This is an OLED screen, which is all about picture quality. Getting screens this size isn't a big deal. Getting an mass produced OLED TV at this size is.
As long as people keep blaming "tech culture" for stuff that's really an omnipresent cultural problem across all groups no matter how you slice and dice it, tech companies will have to do stupid useless shit like this to show "they're doing something".
This is a society problem, not a tech problem. If we can't get people to raise kids properly, then it will have to be done in public schools I guess. I remember my wife telling me the (extremely famous and highly rated) university she went to had mandatory sex ed where they had to teach people how to use a condom. I got thought that shit in 6th grade (yeah, elementary school). Everything else (like, you know, rape is bad, m'kay) was drilled in my head since I was a toddler.
By the time people are 18-20, it's already too late.
Thats why the person you replied to said "the fix is to put you on welfare as you improve your skills".
Hard to get that to fly in the US, but it is a reasonable fix: employers have to pay employees more than what welfare would, else they just take a government pay check until their worth is high enough that someone will pay them more.
There are countries where things loosely work that way, and it's not too too bad.
::looks at his green card....:: Hmm, couldn't do a whole lot on election day...
Oh, I should have gone out and campaign for my favored candidate to convince other people to vote for them. Make sure those damn republicans don't win in Massachusetts next time!!!!
As a whole, software engineers are arrogant little snowflakes who think they're better than everyone around them or those who came before them.
So they just keep repeating mistakes over and over and over, rejecting advice straight up. So you can explain to someone doing something how you've seen it a million times before and it doesn't work...they'll still insist they know better. And when it blows up in their face, they'll say it was inevitable. (Obviously not always their fault: a lot of advices they get IS bullshit and they can't filter the good from the bad).
We're essentially agreeing. I may just have made my point poorly.
Today, "junior inexperienced people" make it just fine. So they're all around you. If there's no "second dotcom crash", they'll still be in the industry when they start growing gray hair.
The people back then that got the axe...at least some portion of them would be seniors and tech leads now if that didn't happen.
And stagnating wage growth made a lot of people jump ship.
Even then, I know many people who were pretty good at the time who just didn't manage to stick around. Some cities just couldn't absorb even all of the "good" ones, and not everyone can move...
There's a heck of a lot more people in software today than there was back then. On top of that, most people who would have gray hair today got weeded out by the dotcom crash.
So you're already in a spot where the younglings will vastly outnumber the older software engineers purely from the funnel.
Next, yes, a lot of them end up in management. A good half of the people I went to college with (who did not give up during the dotcom crash) are CTOs, directors, VPs. Often of tiny startups mind you, but still. Note that this isn't many people!
Then you have people who just give up: while a lot of people these days would have you think EVERYONE should become a software engineers, its hard work. Easy jobs are left to cheap interns or new bootcamp grads. The rest is tough and a lot of people just give up.
Finally, it's a field where you have to continually renew yourself. That means the longer you're in the field, the worse off you are compared to a new grad if you stopped learning. You might have been a SOAP/WSDL expert back when you were 22 because it was all the rage, but that knowledge has limited usefulness today. If you don't keep learning, you're out.
When you add up all of these things, there really aren't that many older engineers. With the funnel increasing drastically over the last few years, expect gray hair to get more commons though. The massive amounts of twenty somethings software engineers will grow older. And while the other attrition criterias will weed some out, there will still be a LOT more of them than there currently are of us.
For one, WSDL/SOAP web services back then weren't used the same way. They were generally used to split apps in "tiers" (eg: business logic, frontend, data layer). Sometimes someone would extract a few more for scalability or whatever.
That's why "the cloud" (things like AWS) is an enabler here. You didn't have that back then.
We're not talking splitting the app in 3-4 pieces. I'm talking splitting an app maintained by 100 devs in 2500 services. Effortlessly (thats the key and the only reason its viable).
Tools like Mesos/kubernetes and continual deployment setups make this viable.
At work, if I want to make a new service, it's not much more difficult than adding a function: Run the generator, open the service, add some code, push, hit a button or type something in slack. Done.
We're talking 2 minutes (and on that, 1 minute is the time it takes for IntelliJ to open. You can cut that down using vim, lol). We deploy services and apps to production an average of 12 times per day per developer. Because it's "free" to do.
Microservices are completely non-viable if you can't do that. If you don't have the infrastructure to do it. You need to get the benefits without paying a significant cost.
