hehebbssjj

My point is extracting the maximum value from people by paying them almost nothing because it "increases the GDP" isn't a moral imperative. It's absurd on its face to say that growth at any expense is ethical because of some trickle down bullshit.

> As much as it is true that inequality is higher than it should be

I just spent time with a friend who is working two jobs during the pandemic and cannot afford to live on their own in our relatively low cost of living city. They have to ride the bus for 2 hours to get to one job. This isn't even global inequality, this is an order of magnitude income difference between "haves" with high tech jobs that realistically produce no value, and "have nots" who actually make society function.

Police unions have no solidarity with workers. They're groups that exist only to protect themselves, and they're happy to suppress strikes when it serves them. It's facile to consider them as part of labour unions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/news-des...

From experience, work at these companies five years ago, get options, don't leave even though it's awful

If your employment was entirely piece-work driven by "the algorithm", which is completely opaque and subject to change at any time, what other recourse do you have? They're basically trying to reverse engineer the weights of various inputs in Amazon's scheduling algorithm to try and have some control over their lives.

As in, medical doctors who have done brain surgery? Or random dudes who like to inject RFID chips into their hand to pay for coffee

Part of the problem is that Black people never had the opportunity to buy the properties they occupied, even at depressed prices when those properties were undesireable. So when gentrification occurs, rents go up and they're shut out. If there wasn't a massive wealth gap to begin with you'd see more Black homeowners in gentrifying areas making bank on their massively appreciated houses.

In my experience a startup of a certain size is founders and sales doing razzle-dazzle, "deeply technical people" jerking off to the latest fad, and no customers.

Those are the only two Level 7 nuclear events (the highest severity) to occur in history so I think it makes sense to group them together.

The kind of software I'm talking about should be thrown away after one or two years. Long-term you figure out what works and what the pain points are and you Ship of Theseus away all the bad shit.

> And yes, that discounts languages like js or python for long-lived software projects.

That's the kind of dogmatic statement that would be a red flag to me. The last company I was at was wildly successful using Ruby, JS and Python.

Relying on a client not being able to guess a random number is also important for Diffe-Hellman and like, all private key generation AFAIK. I don't think anything says private keys are security by obscurity because they require you to locally generate random numbers

I've worked with people like this - they're usually very dogmatic and won't defer to the status quo. This can be useful because they'll find low-hanging fruit like this that everyone else just accepts.

Long-term I find them annoying to work with because they seem to chase progressively higher cost/lower return changes. Especially in a startup context they're obsessed with being technically correct over building something people actually want. Green field stuff takes 10x as long as it needs to because they refuse to release something quickly and iterate.

Instead you should push down a single argument which is an untyped key value map which may or may not contain the variables you want?

There's diminishing returns along all those axes, suddenly throwing billions of dollars at a problem doesn't automatically yield a fast, high quality result.

> Big disasters are unpredictable and hard to understand. One of those could end the world at any time.

In the context of nuclear reactors, Fukushima and Chernobyl are pretty much the worst case scenario. A large nuclear disaster is very disruptive to the immediate area but it would not "end the world" in any sense.