verve_rat

Voting with your wallet never works. You need to vote with your vote, or better yet, vote with a billionaire's wallet and buy some lobbyists.

For lay-offs the people deciding to fire 1000 people aren't seeing any of those faces.

I lament the loss of station wagons.

Let me rephrase: software development (the action of engineers and the whole process in general) is actively insensitvised to not care about security.

The consequences of poor security are often way, way lower than the costs of doing it properly. Add on to that, that security problems are contingent risks that only "pay out" in a small number of cases and you have a recipe for low expected value for investment into security.

Software engineers often want to develop a secure product, but they don't know what they don't know, and their employer is not interested in investment in their security capabilities, both the companies security capabilities and the capabilities of their employees.

> Why? Because most software developers are bad at security (I said most not all).

In my experience it is that most software engineers are not incentivized to care about security.

Padding requests with 8k of normal looking data will bypass AWS's WAF 100% of the time according to the article.

Maybe you should read it.

Or using compostable materials and putting them in the landfill. If you use plants to capture carbon and make stuff out of that carbon, and then bury it in the ground, that has to be the best case scenario for climate change, right?

Avoided how, by spending $50,000?

Times that by the the number of external systems you rely on and you start seeing why we outsource that stuff in the first place.

Can you post them a letter?

Or, just take the rest of the day off? The world will still be there after the weekend.

Danger of broken glass on the ground? Would hurt bare feet, irrelevant to bare boobs.

Nah, I think it will be the other way around. We currently have intelligent agents working on help desk and other customer service roles. Those agents have had their acceptable output more and more restricted.

We will just do to LLMs what we are already doing to people.

The whole article is premised on the idea that students should want to debate ideas in the great intellectual marketplace. But that's not what universities are for anymore.

We spent the last 30 or more years turning universities into vocational schools and act surprised that students don't want to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of their money to engage in exhausting controversy?

I'd assume most students want to get a degree and start getting paid. No matter if you are left or right leaning, a culture war in your back garden is a distraction from that.

You could argue that Eve's attraction is the lack of regulation, the lack of protection from scams, the lack of a police force. All things you get in the real world, more or less.

Eve has just the right mix of reality and unreality to hook its audience.

Yeah, oof. I was interested, but after seeing all that, hard pass.

Which no one in this thread has done? The article even has advice on this matter quoted at the root of this thread: "reminding us that falling for such fictions doesn’t make us stupid or bad people".

Respecting your religious liberty does not mean suppressing my opinions about religion.

Your religious freedom is not more important than my rights of speech or freedom from religion.

Yes, it is not that people can't afford these services (although some probably are in that boat) it is that people don't see the value in these services any more. The price has gone up and the quality has gone down. The content is not as good and the UI is increasingly user hostile.

No wonder people are going back to piracy, it's just better in every way.

How do you get a razor into an apple in such a way that it doesn't show damage on the surface?

You see this a bit with hand tool woodworking. Some people will restore old tools (hand planes are a popular choice) and sell them on, some will keep then and claim they will use them some day, and others give up on making things and just collect the tools.

All of the above is fine, learning the history of and techniques in restoring things is cool.

So, trains?

But most common != always, as you claimed.

The experience of most NZ cities and towns on a daily basis says otherwise.

The "correct" answer is the 0->180 car has no indicator on as it enters the roundabout, and has its right indicator on as it exits the roundabout.

The 90->270 car sees the right indicator and lets the other car passed.

The real answer is somewhere between the above and the 90->270 car waiting to enter the roundabout because it is not sure if the other car is actually going 0->180 or 0->270 because they are a shit diver that doesn't indicate on roundabouts.

They put it in a spreadsheet, but the ticket number got turned into a date, so it never got processed.

English speakers? Or American English speakers?

Here in NZ car accident is much more natural to say than car crash.

Although even that has subtleties.

"I got in to a car accident" would be the normal turn of phrase, but if remove the "car" and the "I" then crash becomes more likely: "There was a crash on State Highway 1".

And the expectation that every business should act like they are facebook.

No, if your system goes off line for 20 hours a year barely anyone will notice, it will have way, way less impact to your business than spending the money to make sure that doesn't happen.

They're not wrong. Our industry has a burnout problem. Some places are nicer than others to work at, but that doesn't mean the industry as a whole doesn't have problems.

What you are describing is shit managers.

If corners need to be cut for valid business reasons then there shouldn't be any real push back from the devs, because they have the business context laid out for them.

Every dev I've ever worked with will say "yup, I understand. I might not like it, but I understand" when given the context of pushes for quicker delivery.

But that requires understanding on both side that you are sacrificing quality to hit a date, and that has its own costs.

Mostly this all boils down to: talk to people like they are you colleagues, don't order them around, find a solution together.

I agree with all the points you've made, but I would add that the PMs and managers and directors and whatnot are never that keen to help engineers out on this front.

It is a rare person indeed that can do software development and think (and talk) in business terms. As a dev, being able to talk in business terms about the problems you face in creating software is really, really handy.

But I can count on one hand the number of POs, directors, managers that want to engage in that conversation with developers. Most of the time a solution is thrown over the wall and developers are told to build a thing.

An actual conversation about a business problem between the people that actually have the problem and the people that will build the software that (hopefully) solves it happens way, way less often than it should.