Doing it like we did it 20 years ago (yes, I was a out of college then too) would have been batshit insane. And splitting stuff in just a few pieces isn't the same.
To make an analogy, it's like comparing svn branches to git branches. I wouldn't make 15 branches a day in svn.
Microservices are an architectural style meant to solve the maintenance/deploy/tech debt issues by physically separating an implementations in a lot of pieces. It's not a solution to a business problem. It's a solution to a tech problem you create when solving arbitrary business problems. It's basically solving the same problem you solve with functions/classes/modules/folders/whatever, except with physical decoupling so you can swap -everything-, one piece at a time, not just the code.
So to your example: think of how you'd split that in classes in OOP (or however your paradigm of choice split things). Now make those physically distinct microservices. Now 2 years from now when you realize there was a technology problem in fetching prior months because whatever version of Python/Ruby/Rust/Java/whatever has a security issue in a function that's used only for that part, you can move it to an arbitrary other technology (or version of the same technology) in 2 hours instead of migrating your whole app.
You mean convert all your API's into JSON calls and spin up gajillion web services
Can use anything, doesn't have to be JSON. Any network protocol will do.
And you don't have to use micro services. You certainly can run a monolith. But with "the cloud" you now gain the ability to spin up as many servers as you want and spin them down too. So it enables micro services as an option.
And that option has interesting benefits. It does increase complexity (drastically), but for that cost you get a decent bit. The ability to change the stack under arbitrary pieces of code. The ability to deploy pieces of your system separately from the other. Faster builds and deploys. Hard cut boundaries between concerns that can't be crossed even if your devs wanted to.
Now, if that's worth it...depends on your problem space.
If Oracle can document that, that is a reasonable defense
Salaried employees. Unless managers are taking notes and keeping track of them at all time (which would make the average software engineer straight up quit), all they can see is output, and they wouldn't keep track unless it was cause for significant concern, just not give promotions (that part is probably documented)
If they are doing different work, then they should have different titles, and different job descriptions.
I'm really looking forward to everyone having a unique title for every possible permutation of engineering role: "Sorry, you're a Messaging Platform Software Engineer III. That doesn't pay as much as the Document Platform Software Engineer II"
It is illegal to systematically pay men and women differently for doing the same work
And this is where things get interesting, since aside for burger flippers, that's how the world works.
I can already see it: "We're offering you $X" "Well, I guess I'm gonna go work elsewhere" "Wait!!! We can talk about this...actually nevermind, we can't >."
This will be interesting. Oracle has a LOT of lawyer power...
But the numbers almost certainly show a disparity, and the usual counter arguments come into play (are they paid less because they do less hours, choose different roles even though they say its for equal roles, did they negotiate less?), but proving anything on either side on those fronts is really hard.
I am pretty sure that none of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Elon Musk could get a 900
850 is the max for the scale people generally refer to when talking about credit scores. Googling around, some banks seem to use internally a different score scale, but let's set that aside for a sec.
People can, and in fact do get perfect score. If you understand exactly how it works, its' not that difficult. It has very little to do with how much money you make, and is a pretty artificial metric.
When you get a report and it says things like "too many accounts with balances open", it doesn't mean "you have too many accounts with balances open". It just means you don't have -precisely- the amount of accounts the algorithm uses for a perfect score, so you lost a non-zero amount of points for it, and since you said you have a mortgage, it's probably what it's referring to.
To get a perfect score, you need a bunch of accounts open, that were opened several years ago (none recently), that are used but have 0 balance at the moment they were audited. Your available credit across those account has to be very high, and you need multiple accounts from different credit providers. There are a few other factors, but if you do it just right its pretty simple, given enough time, to manipulate your credit to get a perfect score.
In fact, some people make a game out of it. The only gotcha is you have to use those accounts sometimes but they have to be at 0 or nearly 0 the moment they're reported, and you never know when that will be (since it can change). So often you'll hover between 845 and 850 (or whatever other scale you're looking at, though those may have slightly different criterias)
If you quit every 6 months, yeah. Every 1.5 to 2 years? No one cares (depends on the industry, obviously, but in tech and related? Nope). Even the occasional "Well, that didn't work out" 2 month sting or the couple of "Meh, I wanted better" 10-12 months won't have anyone bat their eyes at you.
