"150k at a minimum"
not to say you shouldn't support great companies but the average programmer salary isn't 150k. it's probably not even half that.
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-programm...
906 karma · joined November 22, 2013
not to say you shouldn't support great companies but the average programmer salary isn't 150k. it's probably not even half that.
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-programm...
There is SOME truth. but not all of it.
Just like there is truth in religions - be nice to your neighbors. Do unto others. Truth. surrounded by bullshit (religion, dogma, etc).
There is truth and "actual science"... but there's also half truths, lies, bad prophecies, etc.
"you can cherry pick" likewise, you can cherry pick some facts about carbon... and then ignore stuff like the destruction required to make batteries, the inability to recycle a MASSIVE fuckton of "green" (wind mill blades, batteries, solar panels, etc - all ending up in land fills).
"models" yeah... except that models are limited, have increasing error rates and you end up with the spaghetti modeling with the simple stuff like weather for next week - much less the weather for next year.
Speaking of cherry picking... you'll cherry pick one or two models from a decade ago and ignore the 100+ others that are wrong.
"political not science" it's both. and religious. It's faith in models that have been cherry picked while ignoring inconvenient truths about "green" solutions that are based on bad models that can't be proven and that don't cover all the possibilities.
the problem with your response is your apparent faith in science and, like a Catholic who will downplay problems with priests, you'll ignore the parts you are uncomfortable with.
climate change is real (little c, little c). Has been happening for... all of history.
Climate Change is not (big C, big C). It is a religion.
One is based on facts and science. the other is based on faith.
People have been screaming "everyone will die!!!" via religious based prophecies for... all of human history. The Cult Of Climate Change is no different: a little bit of truth and a lot of faith in Revelations and the unavoidable apocalypse.
Prophecies like "all the icecaps will be gone by 2020" and "billions will die from starvation" (hint: those forecasts failed)
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocal...
This is no different than the people who follow the pastor that's wrong about the date of Jesus' second coming. every year he looks at the numbers and says "next year, on x date". That date comes. and goes. and the faithful see the failed prophecy and he goes "oh look... I was wrong... it's really next year on y date". The faithful see this each year and their faith grows stronger as each failed prophecy means the next one MUST be true.
What do we think will happen? More failed prophecies. The Church of Climate Doom faithful becomes more convinced that theirs is the One True Faith as each prediction continues to prove them right.
you have proof that it can and will?
this is the same "it's worth anything" arguments where "maybe" is treated as "it will happen" while ignoring the negative aspects (IE: human suffering, facts that poor people are worse for the economy, green tech is made from worse than carbon and is creating megatons of unrecyclable stuff like windmill blades and solar panels, etc.
Nothing like putting the lives of people on the chopping block for an "if" in response to a religious belief that "carbon is evil".
I hope he understands you're still laughing at him.
Since when has shady been un-google like? they ditched "Don't do evil" decades ago.
"would you invest in a company" would you invest in a company who has no rewards to improve and instead is literally rewarded for being stagnant AND who controls a vertable army to enforce being part of the company? IE: The IRS that has hired tens of thousands to "get the rich" ( not really the rich... just the middle class which is the hardest hit by increasing taxes and enforcement of massive tax hikes)
"it's weird seeing" I'm a middle of the road person so you trying to strawman me into being a blank supporter of untrammeled CEOs isn't going to stick. Government must exist but it should be small enforcing reasoanble rules on companies which should also be small. The majority current federal government shouldn't exist (IE: the Medicaid/Medicare Ponzi Scheme) and a fair number of large corporations should be broken up (IE: blackrock, microsoft, etc).
No one says "give voting rights to property"... but people like you seem to think that states like CA should control the rest of the country out of sheer numbers. Idaho shouldn't be controlled by CA and vice versa. If the federal gov wasn't an overgrown cess pool we wouldn't have the do-or-die elections where corrupt pieces of shit like Joe Biden controls way more than any President should control. If we had limited government then the leadership choices would be what they were 40 years ago.
