects of their own efforts would be trivial, and so are dissuaded from doing anything at all. If fewer people would be made destitute by bad decisions made out of desperation, donors might feel they can actually do something about it.
Another problem with poverty now is that there are so many diverse causes that it is much easier to aim relief efforts at the symptoms - e.g. shelters for the homeless, food for the hungry etc. If UBI covers that for most people, then we can put more effort into fixing the causes - abuse/addiction/mental illness/predatory lenders/discrimination etc. Thereby removing the need for charity.
As I understand it, that elimination is part of the point of UBI. The MTBs are no longer needed.
Why do you think hunger would be caused by UBI? At worst, I would expects those who already depend on MTBs would be in the same position they are in today.
The schemes amplify the effects of existing altruism, rather than offering incentives to persuade non-donors to donate.
In the illustration in your link, Sue gives 1k to charity, and as a result, and pays 350 less tax. This means that, as a result of this donation, her net income has fallen by 650.
I did not provide the specific names of all the rules, but I thought that would be obvious from the numbers, context, and some of the terms
I had not considered the difference between payroll giving (my first example,give 1k before tax, charity gets 1k, your taxable income is 1k less), and claiming back (you give 1k after tax, charity gets 1.25k, you reclaim some of the tax you paid), but payroll giving is more efficient for the donor, as they pay zero tax on the donation, rather than basic rate, as in the reclaim method.
There is no UK legislation, as far as I know, that reduces your tax bill by more than your donation.
If you earn 50K, you net 37640. 51K and you get 38220.
If you earn 51K and donate 1K, you net exactly the same as if you just earned 50000. i.e. 580 less than if you had just kept it (If you had put it in your pension instead, you would have kept the whole 1000)
There may be some circumstances where it makes a difference, where certain thresholds could be crossed, but AFAIK, the way they all taper prevents that.
You can only get a tax break on 40K of pension contributions, so if you earn 91-101K and claim child benefit, without another pre-tax vehicle to soak up the rest, you'd have to pay the clawback charge. However, I doubt that would work. With 3 children you'd have to donate 10K to save about 2.5K.
If you earn something around 300K, it might do something because of the tapered pension allowance. Again, I doubt it. At 250K, if you donate 10K, you can put an extra 5K in your pension. Above that, I don't think there are any more thresholds.
For example: Leviticus 18:22 seems quite popular amongst homophobes, but I don't see many of them killing adulterers (20:10) or burying blood (17:13), plenty of them oppress foreigners (19:33) and hate their gay relatives (19:17). They don't seem to be as keen on burning people who engage in a sportsman's double (18:14) as they are about waving "God hates fags" placards.
I'd be surprised if the same people who picket gay weddings and funerals chain themselves to combine harvesters with Leviticus 19:9 placards, or harass people going to real estate agents' offices with Leviticus 25:23 signs.
In the case of doctors, pharmacists and lawyers,things like surgery, controlled drugs, rights of audience are easy to restrict. If you are not one and try to do the job anyway, you won't get very far.
As a client, I cannot use a partitioner who is not licensed in my jurisdiction. If I have a video consultation with a real foreign doctor, they still can't write me a prescription I can take to my local pharmacist. No matter how good the doctor is, they are made deficient by not being registered with the GMC.
A journalist writes and publishes articles about current affairs. You can't legally prevent people doing that without a catastrophic infringement of free speech.
Every day, I read articles from publications from many countries. Those articles are not made deficient by the fact that they are not written by NUJ members.
Plenty of people read and believe bunkum written by people who don't even pretend to be journalists. Sticking little "licenced by..." Logo on the real stuff won't make a difference there.
How do you prevent independent journalists selling pieces to certain outlets without unfairly placing the burden on the journalist? Is it a list of proscribed publications? How does a publication get on the list? What happens to all the "good" journalists who work for an organisation when it gets put on the list?
What, exactly, is a journalist? Does it include columnists who write opinion pieces? If not, how do you prevent an outlet from running more and more "opinion pieces" masquerading as news? If you get defrocked for doing something your employer considers highly profitable, they can just rebrand you as a columnist.
What does it mean to be licensed? What does having a licence allow you to do that you can't do without one? Is this your "press pass" allowing you to ask questions at briefings? There have been cases recently when this has been revoked on a whim. Is it just to get a byline in a printed newspaper? Again, they can rebrand unlicensed journalists as runners, and print the piece under the name of a real journalist.
Journalism is not a terminal career like medicine or law. If you get thrown out of one of those professions, you lose your livelihood. There is nothing else that you are as well trained for that pays as well. You have to start at the bottom of something else. Most journalists are not particularly well paid. Former journalists can earn as much, if not more, writing press releases and advertising copy.
Every sawmill/timber merchant/whatever near me basically sells fences and roof trusses.
I think I'll stick to those parts of the world where opposing Fascism is legal.
> a lockdown does not come without its own harmful ramifications: delaying health interventions,
The other harms make sense, but as I understand it, the main point of a pandemic lockdown is to ensure that the healthcare system can cope.
During a pandemic, the lion's share of medical resources are dedicated to dealing with the pandemic. Making the pandemic worse by prematurely easing lockdowns will further delay health interventions.
Hospitals are currently postponing even life-saving procedures if they think their patients can survive a bit longer without them, because they don't have enough intensive care capacity in case things go wrong. That won't get better just because of a policy decision to return society to BAU.
I can have a phone consultation with my GP if I have any health concerns, and if he has concerns, arrangements can be made for an in-person consultation.
I am likely to miss my next regular dental checkup due to the pandemic, and that may mean that what could have been a filling might now be a crown. However, given the proximity of dentists to people's breathing holes, opening them up too early is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
Obviously, it doesn't have to be live. You can deploy to test.example.com and try it out there, but I think that's too late.
Easily detectable poor accessibility should be as much of a closed gate as having the layout go all wonky and the words all in the wrong place.
Ideally, it should be runnable on your local copy as you are writing it, just the same as viewing the page in a browser.
If I decide that I don't want to use Slack because it drains my battery, then I can't take part in Slack conversations.
Because Slack is the go-to chat application for so many teams, excluding myself from those conversations is not feasible.
End result: I carry on using Slack.
When asked to put in opening hours, if the sign in the window says 0800 daily, you don't write "well, I was there at 0830 last Wednesday and they weren't open yet, so maybe 0900?". Similarly, you don't write "I parked there for two hours yesterday and I didn't get a ticket"
If there are official-looking signs (not a scrap of plywood with NO PArkiNG written on it with a marker), I don't think it's the cartographer's job to investigate whether the clamping company is legitimately authorised to demand a release fee, how thoroughly the operator enforces restrictions, or how long the warden takes on their rounds.
I'm just saying that as a newcomer, being able to fill out things with obvious personal usefulness like "does this bus stop have a shelter and seating" is really cool and engaging. As is having a diverse range of things to fill out.
When your area is already pretty thoroughly covered, it's not as fun to say "this stretch of road has the same speed limit as every other stretch of road nearby". However, once you are an engaged user, doing a few of those things every so often is fine.
What I was trying to say in my original comment was "if you can't find anything interesting to do in it try somewhere else (when you can)"
I have been using it for a while, and I have filled out useful things like bus stop shelter and seating, road surfaces, opening hours on shops etc.
Near me right now, I have a few house numbers (adjacent to known house numbers), one probably unnamed pedestrian passage to name, and loads of default speed limits.