pietrovismara

> That violates the principle of equality before the law

Quite the opposite. It would restore equality in the punishment, as it should hurt the same to the offender no matter how wealthy they are. As it is now, we're favoring the rich overwhelmingly.

As always, if a fine is only a fixed amount it becomes just a regular transaction for the rich. Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth.

I tried and can confirm it works exactly like that for me.

> I would hope top performers get paid better than mediocre or below average employees

We have bonuses for that. No need to deceive people into taking less than others. Bonuses also have the advantage of being tied to your actual performance, while giving a rockstar salary to a new hire won't guarantee you better performance than other employees paid less for the same role. Or you could have salary ranges for roles. What's always unexcusable to me is lacking transparency and gaining competitiveness by deception.

> Natural and innate != good. Deception and tribalism, for example, are innate.

We still have deception and tribalism anyway. Wouldn't it be wiser to at least preserve also our better innate traits? Altruism is universally recognized as a positive trait, no matter what economist try to tell you.

> can often lead to more overall output

which translates in institutionalized theft, as we clearly see today when the output is not then fairly distributed but only goes up

> people are more motivated if they're pursuing something in their own interest rather than someone else's

That's your huge assumption. There are plenty of incredibly relevant scientists who never cashed on inventions/discoveries that changed the world. How do they fit in your scheme?

We can also discuss how the USSR turned from a starving rural economy into an industrial world power in decades, based on a completely different incentive system than "my self-interest". Or how most of the poverty in the past century was solved by China and not by "greed first" countries.

> That works amazingly well when the price accounts for all the costs and benefits - you get lots and lots of output of a good thing - and less well when it does not

Another big assumption. I have countless examples of the market not self adjusting for the greater good.

Greed has always existed troughout history. It never changed things for the better. What changed things was the scientific discoveries that led to the industrial revolution and social struggle.

To say greed caused our modern lifestyle is like saying that drinking water causes death, since everyone who dies has drank water at least once.

That's the point, toddlers don't really discriminate in this case. I'm not even sure if they have the same concept of "strangers" that you have. If we could all preserve this mindset, we would all be better of.

> If you keep this mentality going into adulthood you are most likely a psychopath.

You make it sound like this is selfish. The toddlers aren't expecting a favorable treatment to themselves, they expect others to be fair towards everyone else.

I'd argue the real damage happens once toddlers lose their altruistic mentality and get into the selfish competitive mentality we enforce today. Keep in mind, this only happens as a form of natural selection, as those with these traits have a better chance at survival/success in this environment.

It's fundamental to remember that better fit doesn't mean better overall. As I've read once here on HN (one of those life changing sentences that I happen to read here every once in a while), if you have a stupid environment, you get a stupid fit.

I'm not sure if I'm misreading the chart, but Health sits just above National Defence, with $796.8 B (12%) of expense, not $1.5T.

Anyway it only makes it more absurd; that the US as a nation manages to be the first military world power using less money than they spend to have a broken healthcare system that ruins people's lives.

> Italian usually don't benefit from "more tax money'

Like Amazon would have used that money for the greater good instead.

Like the US is much better at this, throwing trillions of public money in weapons while they can't seem to afford free public healthcare.

I agree, what I wrote applies only to developers/technical roles as far as I know. I don't really know how it would work for a management position.

Maybe that's the problem. We stopped giving dance lessons to the ruling class a long time ago, but those lessons have always been the only reason why, as working class, we have the few good things we have.

Why should we be more productive if all the additional value we create goes up? Why should we do charity for the rich?

> Can you speak a bit to your experience with recruiters reaching out to you on Stack Overflow? How frequently do you get reached out to?

It's mostly a matter of quality over quantity. On SO I got 4 job offers since September, all of them viable and decent offers, all from recruiters internal to the company who would hire me. On Linkedin instead I get more messages, but most of them are from hunters working for 3rd party agencies, or just very low quality offers/business proposals.

> Do they usually mention that they noticed you on SO? Are all the jobs they are looking to fill specific to the questions you answered on SO?

To be fair not really. I suspect it's a combination of what you advertise in your developer story and your reputation on the platform. That's how I would do it at least. Of course any recruiter looking up to your developer story can also check your question/answers, it's public data anyway.

I don't know. It seems easier and more fruitful to build some cred (not even that much) on stackoverflow, then sit down and watch job offers pop up in your inbox without any further effort on your side.

If you follow this path the positive side effect is that you will probably have helped at least a few hundreds of people with your questions/answers. You are actually doing something concrete, making yourself professionally more appealing for the rest of the world at the same time.