Complaining about Freedom loving is also funny from someone who's ostensibly supporting Socialism/Communism. Those are the literal opposite of freedom loving as the only way those work is authoritarian dictatorships. The literal goal of socialism is to enslave the population based on 50%+1vote leaving the other 49% of population controlled. And again, this is based on historical evidence of what happens when Soc/Com gets implemented: Destruction of freedom.
There's tons of reasons why America isn't pure democracy and why it's a representative republic at the federal level. And it's not to give rights to "land"... it's to keep voting rights with those who deserve it - locals - and to limit the rights of the federal government to steal rights. All you have to do is look at the largest purveyor of disinformation during the "covid pandemic" to see the US government and why it can't be trusted with that much power. and why anyone who wants that much power in the hands of the federal government is ignorant of history and reality.
Military? not socialism. Neither are police or fire departments. so "but military" doesn't carry any real point.
And those countries? still aren't socialists countries. The US not having "private military" doesn't change that.
This isn't "black and white". This is "socialism is failure based on 100+ years of historical evidence". This is logic and evidence. As I said, those are capitalist countries with strong welfare policies. This is also basic definition of socialism which isn't "the government does stuff".
I'm a Veteran.
I stay away from the VA for all the reasons listed above. You could argue it's better than nothing but the fact remains that on aggregate private is better unless you are healthy (AKA: don't need it) and only care about free (aka: better than nothing).
Doesn't take too much googling to see that the VA suffers all the halmarks of why to not trust Government owned and operated options. And it's not getting any better with the current dysfunction of the government due to poor leadership from the top down and deep division as people ignore facts and history to support a religion that says socialism is good - despite the facts.
So again... I wouldn't wish the VA on my worst enemy even if you know a couple people lucky enough to not be fucked over by Uncle Sam.
Hint: Those are capitalist countries with strong welfare policies. AKA: "democratic socialism". Capitalist infrastructures with tax and spend policies (until it falls from the weight and starts declining - IE: Austerity measures to cut programs when promises outstrip the money available)
Last I checked a serious conversation relies on understanding what Socialism is. Welfare states aren't Socialist countries.
IE: the VA.
The VA is publicly owned healthcare for our nations heros and how are they treated? They kill themselves in the parking lot waiting to get treated.
Look at any public option around the world and you'll see okay results to start with... with long wait times, rationing, lower outcomes, etc as it ultimately fails.
I wouldn't wish the VA on my worst enemy and you're blind - purposely or religiously - if you don't see the massive problems with systems like it.
People don't run from Socialist/Communist countries because they are successful. Quite the opposite.
And even if I happen to be wrong about the cars... he still has multiple cars, multiple houses and has the balls to talk about inequality.
Never forget that Bernie hated "millionaires" until he became one... then MAGICALLY his tune changed to hate "the rich" even though by every metric he's in the top %'s and has done so by... using capitalism to sell the lies of socialism/communism.
Bernie is the epitome of socialist: Hypocrite that doesn't follow his own religious preaching because he's one the elite who think's he's better than "evil capitalists".
When Bernie voluntarily gives his millions to the IRS to redistribute to the poor? Then we'll move past my mistake about how fancy his car(s) are. because at the end of the day he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. He's a walking banner of inequality that doesn't follow the rules he preaches.
The mark of the truly religious - both on him for being a hypocrite... and his faithful for ignoring his hypocrisy and "sins".
not in effective results. two sides of the same failed coin and both full of the same failed promises (promises made with different reasons but still the same promises).
Sloppy thinking is supporting either after 100+ years of proof that they fail on every level.
That assumes that "socialists" are really trying to do this and not simply 1) jealous of those with more and 2) simply trying to replace who's in power - with them at the helm.
Why socialism? 70+ years ago? why not. Today? why not socialism? 100+ years of history of the abject failures on every level of every promise and the hell on earth socialism creates.
