It's really not, and has never been. A group of people literally organized on Facebook and brought guns to overtake the capitol. It's pretty cut and dry. Again, nobody would've expected Microsoft to support ISIS' tech. Businesses have always pulled away from extremist groups like this, as is their right to do.
The "whataboutism" on DoD contracts isn't relevant. If your stance is "Our own government is a terror cell", well obviously then our entire society is gone anyway, so why even bother discussing the ethics of tech in america at all? But obviously this stance is just hyperbole in an attempt to dismiss the validity of claiming the rioters as legitimate terrorists.
And even by your own example, when has the DoD ever stormed the capitol? Or attempted to overthrow the US government? Spoiler: they haven't. And these insanely silly attempts at implying that legitimate businesses are under the same category as fascist extremists is a joke. This tech precedent pearl clutching is such an insanely bad look it's difficult to even fathom. My assertion is simple: when you try to overthrow a country's government, companies in that country don't want to work with you. The waters are muddier with respect to overthrowing other people's governments, but the DoD has never once attempted to overthrow the US government. There has never been an AWS-supported US coup (before last week). SO the "whatabouts" aren't even relevant.
There were two deaths, one of which was a black man being murdered by Proud Boys, and the other does not have evidence suggesting it was related to the Seattle AZ (other than they were near the perimeter).
> A lot of them expect you to tell them how, but they will refuse to ask for help until too late.
Software is an industry in which people are criticized frequently for doing things differently than how others would've done them. This results in devs (that are less confident with that type of confrontation) over-asking how a company wants something done, and then feeling anxiety around getting it wrong and needing to ask for help. It might not necessarily be the responsibility of the direct manager to define _how_ things are done from a technical perspective on that team, but it's certainly someone's. "I expect you to know how to write software in our codebase" kind of falls apart, given the infinite options for how problems are approached within a given problemspace.
If you're seeing this type of behavior, your org might have trouble with A.) responding to aggressively with developers building something differently than expected, B.) valuable criticism. Pull requests are exhausting, in my experience, because they oftentimes turn into theoretical debates about the validity of different approaches.
Pull requests are the correct time to offer actionable criticism on submitted work. Pull requests are not a place to complain about an implementation strategy, or to suggest the developer should've done something totally differently. If the submitted solution is so far away from correct that that type of criticism comes up, your workflow has already fallen apart (as a developer was able to build and submit a solution without realizing their work wouldn't pass review).
> When I was on the other side, the opposite was true too, I has bosses that expected me to do things their way, even if I could demonstrate that there were better.
I think ultimately either is "fine" - things just need to be defined appropriately. If a developer is given the freedom to basically do whatever they want, they need to be told so, and that ideal has to be supported through the entire dev lifecycle. Meaning your team's culture has to have the restraint to not complain about implementation details. In my experience, almost no org is actually comfortable with this method though. In my experience it's best to literally define "how" a team solves the problems it is tasked with.
Every single job I've worked that used Jira, also used google sheets to "map" actual work to Jira work. It has always blown my mind. All the meetings to update the google sheet, and then to update Jira, and then to ask why the two aren't in sync. It feels like I'm taking crazy pills. Why are we using a manual tool (google sheet) to keep track of the work, that's in our work tracking technology? What?
> You are making a very common complaint, that comes from ignoring the problems of the tools you know while making a fuzz over anything you find on the new one. It's almost certain that whatever languages you are used to, they have a much larger pile of gotchas than Haskell (because Haskell has an atypical small number of them), but that doesn't stop them from being useful.
"Yeah well your language isn't good either" isn't a very good argument for why a language is _better_. If the idea is "Haskell works better than other languages as long as you happen to know how to make it so", isn't that just every language that exists? Due to Haskell's branding, I was under the impression that the issues the above user is describing should be impossible. If Haskell doesn't even make good on those guarantees, but instead shifts that guarantee as "Things you should've known not to do" onto the user, how is that different from any other language?
edit And since this thread has a lot of tension and vague hostility, I will add, I am not attacking you or the language you enjoy. I legitimately would like to better understand.
It's def a slippery slope, but all of hiring is bound by implicit bias. If random people are evaluating random people against a set of subjective metrics, you're always going to get _some amount_ of bias in your decision making.
