Because we’re exhausted and can’t afford to lose what little we all have. Even one day in jail can mean losing your job, even if charges are dropped. And a conviction could mean being stuck with only jobs that don’t pay a living wage for the rest of your life and few of us have enough savings to survive that for long.

But that’s not really how the stock market works anymore. Now investors don’t buy stock to support a company and draw a portion of the profits. That version of the market hasn’t existed for a while.

Now, the market is used as a gambling platform for wealthy people and is kept afloat only by IRA, 401k, charitable trusts, etc. Basically, a company is having trouble with profit. You buy into the company, put in a CEO you can control, have them boost the price at the expense of employees, customers, and long-term profit. Sell the stock. Let the company fall apart.

Then buy it low, have the CEO make up a new product based on whatever tech fad is popular. Sell just before the money is spent. Let the project fail because all the money was spent on marketing and consultants and not on the employees to actually do the project. Buy up the stock again, do some stock buybacks, sell again, etc.

But it’s never a strategy of: hire really good employees, make them happy, give them an achievable project with enough funding, increase the company’s reputation by making quality products, etc. That requires actually good business plans and products and a lot of work and no short term, “hey look at how much money I saved by cutting budgets even though everyone said our products will be crap without it,” kinds of flashy quarterly reports.

Playing the gambling game is more reliable profit and with retirement funds and all that keeping serious market crashes from happening, and the politicians being on their side and willing to bail them out if it does get bad, there’s a lot of wiggle room and a lot of people to lose money and funnel to them that doesn’t affect the corporations.

It’s all just rigged gambling. That money won’t benefit the company at all. The investors just sold all their stocks to the hedge funds and retirement funds for them to lose money on, like always. The IPO was just a way to pay off investors and let executives cash in their stocks. I’d love to know what restrictions on selling came with the stocks that were given to regular employees and users/mods. Like are they allowed to sell right away or do they have to hold it for some period of time?

The Reddit IPO is about one thing only, executive pay day. They are trying to get the price as high as possible and get stock into the hands of as many people who actually would like to see Reddit succeed as possible (regular employees, mods, users, etc.). You can’t short a stock of no one is holding on to it and you can’t sell if no one is buying. No knowledgeable person would expect the stock not to plummet after it is tradable. So they’re trying to pad out the numbers with as many of the few remaining loyal Redditors as possible.

Russia is our enemy and Israel our ally and the US, especially the right wing, has been trying to delegitimize the UN for years, mostly so the corporations can keep selling weapons to both our own military as well as our allies. It’s not like the sanctions against Russia were ever going to stop the war. They were just designed to give Ukraine a chance to prolong it and sell more weapons to the American people to give to Ukraine. Russia wanted a quick war and that wouldn’t be good for business. With Israel, since they’re looking to keep the war going until there are no more Muslims, we don’t want anything to interfere with that.

Yeah, it would be nice if it was easier for devs to just turn over the project to an “official” fork. Unfortunately, I’m sure that would get abused by scammers taking over projects forcefully and adding in malware before anyone notices.

Economic growth is fine to a point. Problem is measuring economic growth through the arbitrary price of a small group of companies using a market system designed for gambling rather than long-term investing. Better is to base it on the amount of goods exchanged across all levels of society. When the top has all the money and increases their stock prices by buying and selling their own stocks, and the rest can’t afford to participate in the economy beyond necessities, that’s not a good economy.

Because it’s an ad and this is spam.

I mean I don’t disagree with the headline, but the article is just an ad.

Depends on the language and platform as well as how asynchronous things are. For example, lots of platforms have little to no debugging for scripting languages. I write a lot of Groovy on a platform that has a debugger that is mostly too much trouble to connect my IDE to since the platform can’t run locally. But even then it doesn’t debug the Groovy code at all.

And with asynchronous stuff it’s often difficult to tell what something isn’t running in the right order without some kind of debug logging. Though in most cases I use the logger rather than printing directly to the console so that it can be left in and just configured to only print if the logging level is set to debug which can be configured based on the environment.

No need, just need to force them to sell their property here along with all the other rich people who are holding on to vacant property as an investment. There are plenty of homes in most places if they’d do something like double the property tax on any property that’s vacant more than a few months per year.

Hey I contributed 2 of those just this month reinstalling Windows after an update broke my raid array by modifying the partitions on one of the drives rather than the array. And then decided the drive was corrupt. And then finally accepting this as the last straw and giving up and installing Linux as my primary OS. Only keeping Windows for the few games that require it, or I’d just run a VM for the few other times I might need it.

I see this a lot less with developers whose companies actually provide decent IDEs. Especially front end devs or older devs who still use text editors.

Not even religion, culture. My grandma used to wear a headscarf pretty much everywhere. She was Italian and not Muslim.

Plus, if they are being forced, then either they’re going to get beaten or murdered for taking it off, or they won’t go to school to avoid being beaten or murdered. So it doesn’t help those women either. It’s purely a far right PR stunt to appeal to people who hate Muslims.

