Lots of options available. YT is slowly cracking down on them. That’s OK, just keep your medium run media consumption plans flexible.

The point is that the post title was false (or intentionally very misleading, if you insist on creatively parsing it). Accuracy in post titles is important.

He’s such a bad liar. Immigrants who come over and have visas but not citizenship are not going to risk their immigration status by screwing with the cops. On the other hand, cops who want to mess around would and do target immigrants.

And then he’s worried about officers being doxxed. These are people with experience and training and firearms, who are more than capable of protecting themselves. I’m not too worried about their safety. But as they say, all cops are paranoid.

It’s not a question of what’s the better option. In reality we have a lot of software that already exists and works, and you can’t replace it all in bulk at the same time. So the question is whether the implementation of Rust makes logistical sense, given the difficulties of maintaining currently existing software while replacing some parts of it.

No seeds no stems no stress my guy. The Internet is a great place for complaining. Readers can downvote and move on, everyone gets what they want.

It would not embarrass the government. They’re lying and they know it. People who let the Nazis into Canada have long since retired or died. But their children and grandchildren are still around, as are the new generation of racists. It’s these latter groups that dislike any kind of transparency and justice. Embarrassment has nothing to do with it.

You’re even more cute, my friend.

This one is very obvious. It’s not specific to the tech world. Companies know that changing jobs is stressful, that there’s value in remaining where you are, and quite obviously many people are willing to accept smaller raises so that they don’t have to go out and apply. For most jobs in the world, you can’t work remotely, and renting a different place or selling and buying property is time consuming, stressful, and expensive. In other words, this is common sense economic reasoning.

One side point is that if you can work mostly or entirely from home, that gets rid of some of the pressure to stay where you are, which in turn should create more mobility, which in turn should create more pay raises for employees who stay. But work from home is relatively the recent phenomenon, so old company pay scales are unlikely to properly account for it.

Another point, that the author completely overlooks, is that some people don’t contribute as much as the author thinks they contribute. If they know that, of course they don’t want to move to a place that does contribution-based pay. They could get hired on somewhere during a probational period of some kind, and their new bosses might think they’re not good enough, and now they are out two jobs. Of course the turnover on their second job makes their resume look weaker, so they’ll have more trouble finding a decent third job.

None of what I wrote is new information. It seems like the author of the article did that standard thing in tech circles. They decided to reinvent the wheel and write about it, and try to make it exciting when it’s not. Good for them for examining the problem, but they should be slightly embarrassed for publishing before doing basic research to see if someone had already addressed the question at hand.

Template writers and clipart generators are peachy. Saves us time. People who develop those, they have mostly positive intentions. There’s nothing wrong with sustainable research and progress in software of this sort.

You should be focusing on the salespeople, the investors (speculators), the marketers, the corporate buyers. These people have mostly bad intentions.

The article itself proves you wrong on this one, my friend. The situation is less simple and more subtle than you’re claiming.

Of course ego is a factor. That’s true for every organization in the world. But there are many other highly relevant factors in play here.

God bless NoScript.

A lot of language is subjective, and jokes are notoriously subjective. They translate horribly across cultures and languages.

If you have a different definition in mind, I’m all ears.

It’s interesting how people try to redefine the word joke. If there’s nothing funny about it, it’s not a joke. So maybe they mean that they were trolling just for fun, which is not the same thing.

The second point is that if they say something horrible and then you call them an asshole and then they complain that you’ve gotten too sensitive, which is a very common chain of events, it actually shows that they’ve gotten too sensitive. If you’re not supposed to care about what they said, why should they care about what you said? … But of course actually they don’t care about what you said, and they’re just grandstanding. But even if we accept their internal logic just for the sake of argument, it still makes them giant assholes.

That’s why you gotta go yourself.

Plot twist. The person holding the pot is Andre the Giant.

There can be only one.

Well yes, obviously.

I agree with you, and another way of looking at it is that the system is working perfectly as intended. The people who are happy with it are the ones who have the power to change it, but they don’t want to, because there’s no benefit to them.

Telling me stories isn’t going to impress me with the party that’s done very little in the last 20 years to make life better for the average American, even when they had Congress and the White House.

I want to know what’s going to be different this time. I want to know that the Democrats are actually going to pass legislation to make things better in the medium run and in the long run. And we’ve seen some good ideas. The idea to reform the Supreme Court, that’s a good one. I want to see more ideas like that, and I want to see centrist Democrats being pressured into publicly endorsing them.

I want Democrats to refuse to take money from crypto billionaires. I want Democrats to tell all of us how they’re going to stand up against monopolies. I want Democrats to risk angering the large corporations that dominate US politics, because I know that’s the only way that life will get better for the average American.

Of course you can’t always get what you want. So if the Democrats want to tell stories better, I guess that’s better than nothing, but don’t expect me to respect them.

The garbage is taking itself out