In reality, I think a surprising amount of bias goes into "tech screening", maybe even moreso than evaluating "soft skills." If you're asking random engineers at your company to conduct tech screens, the odds that those engineers are emotionally and mentally reflective enough to be fair and bias-free in the questions they ask and the solutions to those questions are very low. This is why so many places struggle with tech interviews that feel like debates. Engineers dislike candidates that do well on the tech portion of the screen because those engineers feel it is a competition that they must "win". I've seen this time and time again at FAANG and non-FAANG. Random engineers from a team should not be assessing candidates, pretty much ever.
I hate javascript as much as the next person, but when I had to step into .erb templates and regress back into javascript-as-<script> blocks in HTML, holy crap did I realize how far the FE landscape has come. Watching the Turbo demo, I cannot fathom going back to erbs.
It seems like DHH is just trying to make relevant tooling without writing Javascript, which I guess is fair, but given all of the advancements in all of the other tech, this really just does not seem like a good idea to me.
I might-should've rephrased my original post to suggest that mocks for non-code-you-wrote deps are a waste, but being able to inject different implementations of code you wrote for the sake of testing still has value.
If you want to test how your code behaves when getting/setting data from a database, you fundamentally cannot mock the database. If you want to test how your code forms arguments to send to a dependency, you probably can, as long as you do both. If you're just testing that your args are correct without actually using them, you'll never really know.
A specific example stands out in my mind when I watched a TDD-minded developer suggest that their code was complete because they injected a mocked version of DynamoDB into a service and then verified their tests ran. They committed and pushed without actually testing against DynamoDB. When tasked with _actually running it_, they found that there was a fundamental flaw in the way that developer perceived Dynamo's behavior, which obviously meant their mock was totally useless.
If you want to test that you're pulling the right ID off an object to send to a database you can mock. If you want to test how your code actually behaves with a database, including failure scenarios and invalid arguments, you cannot.
As usual, solutions are much more nuanced than I previously stated. I've moved away from mocks, not banished them entirely.
I have moved into thinking that mocks don't really have much value. Testing real things is the only way to verify real things.
If you can, set up a real DB, cache, whatever, and run your services in tests with real instances of their dependencies. Obviously this falls through for external APIs and things that are very expensive, but your savings in "But the tests passed" confusion time will be huge.
> Compare to ~22000 dosed in trials; two of the vaccinated died from causes that don't look related to the vaccine, and four of the placebo group died. This mostly lets us exclude a high death rate from the vaccine. Several in the placebo group ended up hospitalized from severe COVID; none in the vaccine group ended up hospitalized from COVID or vaccine related side effects.
How frequently are vaccine side effects measured 1-3 years out? How frequently do vaccines present side effects on the 1-3 year timeframe?
> Indeed, the entire judgment call made in emergency use authorization is exactly that: the benefits of the vaccines appear to conclusively outweigh the risks.
Had that judgement call not been made in one of the least competent governments in US history, I think it might carry more weight, no?
> the benefits of the vaccines appear to conclusively outweigh the risks.
I would challenge this statement in that I don't believe it possible to fully understand the risks yet. Is 22000 over ~three months the normal amount of time a vaccine trial runs (I am asking somewhat rhetorically, in that we've heard time and time again that this is not the case)
> that you may be spreading it to other people who may contract it.
Yes, but, given my age/health, wouldn't the people already at risk already have been offered the vaccine? And if they opted against it, they also made their choice?
And for the people that are unable to get the vaccine for whatever reason, isn't that a scenario in which I feel it's either me putting my safety at risk instead of them putting theirs?
I am sympathetic towards people that are allergic or for whatever other reason cannot get the vaccine, but in the same way that they opted to not take the vaccine to protect their health, is that not exactly what I'm suggesting? I do not feel the vaccine is verified safe and am attempting to protect my health?
> Due to the slow response to the hurricane, New Orleans's top emergency management official called the effort a "national disgrace" and questioned when reinforcements would actually reach the increasingly desperate city.[10] New Orleans's emergency operations chief Terry Ebbert blamed the inadequate response on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). "This is not a FEMA operation. I haven't seen a single FEMA guy", he said. "FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans."[10]
I think that two colossal failures are enough to convey a "The government responds inefficiently and generally poorly to significant humanitarian issues".