As long as we find ways for "the people who sell them their food" to live there SOMEHOW, this will just keep happening. As long as you have those lottery equivalent affordable housings. As long as you let people live in illegal apartments. As long as you subsidize it.
Make it impossible, and sooner or later the food prices will go up (and food prices fluctuate very quickly). People will either pay the marked up price (which will allow people selling the food to live there), or will no longer want to live there, reducing demand.
I'm not a big believer in the "free market fixes everything!", but here we clearly have a situation where a situation is made artificially possible.
but short sighted voters wanted to maintain their property values
I'm not sure downplaying that will solve any problems. It's people's homes. They presumably picked their homes because of various criterias that fit their life styles. They liked the location, the neighborhood. They potentially spent years looking.
And then you come in and tell them they have to give it up, essentially for only the benefit of others (at least directly. Indirectly it could benefit them, but that's harder to measure).
This isn't like asking someone to make a small donation to a local charity, or even raising taxes. You're asking people to allow things to happen that could drastically reduce their quality of life every hour of every day, including when they're trying to sleep. That's not something to be taken as lightly and dismissed as "LOL NIMBY WILL BE NIMBY",
Sure, from a society's point of view, it's for the best. But you can't blame people for pushing back.
While its stupid to think everyone who pirates a game would have bought it, its pretty much equally as stupid to think no one would have.
I'm surrounded by engineers that make 130-200k and who torrent everything day in day out. Sure, they most likely would not buy EVERYTHING They torrent, but that silly episode of Game of Thrones they just HAD to watch? You could charge 500 bucks for it and they would have bought it.
Yeah I wouldn't rent them. That's easy but not really worth it. We're looking at buying and paying for the install. Some of our neighboring buildings are doing the same thing, so I'm using their numbers to do the math, and my building has better exposure and more roof space, so it will work quite nicely~
This is actually pretty interesting to me, because we've been looking at solar. I dunno about solar at scale to replace plants, but residential setups are pretty damn cool. Even without any tax benefits or subsidies, a setup at my place that would cover most of my energy needs (even in winter, selling the extra in summer to pay for the cost of conventional power in the winter and nights)) would pay for itself in about 6 years, and they can last for 30 or something. That's not half bad.
I'm not sure that's the full story. A lot of the well known companies that are accused of ageism will happily pay you 500k/year if you're worth it. The main issue is what "worth it" means.
As I'm getting older (I'm in my mid thirties, so not old at all by non-tech standards, but in tech all these articles say its the end of the road), I'm getting more cynical, more conservative, I value foresight over doing things quick and having them blow up in my face later. I've seen countless of projects fail, and I know why they failed. I see these things happening over and over and can't help but going "Gah! I told you so!".
The college kids think I'm just a cranky old man and don't listen, and usually jump to the next company before the shit they did explode, and I clean up after them.
Many companies don't value that (often because they think someone like me is just misguided or flat out wrong). The value in someone who "goes fast and break shit to ship an MVP blazingly fast" is very high in their eyes. They'll pay for that. If as you get older, you use your experience to just implement shit faster and faster, those companies will pay you a premium. Most people don't go that route as they get older though.
But there are companies that value things other than shipping shit fast, and those will happily pay good engineers in their 40s, 50s or more several hundred thousands no problem.
Of course, you have the issue of people who get older, don't keep up to date, let their experience go to waste, and then bitch no one wants to hire them.
It really won't change much. As you said, a chunk of people will simply lie or jump the border.
The rest will be able to simply skip the requirement. Eg: Because of my line of work and the country I came from, even though I half assed my green card application and didn't submit half of the crap they asked for, I got approved super quickly anyway. They have a huge amount of discretion in what they can overlook.
It would be way better if they didn't. Some people from certain countries will get overlooked on purpose, some people won't even try to apply when we'd love to have them...but a lot of people will go through just fine without handing over any extra info, too.
Those associations predate the "everyone is a snowflake in their own special way" movement though. Most software communities are growing into ecochambers where everyone is telling everyone else that they're all right and that we should embrace every opinion as equally valid.
That makes it impossible to set any kind of standards anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks to aria attributes, ours work just fine (we have some people frequently testing with screen readers)
JavaScript off is harder, but for actual line of business applications (as opposed to documents), it's just not worth the trouble.
