Name-calling, how classy. I'm not even a socialist: I'm a "mixtillist": combo of capitalism and socialism. Just because one wants some socialism doesn't mean they want the whole enchilada.
They don't understand that authoritarian government is a monopoly. Employer != Dictator.
Companies are a de-facto dictator if the practical choice is to work under a single or limited set of companies OR eat scraps from trash bins.
Most desperate people don't give a shit about nominal freedom unless it relieves them of desperate circumstances. Read about Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Your lemonade stand analogy makes no sense to me. That's not what unions do. They don't block consumers. Anyhow, see my nearby reply about "people rights" versus "union rights" versus "corporation rights".
Joining a union (or not) is a voluntary association in right to work states...Freedom works. Choice is the key here...
If it's about "freedom", then a union has freedom to negotiate terms with an employer, and that freedom includes possible contract stipulations that all workers in the company must contribute to the union. Your suggestion would strip unions of freedom.
OR do you believe unions DON'T have the same rights as people? We can go down that route, but we should apply it evenly and ALSO conclude corporations don't have the same rights as people.
It seems to me conservatives want corporations to have the same rights as people but not unions. I find this inconsistent and hypocritical.
I may agree to strip unions of such "rights" if corporations are also stripped of many rights. Otherwise, I'd like to have unions have power to balance against corporations, who have a long record of exploiting employees during difficult times for individuals and during national slumps.
I will agree some union leaders are jerks, but corporations also have jerks. Jerks can happen in any org. If you want to get rid of all jerks, then kill all humans.
Intents are not always clear. Sometimes we go by somewhat fuzzy notions of intent without spelling out exactly what our intent is.
Then real world conditions come along and make us realize that we didn't consider certain conditions thoroughly enough. After all, the human brain cannot emulate/anticipate every possible execution path of a non-trivial system.
It may be we considered typical conditions, but non-typical conditions came along that we just simply didn't anticipate either because we've never seen it happen before, or we just are not smart enough run enough permutations in our head.
To me, Laynes Law implies that there exists universal truth and it is knowable. I disagree with that.
But if people interpret terms different, then they are talking past each other. To me, Laynes Law is only describing the side-effects of using mis-matched meanings, NOT putting a value judgement on them: "If X is not true, then Y happens", where X is a common/consistent understanding of a term, and Y is chaos and anger. If X were wearing seat-belts and Y is death, then stating the relationship is not necessarily condoning seat-belts, but merely describing a relationship between two conditions.
For example, leaving default hard-coded credentials for the service team to remotely access your product. You can't call this a bug - the functionality is intentional.
The alternative for the org may be to spend $2000 to fly a techie to remote locations when passwords expire or are lost. Allowing phone-in passwords has social-engineering-hacking risk also. The customer is ultimately the boss because they can fire you if they don't like your implementation decisions.
I agree it's up to engineers to recommend best practices, but ultimately the decision is up to the those paying you to write software. If the customer wants "bad" features, you have to give them bad features (barring legal risk to yourself). If they want to gamble, it's their money. (Do document and save your recommendations for CYA.)
Conservatives didn't like it when Stalin did that, but are okay with it in different forms. I see hypocrisy.
USA is the wealthiest (large) country. There is no reason anybody here should starve or die of readily curable illnesses other than Ayn-Randian political beliefs.
But almost all of Big Labor depends on forced membership, which is a form of serfdom.
Corporations spend a fair amount on political lobbying and pass those costs on to the consumer. Almost every product you buy in certain categories has a hidden "lobbying tax". You are essentially forced to pay it. Workers need a counter version of the same thing.
The data repeatedly shows that when right to work is enacted, the majority of union members will OPT OUT.
"Right to work", nice word-play there. Each job you take has pre-conditions that are not negotiable, other than leave. Why should union membership be exempt from such a pattern but other things not?
I"ve been contracting for nearly 20 years now, and I am quite happy with it.
I've done contracting also. While it's good living during boom times, it was nasty during the dot-com bust. I scraped by under sweatshop-like conditions under clients who'd often flake on pay. I tried to abandon the IT field altogether, seeing visa workers flood in*. I had a young family such that gigs far away were a strain. (If you are the lone-gypsy type, maybe it's fine for you.)
IT has had 3 bumps in the past 3 decades: The early 1990's aerospace slump (techies flooding market), the 2000 dot-com crash, and the Great Recession. (Personal impact may vary depending on location & specialty.)
Recessions happen and the future is unknown. The good times have been nice, but during the bad times the employer has you by the balls. Myself, I won't bet that the IT good-times will last.