Yeah, and contracting is weird, too. I worked for a company that built a product to regression test that upgrades to major components that our systems integrated with didn’t change some functionality that would cause incorrect pricing or other issues. The testers at the companies that bought it loved it, but it was an annual fee and they couldn’t justify the cost without a specific upgrade planned in advance. Instead, they all went back to spending up to 100x as much hiring contractors to manually create test data and analyze the results. Worst part is the divisions of the companies that purchased the software could easily have convinced the other divisions to use the software and there would have been plenty of projects every year even if one division only had one project every two years or so.

But nope. Can’t collaborate and share expenses or they’ll lose their funding. Better to have big spikes in spending so that they could look like they were saving money all the rest of the time. Otherwise, they would lose all of their permanent staff to budget cuts.

Yeah. I get it if it was a market where things change quickly, so all you need is a quick and dirty product to get your foot in the door with customers. And sometimes it’s easier to build something that is more targeted rather than collaborating to make a more generic solution.

I don’t work in that kind of industry, really. And the kinds of things I’m talking about aren’t things that take years to develop. For example, just in the last two months I built a solution that will make literally hundreds of small upcoming projects spread across four teams take a single two week sprint to implement for one to two people depending on complexity. Previously each of these were taking 3 to 4 people 2-3 months to implement. Plus tying down people from working on maintaining the existing system, so they were going to need to ramp up on engineers pretty quickly.

Plus this solution doesn’t require code deployments to onboard new customers, only to implement the new functionality that each of these small projects are adding. The old solution would have meant possibly having to wait months for a window to deploy code just to onboard a new customer because so many things were hard coded. Our system is extremely high volume and downtime can mean not just losing money, but fines from not meeting timeliness regulations, so deployments are heavily controlled.

And of the two months I spent on this it only was about a week of research and development. The rest was winning the trust of the other tech leads, gathering their requirements, and getting them all to agree on things like naming conventions. Both because they’d been burned too many times and because I’ve only been there for 2 years and wasn’t even a tech lead of my team yet when I started this, though I was about to be because the lead was moving to a newly formed team. And sure, if you had joined one of those meetings in that first week or two, it might have seemed like a waste of time with the bickering and nitpicking. But that’s just because they didn’t believe it was possible to collaborate and get things done, too.

The company was happily going to hire a bunch of contractors to build these things in order to maintain the silos and “competition”. It’s only because of a new manager, that I built trust with over the last year, that no one interfered when I started pulling people together and “wasting time” to collaborate. It’s not even that the middle management is doing these things maliciously in most of the places I’ve worked. They’ve just been brainwashed to believe that making people compete makes them more productive than making them collaborate. But it’s only the worst engineers that need that threat of losing. And only the worst ones that will stick around to play the game since good engineers just want to build stuff.

And this is how you end up with five different parts of the company building pretty much the same thing, because if there was a central team creating shared components, they wouldn’t bring in any profit to justify their existence. But hey, at least there are no dependencies. And competition between teams drives innovation, right?

So tired of this line. The first thing I do in any team I’m on is start building bridges, sharing information, and collaborating on shared components that have the features that all the teams need, so we’re not all wasting everyone’s time building ten crappy, buggy versions of something we all need with slight variation. And instead build a single, well designed and well tested version that suits us all. But it’s always an uphill battle. Experienced engineers are always hesitant to trust, even if it’s exactly what they all want. They get burned or even punished by management policy for collaboration.

Cool I loved it when Google Maps allowed contributing stuff. There are so many little annoyances where you get incorrect directions that could be fixed so easily by crowd sourcing, but are too small to fix otherwise.

But changing society takes waiting a generation at least. We don’t have that kind of time. People are already dying.

And yes when produced in bulk, a vegan diet can be cheaper but the meat industry is powerful and gets lots of subsidies. Plus animal products are used in lots of products other than food, so all of the industries have to change and subsidies moved to realize that savings. Right now it’s definitely cheaper to buy animal products if you do a calorie to cost comparison which is what’s important to the majority of the world. It’s only wealthy places that are concerned with low calorie foods.

So again. What’s easier/faster. Educate the young, wait for the old to die off, slowly change the industries as demand changes… Or incentivize the companies, that produce by far the majority of greenhouse gasses, to stop doing it now with their money and power to make quick changes. I mean even Walmart has shifted significantly to green energy. And not because of public opinion, because they obviously don’t care about that, it’s because it saves money.

I’m saying what is the most efficient way to save the planet. If you convince 500 people to stop eating meat vs. convince 500 CEOs to reduce wasting energy and generating pollution. Which one is likely to be helpful? I can guarantee that convincing 500 people to stop eating meat isn’t going to have any impact on climate change at all. Even 500 million switching away from meat wouldn’t have the same impact as 500 CEOs. Concentrate on the things that are both impactful and possible.