This is an OLED screen, which is all about picture quality. Getting screens this size isn't a big deal. Getting an mass produced OLED TV at this size is.
As long as people keep blaming "tech culture" for stuff that's really an omnipresent cultural problem across all groups no matter how you slice and dice it, tech companies will have to do stupid useless shit like this to show "they're doing something".
This is a society problem, not a tech problem. If we can't get people to raise kids properly, then it will have to be done in public schools I guess. I remember my wife telling me the (extremely famous and highly rated) university she went to had mandatory sex ed where they had to teach people how to use a condom. I got thought that shit in 6th grade (yeah, elementary school). Everything else (like, you know, rape is bad, m'kay) was drilled in my head since I was a toddler.
By the time people are 18-20, it's already too late.
Thats why the person you replied to said "the fix is to put you on welfare as you improve your skills".
Hard to get that to fly in the US, but it is a reasonable fix: employers have to pay employees more than what welfare would, else they just take a government pay check until their worth is high enough that someone will pay them more.
There are countries where things loosely work that way, and it's not too too bad.
The problem is really people being hired as contractors without the usual client/contractor relationship. Else this would be a non-issue.
I've done contracts where I've lost money, which means I was paid less than these folks are (since I was in the negative). Didn't happen often though.
So the line between contractors and employees is too blurry here.
::looks at his green card....:: Hmm, couldn't do a whole lot on election day...
Oh, I should have gone out and campaign for my favored candidate to convince other people to vote for them. Make sure those damn republicans don't win in Massachusetts next time!!!!
As a whole, software engineers are arrogant little snowflakes who think they're better than everyone around them or those who came before them.
So they just keep repeating mistakes over and over and over, rejecting advice straight up. So you can explain to someone doing something how you've seen it a million times before and it doesn't work...they'll still insist they know better. And when it blows up in their face, they'll say it was inevitable. (Obviously not always their fault: a lot of advices they get IS bullshit and they can't filter the good from the bad).
We're essentially agreeing. I may just have made my point poorly.
Today, "junior inexperienced people" make it just fine. So they're all around you. If there's no "second dotcom crash", they'll still be in the industry when they start growing gray hair.
The people back then that got the axe...at least some portion of them would be seniors and tech leads now if that didn't happen.
And stagnating wage growth made a lot of people jump ship.
Even then, I know many people who were pretty good at the time who just didn't manage to stick around. Some cities just couldn't absorb even all of the "good" ones, and not everyone can move...
There's a heck of a lot more people in software today than there was back then. On top of that, most people who would have gray hair today got weeded out by the dotcom crash.
So you're already in a spot where the younglings will vastly outnumber the older software engineers purely from the funnel.
Next, yes, a lot of them end up in management. A good half of the people I went to college with (who did not give up during the dotcom crash) are CTOs, directors, VPs. Often of tiny startups mind you, but still. Note that this isn't many people!
Then you have people who just give up: while a lot of people these days would have you think EVERYONE should become a software engineers, its hard work. Easy jobs are left to cheap interns or new bootcamp grads. The rest is tough and a lot of people just give up.
Finally, it's a field where you have to continually renew yourself. That means the longer you're in the field, the worse off you are compared to a new grad if you stopped learning. You might have been a SOAP/WSDL expert back when you were 22 because it was all the rage, but that knowledge has limited usefulness today. If you don't keep learning, you're out.
When you add up all of these things, there really aren't that many older engineers. With the funnel increasing drastically over the last few years, expect gray hair to get more commons though. The massive amounts of twenty somethings software engineers will grow older. And while the other attrition criterias will weed some out, there will still be a LOT more of them than there currently are of us.
Unless there's a second dotcom crash, of course.
For one, WSDL/SOAP web services back then weren't used the same way. They were generally used to split apps in "tiers" (eg: business logic, frontend, data layer). Sometimes someone would extract a few more for scalability or whatever.
That's why "the cloud" (things like AWS) is an enabler here. You didn't have that back then.
We're not talking splitting the app in 3-4 pieces. I'm talking splitting an app maintained by 100 devs in 2500 services. Effortlessly (thats the key and the only reason its viable).
Tools like Mesos/kubernetes and continual deployment setups make this viable.
At work, if I want to make a new service, it's not much more difficult than adding a function: Run the generator, open the service, add some code, push, hit a button or type something in slack. Done.