Plus there's agism and age-related problems. Software is often at the whims of fads, and fad chasing is a young-person's game: it's why the fonts are so tiny by default on all the dev tools/sites. Admit it: dev hates fogies. (There are gigs for legacy apps, but you fall behind by taking those.)
People often hate unions during their good times and like them during bad. Look at the long-term instead.
* One of the few things T did right is tighten the visa review process.
I work on mostly CRUD and e-reporting applications. Generally an org wants these kinds of apps to be predictable and reliable, not "organic" (trial and error). I don't see organic learning as a viable way to program such in the future.
However, I can see AI being used to test the apps and find potential bugs in the source code, being that "suspicious pattern detection" is something it can do relatively well. It may also suggest code, schema, and UI refactorings. But such AI would be an adviser to programmers, not behind the wheel itself.
Clippy impression: "It looks like you have a lot of code pattern duplication between modules 7, 22, 43, and 51. Would you like help refactoring?"
So, are e-unions the future? I hope so. The plutocrats have gotten the upper hand for too long, creating growing inequality. It's time us 95% get some bargaining power back (if GOP doesn't outlaw or de-fang unions & e-unions).
Is there any objective and consistent working definition and/or test of "bug" versus "bad design"? I suspect there is a lot of gray area such that Laynes Law will reign over such discussions.
fight almost broke out...I was one of the people who had to step in and calm it all down...and I was afraid they would knock over the table with all the liquor.
Then one is reversing the version number. It's hard to know how user settings/data will behave under back-versioning. I'll try PaleMoon for a while. They don't plan any major engine or UI overhauls any time soon: my cheese won't move again.
Indeed. I miss my extensions, such as hiding a single tab to save space (I'm used to Alt-Tab).
FF should have supported the older engine line in parallel for a year or two until extensions catch up. Extensions are why people use FF. Why switch cold turkey? It's illogical, Captain. They Fucked Up!
"Communism" is an overloaded term. My observation is that it's generally intended to mean a totalitarian gov't run by a central committee and possibly with a weak equivalent of a President. If the single leader becomes too strong, then it's a dictatorship.
Because they allow some capitalism, people forget they are a totalitarian regime. Early in my visit to the country, I was at a city park. I turned a corner to get a look at a new-looking relief mural. Suddenly looming before me was a 20 foot carved hammer and sickle. The hair on the back of my neck popped up. It was a definitive "we're not in Kansas anymore" moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Name-calling, how classy. I'm not even a socialist: I'm a "mixtillist": combo of capitalism and socialism. Just because one wants some socialism doesn't mean they want the whole enchilada.
Companies are a de-facto dictator if the practical choice is to work under a single or limited set of companies OR eat scraps from trash bins.
Most desperate people don't give a shit about nominal freedom unless it relieves them of desperate circumstances. Read about Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Your lemonade stand analogy makes no sense to me. That's not what unions do. They don't block consumers. Anyhow, see my nearby reply about "people rights" versus "union rights" versus "corporation rights".
If it's about "freedom", then a union has freedom to negotiate terms with an employer, and that freedom includes possible contract stipulations that all workers in the company must contribute to the union. Your suggestion would strip unions of freedom.
OR do you believe unions DON'T have the same rights as people? We can go down that route, but we should apply it evenly and ALSO conclude corporations don't have the same rights as people.
It seems to me conservatives want corporations to have the same rights as people but not unions. I find this inconsistent and hypocritical.
I may agree to strip unions of such "rights" if corporations are also stripped of many rights. Otherwise, I'd like to have unions have power to balance against corporations, who have a long record of exploiting employees during difficult times for individuals and during national slumps.
I will agree some union leaders are jerks, but corporations also have jerks. Jerks can happen in any org. If you want to get rid of all jerks, then kill all humans.
You must be single.
Intents are not always clear. Sometimes we go by somewhat fuzzy notions of intent without spelling out exactly what our intent is.
Then real world conditions come along and make us realize that we didn't consider certain conditions thoroughly enough. After all, the human brain cannot emulate/anticipate every possible execution path of a non-trivial system.
It may be we considered typical conditions, but non-typical conditions came along that we just simply didn't anticipate either because we've never seen it happen before, or we just are not smart enough run enough permutations in our head.
But if people interpret terms different, then they are talking past each other. To me, Laynes Law is only describing the side-effects of using mis-matched meanings, NOT putting a value judgement on them: "If X is not true, then Y happens", where X is a common/consistent understanding of a term, and Y is chaos and anger. If X were wearing seat-belts and Y is death, then stating the relationship is not necessarily condoning seat-belts, but merely describing a relationship between two conditions.
The alternative for the org may be to spend $2000 to fly a techie to remote locations when passwords expire or are lost. Allowing phone-in passwords has social-engineering-hacking risk also. The customer is ultimately the boss because they can fire you if they don't like your implementation decisions.