For every promise of moving past the "predatory phase of humanity" that socialism makes... it breaks and does so in worse ways than capitalism.
Imperfect capitalism has proven better than imperfect socialism at every level of analysis. IE, from the article:
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands"
Inequality exists with capitalists? Guess what? No socialism structure shows that inequality ends with socialism - the inequality remains.
But... we can watch someone like Bernie talk about how evil capitalism is as he flys between his 3 houses, with all his super cars and buy seats to his shows and all his books. You can read all about it and talk about it on your iPhone at Starbucks drinking a latte.
The only irony is you think those are the same.
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ― George R.R. Martin
I've historically bought Vizio's because I liked the inclusion but recently have decided to not because I don't like the direction they are going. I'm happy with a stupid chromecast or playing plex through my <console of choice>.
What is "less democratic" about literally voting with your wallet? Support your shows on patreon. donate to channels on youtube.
Not sure how supporting what you want is "inegalitarian". it's literally the result of using your voice and your support to prop up what you like. Is that not, in essence, democracy? Something gets more "unequal" because people support it - literally democracy.
What's your alternative? Government force to keep things "equal"? Keep things "just" and "fair" with ever increasing government intervention? Not sure you understand what democracy is if that's what your suggesting.
LED NonSmart: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100167585%20600483673
Just because the display cases have the smart tvs doesn't mean dumb tvs don't exist.
And again... what are you going to do? Yell at walmart for selling what... sells? Go riot against a factory in China? A support group that has puppies and coloring books in their safe room?
What exactly are you going to do other than spend your money on stuff you want to support what you want?
Or... you can just split things by tables. Or even shard by databases where I don't have access to your database and vice versa.
doing stuff in the application and leaving everything in one database/schema is an option... but don't think you aren't making trade offs and leaving open possible issues by not taking the more comprehensive option like sharding.
And that's just one question to ask. Another is what about upgrading the database and segregating customers. can't do that if everyone is on the same database/schema. What if a customer doesn't want to be updated or upgraded? Much like companies paying for Windows XP support because stuff they have relies on the older version of software?
"where user.id = 123" is a simple solution that quickly becomes more complicate to put it mildly.
https://www.dealnews.com/features/tv/smart-tv/
If you don't like Vizio? don't buy Vizio. Speak with your wallet.
IE: Best-Buy Non-Smart
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=UTF-...
The alternative would be we both have access to the same tables with a permission layer to grant access to row.
Both choices have trade offs but if company makes a mistake and I now have access to your rows? Seems easier to control access at the table layer rather than the column layer.
The time you spend making it work for millions of users that won't be needed is time not spent making value to customers that do need it.
Quick is subjective.
But.
That doesn't negate my stance that everything they touch becomes worse, more expensive and we all suffer.
Healthcare? Some people are saved. Healthcare has never been more expensive and the unACA was passed on lie - like your plan, lie - keep your doctor, lie - save $2500/year, etc.
Childcare? They help a handful of people making it more expensive for everyone else.
Lockdowns? Mask mandates? The largest source of disinformation during the COVID "pandemic" was the US Government led by Fauci who has publicly admitted he made up statistics about stuff like "herd immunity" based on polling. Oh, big tech suppressed truth that went against narrative.
Pick any topic and you'll find that while yes, the government does help some people some times... on aggregate? the larger and more powerful and the more interference that comes from government the worse we are.
I'm a centrist and a realist. We won't exist without government. but only an idiot gives the government more power than ABSOLUTELY necessary and all you have to do is look around to see MOUNTAINS of evidence to that simple truth.
or, as you say, "a government is no more or less corrupt than the people they serve". Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. the people they server are corrupted by power... why would government be any different?
You, in the left, have failed because you're guilty of what you claim others are doing and do so while calling anyone you disagree with "nazi's" and "racists". making those "slurs" worth less than the promises you're failing to kill us all with.