We're talking 2 minutes (and on that, 1 minute is the time it takes for IntelliJ to open. You can cut that down using vim, lol). We deploy services and apps to production an average of 12 times per day per developer. Because it's "free" to do.
Microservices are completely non-viable if you can't do that. If you don't have the infrastructure to do it. You need to get the benefits without paying a significant cost.
Doing it like we did it 20 years ago (yes, I was a out of college then too) would have been batshit insane. And splitting stuff in just a few pieces isn't the same.
To make an analogy, it's like comparing svn branches to git branches. I wouldn't make 15 branches a day in svn.
Microservices are an architectural style meant to solve the maintenance/deploy/tech debt issues by physically separating an implementations in a lot of pieces. It's not a solution to a business problem. It's a solution to a tech problem you create when solving arbitrary business problems. It's basically solving the same problem you solve with functions/classes/modules/folders/whatever, except with physical decoupling so you can swap -everything-, one piece at a time, not just the code.
So to your example: think of how you'd split that in classes in OOP (or however your paradigm of choice split things). Now make those physically distinct microservices. Now 2 years from now when you realize there was a technology problem in fetching prior months because whatever version of Python/Ruby/Rust/Java/whatever has a security issue in a function that's used only for that part, you can move it to an arbitrary other technology (or version of the same technology) in 2 hours instead of migrating your whole app.
Can use anything, doesn't have to be JSON. Any network protocol will do.
And you don't have to use micro services. You certainly can run a monolith. But with "the cloud" you now gain the ability to spin up as many servers as you want and spin them down too. So it enables micro services as an option.
And that option has interesting benefits. It does increase complexity (drastically), but for that cost you get a decent bit. The ability to change the stack under arbitrary pieces of code. The ability to deploy pieces of your system separately from the other. Faster builds and deploys. Hard cut boundaries between concerns that can't be crossed even if your devs wanted to.
Now, if that's worth it...depends on your problem space.
If Oracle can document that, that is a reasonable defense
Salaried employees. Unless managers are taking notes and keeping track of them at all time (which would make the average software engineer straight up quit), all they can see is output, and they wouldn't keep track unless it was cause for significant concern, just not give promotions (that part is probably documented)
If they are doing different work, then they should have different titles, and different job descriptions.
I'm really looking forward to everyone having a unique title for every possible permutation of engineering role: "Sorry, you're a Messaging Platform Software Engineer III. That doesn't pay as much as the Document Platform Software Engineer II"
It is illegal to systematically pay men and women differently for doing the same work
And this is where things get interesting, since aside for burger flippers, that's how the world works.
I can already see it: "We're offering you $X" "Well, I guess I'm gonna go work elsewhere" "Wait!!! We can talk about this...actually nevermind, we can't >."
This will be interesting. Oracle has a LOT of lawyer power...
But the numbers almost certainly show a disparity, and the usual counter arguments come into play (are they paid less because they do less hours, choose different roles even though they say its for equal roles, did they negotiate less?), but proving anything on either side on those fronts is really hard.
850 is the max for the scale people generally refer to when talking about credit scores. Googling around, some banks seem to use internally a different score scale, but let's set that aside for a sec.
People can, and in fact do get perfect score. If you understand exactly how it works, its' not that difficult. It has very little to do with how much money you make, and is a pretty artificial metric.
When you get a report and it says things like "too many accounts with balances open", it doesn't mean "you have too many accounts with balances open". It just means you don't have -precisely- the amount of accounts the algorithm uses for a perfect score, so you lost a non-zero amount of points for it, and since you said you have a mortgage, it's probably what it's referring to.
To get a perfect score, you need a bunch of accounts open, that were opened several years ago (none recently), that are used but have 0 balance at the moment they were audited. Your available credit across those account has to be very high, and you need multiple accounts from different credit providers. There are a few other factors, but if you do it just right its pretty simple, given enough time, to manipulate your credit to get a perfect score.
In fact, some people make a game out of it. The only gotcha is you have to use those accounts sometimes but they have to be at 0 or nearly 0 the moment they're reported, and you never know when that will be (since it can change). So often you'll hover between 845 and 850 (or whatever other scale you're looking at, though those may have slightly different criterias)
If you quit every 6 months, yeah. Every 1.5 to 2 years? No one cares (depends on the industry, obviously, but in tech and related? Nope). Even the occasional "Well, that didn't work out" 2 month sting or the couple of "Meh, I wanted better" 10-12 months won't have anyone bat their eyes at you.