> absolutely destroys the private sector in efficiency and effectiveness for many important things.
Maybe. Lots of private sector work is held up specifically _by_ government.
> I'd rather let the CDC work on vaccine distribution protocols than leave it to Taco Bell.
I mean... I agree. But I never suggested we leave vaccines in the hands of chain businesses. I just pointed out that, historically, the US government botches jobs like this spectacularly. The confidence lots of these comments have in the govt efficiently distributing the vaccinations based on need, to me, is not in line with the realities of the US government wrt issues of public health and safety.
First, I appreciate you having a legitimate conversation about this stuff instead of dismissing my arguments for the aforementioned political issues. I think skepticism is fair on both sides.
> But we've bounded the risk to be much, much less than COVID in almost all populations.
Are you sure? And by sure I mean, there is enough data to prove this statement to be true? How?
> Generally, a whole lot of the reasons why we take vaccines is to provide collective protection.
This makes, sense, but is "collective protection" a right now thing? Or is collective protection the goal of a vaccination program over the course of 5-10 years? If the latter is true, is the stance of "I will wait 1-2 years until there is actual data" even at odds with this idea?
At risk populations have the same choices I have. I will choose to wait because I am not at risk. The risk level is obviously a factor that should play a part in making an individual's choice.
Now, for the people that _cannot_ get the vaccine for whatever reason, ultimately my decision is definitely more selfish, in that I am taking precautions in favor of my own safety as opposed to theirs. I guess I don't think this is unreasonable though?
I will take it after a year or two. The US did a great job at politicizing the virus such that I don't really trust that pharma companies actually did their due diligence with regard to testing and safety measures. I accept that doctors and scientists will take it under the guise of them "knowing it's safe", and I accept that lots of people will say "If they're doing it, you should too", but I think this strategy just generally ignores common sense. Doctors use and prescribe drugs all the time with unintended adverse side effects, the difference here is that those side effects are known and well studied. A vaccine that showed up to save the world (and also start a culture war in some countries)? I do not accept that the powers at be have verified this drug's safety.
I think that this vaccine is a choice, and once it's readily available it is still a choice. If you choose not to get it, you are accepting the possibility that you might get COVID and die. Once the vaccine becomes available to my age group and health demographic, the people that actually need it will have been given the option to make their choice as well.
> But by that logic, a site with no moderation simultaneously liberal, conservative, and centrist because all are allowed.
We aren't (and haven't been) talking about political ideals, but hate speech. A website that doesn't take action on hate speech is allowing and condoning hate speech.
> Calling a completely apolitical stance political is sort of like calling Atheism a religion. It's arguably correct but it's really the absence of religion.
We're not talking about apolitical stances like "I like chocolate." We're talking about hate speech, which is implicitly political.
> Also, I think your whiteboard with a swatstika analogy demonstrates the shortsightedness of this sort of "inaction is endorsement" line of thinking. What about a candidate who's family was personally affected by the Holocaust and is so mortified to see the swatstika that they are too uncomfortable to even do anything about it?
Isn't this just even more evidence to suggest that an employee not taking action is an action itself?
What-aboutism is great, but it doesn't really matter in this context, right? "What about a candidate who's blind" etc etc. I defined a hypothetical scenario to prove a point in response to the above hypothetical scenario.
The "whataboutism" on DoD contracts isn't relevant. If your stance is "Our own government is a terror cell", well obviously then our entire society is gone anyway, so why even bother discussing the ethics of tech in america at all? But obviously this stance is just hyperbole in an attempt to dismiss the validity of claiming the rioters as legitimate terrorists.
And even by your own example, when has the DoD ever stormed the capitol? Or attempted to overthrow the US government? Spoiler: they haven't. And these insanely silly attempts at implying that legitimate businesses are under the same category as fascist extremists is a joke. This tech precedent pearl clutching is such an insanely bad look it's difficult to even fathom. My assertion is simple: when you try to overthrow a country's government, companies in that country don't want to work with you. The waters are muddier with respect to overthrowing other people's governments, but the DoD has never once attempted to overthrow the US government. There has never been an AWS-supported US coup (before last week). SO the "whatabouts" aren't even relevant.