A lot of your argument presupposes a distinct lack of parental authority in the education of a child.
The way that it appears to be playing out is that parents were repulsed by perverted and strange worldviews being taught to their children on their dime. They called their legislators to make the changes and, in a rare event, the legislators listened and are acting upon it.
The system, for once, seems to be working. Both sides should see the objective value in at least that.
A lot of these are actually grandfathered in. Vulcanization, electrolysis, auto painting, etc. I think the emphasis is that CA has effectively made it difficult to get regulatory authorities to agree to issue new permits. That was the part that stood out to me.
> so obviously his point can’t be true
> so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting
> so obviously I can dismiss this as teleologically false.
Please don’t be so lazy you guys. There is something to be gained here.
But you’ll incur heavy taxes, huge COB increases, tightening regulatory scrutiny and all for nothing compared to being just one or two states over. It’s has been one economically and morally disadvantageous to do manufacturing in California due to hypernanny regulation. What’s worse is that generational and heritage firms that have lived in California for 50+ years are effectively put out of business because of these policies… and that’s just at the national level. No one has even mentioned how CA based businesses can’t compete with China.
I get what you’re protective over though. We all like clean air and streams. No one is voting for more superfund sites. We can agree on that.
Your response seems to either woefully uninformed or bad faith. I’m assuming the former.
I'm a principal at a non-fang company. Throughout my tenure however, I've worked at roughly half of the FAANG companies back when people thought of them as synonymous with excellence. The jury is still out as to what that really means today, but I digress.
In any event, the only single takeaway that I've come to regarding Staff is that the role is executed vastly differently across organizations. I think that the most anyone can tell you is "how it worked in my experience".
With that caveat, my experience has been that most of the time Staff is a bastardized hybrid between management and SME work with a respective ratio of 80/20 or 60/40 in my experience at G. Some orgs are highly stratified with strict handcuffs to the keyboard, strict roles, strict ownership assignments. Some are less stratified, with more dynamic on/off seasons of management, floating ownership, consulting roles, or any mix of the previous. These less stratified orgs tend to treat Staff as "trusted seniors" with nothing substantially changing after the jump.
One common thread is the emphasis on crossfunctionality. You now get to work outside your senior cage with other teams and have the privilege of getting thrown onto PoC projects or chosen to bear the burden of the innovation lab experiments. I say that half joking, but it is nonetheless a fun privilege. The other common thread is "trust". In a phrase, "We trust you more than the senior who has idled in that role for 5y at 3 different orgs. Your title means something a bit more." Helps with conferences and calls. The other thing that I've noticed is that you're now the new "senior eng" to be picked by the Principal or DE for their pet project. That can be a plus, but the point here is that Senior and Intermediate/Associate is just not considered. The last thing that I'd say is that promoting to Staff within an org means a whole lot more than incoming as a Staff. The trust factor is increased, you're a bit more bonafide. I suppose that goes for most roles though.
You know, I think you're right. I recant what I said earlier. I actually don't think I should care about this matter at all.
In a more general sense, it seems best to me that people should just mind their own business and settle things like adults without giving into this pervasive and strange desire to be vindicated by their framing of the situation to others.
There is literally no benefit to anyone but the storyteller. They are either seen as more or less virtuous by their framing of the situation.
They have an interest in telling you a story that makes them look good and a greater interest in downplaying their guilt in the matter. At the end of the day it means very little to most observers.
Pair that with the absolute disincentive to provide actual specifics, the whole thing is moot to an honest person.
I don't think I would ever "have blood on my hands" in my current position as a software developer because Gotham and Foundry have valid and real world use cases that are being implemented in ways that actually make people safe across the nation. That's honestly just the truth. Can people, or and organizations use any given product for nefarious ends? Absolutely. Do we try to mitigate it? Very much so.
At the end of the day it sounds like the people making this argument don't really like how ICE is using the product. That's unfortunate, but it seems like the response is making a proximation error though. For those taking this view: Do you yell at farmers for planting, growing and packaging strawberries because you're upset about the obesity crisis and people's craving for strawberry flavored products? Do you run out into the fields and grab them by the shoulders saying "This is your fault!". I'd hazard not.
There is a larger epistemological argument to be had there, but needless to say I'm just not convinced that any sober person believes that qualitatively ascribing moral outrage to a single group of people is really that simple.
That's a pretty broad generalization, but OK I'll bite.
- I think Yarvin has a lot of good points. No one should be ashamed to admit the truth of a matter. I can't stand his voice, I think he has annoying mannerisms, but nonetheless the man has a point and I'm not ashamed (especially by unknown and strange online personas) to say so.
- Palantir is objectively a profitable job. I've learned a lot here and the people I work with are brilliant.
- I don't think I have "blood on my hands" and rather instead think that people who use that tactic are resorting to strange emotional manipulation in place of a salient argument.
Let's be honest, simply conjecturing that someone ascribes to a political view isn't discourse. It's a potshot. You're assuming that anyone who reads your comment and leans in your direction is going to agree and vote with you. This is literally the lowest and cheapest form of engagement. It's also the most self serving. It does nothing to advance the conversation or prove your point.
Most importantly, this is the exact type of behavior that is furthering political polarization and discouraging actual discourse.
> sparkfun chose to publish a vague public accusation. once you do that, speculation is inevitable.
Ok sure, but the explanation provided strikes me as equally vague. I don't think anyone who isn't familiar with this situation has any idea what the hell is going on between these two orgs tbh.
If a dispassionate observer can't figure out situation without significant effort, then it's very easy to handwave this away as unimportant.
Personally I'd very much hate for that to happen here if something truly noteworthy happened.
> Even if I grant moral objectivity, I reject that you have epistemic access to it so it's moot.
This is a silly and self refuting statement.