As long as we find ways for "the people who sell them their food" to live there SOMEHOW, this will just keep happening. As long as you have those lottery equivalent affordable housings. As long as you let people live in illegal apartments. As long as you subsidize it.
Make it impossible, and sooner or later the food prices will go up (and food prices fluctuate very quickly). People will either pay the marked up price (which will allow people selling the food to live there), or will no longer want to live there, reducing demand.
I'm not a big believer in the "free market fixes everything!", but here we clearly have a situation where a situation is made artificially possible.
I'm not sure downplaying that will solve any problems. It's people's homes. They presumably picked their homes because of various criterias that fit their life styles. They liked the location, the neighborhood. They potentially spent years looking.
And then you come in and tell them they have to give it up, essentially for only the benefit of others (at least directly. Indirectly it could benefit them, but that's harder to measure).
This isn't like asking someone to make a small donation to a local charity, or even raising taxes. You're asking people to allow things to happen that could drastically reduce their quality of life every hour of every day, including when they're trying to sleep. That's not something to be taken as lightly and dismissed as "LOL NIMBY WILL BE NIMBY",
Sure, from a society's point of view, it's for the best. But you can't blame people for pushing back.
While its stupid to think everyone who pirates a game would have bought it, its pretty much equally as stupid to think no one would have.
I'm surrounded by engineers that make 130-200k and who torrent everything day in day out. Sure, they most likely would not buy EVERYTHING They torrent, but that silly episode of Game of Thrones they just HAD to watch? You could charge 500 bucks for it and they would have bought it.
Yeah I wouldn't rent them. That's easy but not really worth it. We're looking at buying and paying for the install. Some of our neighboring buildings are doing the same thing, so I'm using their numbers to do the math, and my building has better exposure and more roof space, so it will work quite nicely~
This is actually pretty interesting to me, because we've been looking at solar. I dunno about solar at scale to replace plants, but residential setups are pretty damn cool. Even without any tax benefits or subsidies, a setup at my place that would cover most of my energy needs (even in winter, selling the extra in summer to pay for the cost of conventional power in the winter and nights)) would pay for itself in about 6 years, and they can last for 30 or something. That's not half bad.
I'm not sure that's the full story. A lot of the well known companies that are accused of ageism will happily pay you 500k/year if you're worth it. The main issue is what "worth it" means.
As I'm getting older (I'm in my mid thirties, so not old at all by non-tech standards, but in tech all these articles say its the end of the road), I'm getting more cynical, more conservative, I value foresight over doing things quick and having them blow up in my face later. I've seen countless of projects fail, and I know why they failed. I see these things happening over and over and can't help but going "Gah! I told you so!".
The college kids think I'm just a cranky old man and don't listen, and usually jump to the next company before the shit they did explode, and I clean up after them.
Many companies don't value that (often because they think someone like me is just misguided or flat out wrong). The value in someone who "goes fast and break shit to ship an MVP blazingly fast" is very high in their eyes. They'll pay for that. If as you get older, you use your experience to just implement shit faster and faster, those companies will pay you a premium. Most people don't go that route as they get older though.
But there are companies that value things other than shipping shit fast, and those will happily pay good engineers in their 40s, 50s or more several hundred thousands no problem.
Of course, you have the issue of people who get older, don't keep up to date, let their experience go to waste, and then bitch no one wants to hire them.
It really won't change much. As you said, a chunk of people will simply lie or jump the border.
The rest will be able to simply skip the requirement. Eg: Because of my line of work and the country I came from, even though I half assed my green card application and didn't submit half of the crap they asked for, I got approved super quickly anyway. They have a huge amount of discretion in what they can overlook.
It would be way better if they didn't. Some people from certain countries will get overlooked on purpose, some people won't even try to apply when we'd love to have them...but a lot of people will go through just fine without handing over any extra info, too.
Those associations predate the "everyone is a snowflake in their own special way" movement though. Most software communities are growing into ecochambers where everyone is telling everyone else that they're all right and that we should embrace every opinion as equally valid.
That makes it impossible to set any kind of standards anymore.
The chance to do this was 15 years ago.
And the records will: because you can get whatever numbers you want out of these things depending on what factors you control for.