On the other hand it won't probably land you a FAANG job (who knows?), but it feels to me like a lot of time wasted on LinkedIn without any positive return for yourself, the tech community or even the world. Just time and energy spent trying to get the attention of some recruiter. Let them come to you instead.

> software security education for all developers. 1 year of it. Mandatory. Financial penalties for developers and their employers.

Either you offer it completely free to anyone in the entire world, or this is just another barrier to prevent access to the developer "elite".

And btw, often it's not the developer that cuts on security features, but an executive that wants to get to market faster. How about we give compulsory security training to every manager/executive/ceo/etc AND we hold them legally responsible when damages are caused by their eagerness to cut on costs?

Life today is so much better than at any other time in history, because washing machines! And because I'm middle upper class, almost forgot that.

If you just want to train your new hires:

- prepare good documentation

- be on a call with them when you have to explain stuff verbally

- be available in text chat to answer their questions

No need to be always on call like this.

I can only imagine this being used as yet another control tool for paranoic managers who want to make sure employees are always "working" at the desk.

Just read the interview with the author: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-g...

It is 100% a critique on capitalism and he states it clearly.

I don't think so; it says "moderately". As in, this is a marathon, not a sprint. If you run too fast, you won't get to the end of the race.

Meritocracy as we imagined it never worked. We just deluded ourselves into thinking we all have a chance, but we deeply know that's not true.

It's pretty easy to understand and not deep at all.

All those people prefer to go back to the game where it's almost certain they will die but that at least gives them one chance, rather than living a normal life in a ruthless capitalist society that treats them as garbage.

It's not secret knowledge at all. Just invested 2 minutes in searching:

> US health insurers report billions in first quarter as small providers face stress

> UnitedHealth Group, reported $4.9bn in profits in the first quarter of 2021 while CVS Health reported $2.2bn

- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/08/us-health-i...

> Major U.S. Health Insurers Report Big Profits, Benefiting From the Pandemic

- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/health/covid-insurance-pr...

> The health insurance industry continued its tremendous growth trend as it experienced a significant increase in net earnings to $31 billion and an increase in the profit margin to 3.8% in 2020 compared to net earnings of $22 billion and a profit margin of 3% in 2019.

- https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/20...

> My taxes aren't higher than in the US: IN fact, they might be lower than taxes plus insurance premiums - and that doesn't even touch on the deductibles.

I start to think that some people aren't really concerned by the amount they are paying. What they deplore is the idea that some "freeloader" could benefit from their taxes. Even if the net result is that they're spending less.

Then, as someone who doesn't own property, why should I pay taxes that go in police funding just to protect your property? That means higher taxes which is very undesirable for someone who's already near poverty.

Public money, that as you might know comes from a variety of sources, including taxes. But to say some taxpayer is paying your "free" treatments is a grotesque simplification.

It is interesting indeed. But don't take me as an expert, I'm thinking this through with you.

> So... an autonomous, self realized human being is just another way of saying a human being? What additional meaning does it impart then?

The thing is that the worker loses these innate human characteristics, such as being autonomous and self realized, by becoming an economic entity in a capitalist setting. That is how I understand it.

> So Tony would be not-alienated and Tommy working at McDonalds would be only meet 1/3 of the alienation criteria?

Perhaps it is important to consider the notion of sense of provided value. As Tommy, I wouldn't feel like what I'm doing is meaningful. I'm preparing low quality unhealthy food and I could be replaced at any time, making me similar to a tool. I agree tho that as Tony I wouldn't probably feel alienated.

But as I've never worked as a cook, perhaps it is easier to describe alienation as a software developer.

I'll take as an example 2 distinct jobs I had.

One in a small startup with a very flat hierarchy, where I was involved in most technical decisions and I met customers and users. It was a B2B model so I couldn't technically own the product I contributed to make, but I was somehow convinced that it would provide some value for the "greater good".

The other job was in a medium sized startup, where technical decisions were imposed from the top and I had very little agency. Being a large product, my contributions would only have tiny effects on the final result. I was "checked on" daily by anxious managers. I had no contact with our users, and this wasn't the kind of product people would make grateful reviews about.

Can you guess where is it that I felt alienated?

The worker is always an an autonomous, self-realized human being. It's working as a cog in the machine that alienates him.

To stay with the kitchen examples, cooks would not be alienated if they could:

- afford to eat where they work

- have creative agency over the recipes

- have the chance to meet with the customers of the restaurant who eat their dishes

Penguin is great: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/

The sci-fi section: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/science-fiction-fan...

I don't know, perhaps they could actually create some value, rather than profiting off speculation. That would be a good start.

I was thinking the same. I do hope the "bubble" bursts, it might be the occasion I get to actually own a house for once.