I agree it's up to engineers to recommend best practices, but ultimately the decision is up to the those paying you to write software. If the customer wants "bad" features, you have to give them bad features (barring legal risk to yourself). If they want to gamble, it's their money. (Do document and save your recommendations for CYA.)
Stalin: "Join my party or starve"
Conservatives didn't like it when Stalin did that, but are okay with it in different forms. I see hypocrisy.
USA is the wealthiest (large) country. There is no reason anybody here should starve or die of readily curable illnesses other than Ayn-Randian political beliefs.
Corporations spend a fair amount on political lobbying and pass those costs on to the consumer. Almost every product you buy in certain categories has a hidden "lobbying tax". You are essentially forced to pay it. Workers need a counter version of the same thing.
"Right to work", nice word-play there. Each job you take has pre-conditions that are not negotiable, other than leave. Why should union membership be exempt from such a pattern but other things not?
I've done contracting also. While it's good living during boom times, it was nasty during the dot-com bust. I scraped by under sweatshop-like conditions under clients who'd often flake on pay. I tried to abandon the IT field altogether, seeing visa workers flood in*. I had a young family such that gigs far away were a strain. (If you are the lone-gypsy type, maybe it's fine for you.)
IT has had 3 bumps in the past 3 decades: The early 1990's aerospace slump (techies flooding market), the 2000 dot-com crash, and the Great Recession. (Personal impact may vary depending on location & specialty.)
Recessions happen and the future is unknown. The good times have been nice, but during the bad times the employer has you by the balls. Myself, I won't bet that the IT good-times will last.
Plus there's agism and age-related problems. Software is often at the whims of fads, and fad chasing is a young-person's game: it's why the fonts are so tiny by default on all the dev tools/sites. Admit it: dev hates fogies. (There are gigs for legacy apps, but you fall behind by taking those.)
People often hate unions during their good times and like them during bad. Look at the long-term instead.
* One of the few things T did right is tighten the visa review process.
I work on mostly CRUD and e-reporting applications. Generally an org wants these kinds of apps to be predictable and reliable, not "organic" (trial and error). I don't see organic learning as a viable way to program such in the future.
However, I can see AI being used to test the apps and find potential bugs in the source code, being that "suspicious pattern detection" is something it can do relatively well. It may also suggest code, schema, and UI refactorings. But such AI would be an adviser to programmers, not behind the wheel itself.
Clippy impression: "It looks like you have a lot of code pattern duplication between modules 7, 22, 43, and 51. Would you like help refactoring?"
So, are e-unions the future? I hope so. The plutocrats have gotten the upper hand for too long, creating growing inequality. It's time us 95% get some bargaining power back (if GOP doesn't outlaw or de-fang unions & e-unions).
Is there any objective and consistent working definition and/or test of "bug" versus "bad design"? I suspect there is a lot of gray area such that Laynes Law will reign over such discussions.
T is chubby, but not that chubby.
"You are thawing it wrong" sounds like a lisp.
Priorities!
Google and Amazon are fighting over who will be the next Microsoft. Maybe they both will: there's no limit to jerkhood.
Then one is reversing the version number. It's hard to know how user settings/data will behave under back-versioning. I'll try PaleMoon for a while. They don't plan any major engine or UI overhauls any time soon: my cheese won't move again.
Steve Jobs: "You are dethawing it wrong."
Sing it: Caaalibration time, come on!...
Indeed. I miss my extensions, such as hiding a single tab to save space (I'm used to Alt-Tab).
FF should have supported the older engine line in parallel for a year or two until extensions catch up. Extensions are why people use FF. Why switch cold turkey? It's illogical, Captain. They Fucked Up!
They'll call shoes: "foot helmets".
Toothbrush: "Dental maintenance amenity" or "Bristled breath freshener".
Door: "Controllable privacy barrier".
Floor: "Soil-and-human boundary management system" or "Inverted ceiling".
You are holding it wrong.
"Communism" is an overloaded term. My observation is that it's generally intended to mean a totalitarian gov't run by a central committee and possibly with a weak equivalent of a President. If the single leader becomes too strong, then it's a dictatorship.
They act like a bunch of commies! ... oh, wait
Because they allow some capitalism, people forget they are a totalitarian regime. Early in my visit to the country, I was at a city park. I turned a corner to get a look at a new-looking relief mural. Suddenly looming before me was a 20 foot carved hammer and sickle. The hair on the back of my neck popped up. It was a definitive "we're not in Kansas anymore" moment.
I smell a marketing gimmick: play-our-game-to-feel-smart