yes... only the worthy and entitled deserve it clearly!
The plebs should work 60 hours to support the lifestyle of the wealthy elites.
In all seriousness though it's clear his book is aimed at people that have a chance of creating enough wealth to escape wage slavery. For many people in the world this is simply not an option - I think that is the point the author is trying to make?
which part of `liberte egalite fraternite` does worker exploitation come from?
Amazon is free to do business in France, and they are free not to (as they threatened)
They are not free to exploit people. That is equality and fraternity at it's best.
Always surprised when neocons come out the woodwork with their hetero economic view about some God-given-right to exploit the poor and desperate because they are rich.
From my POV the most productive growth amazon can make as a company would be engaging in better ESG practices There are forms of capital outside of material assets and intellectual property.
Amazon is losing human capital (tbray as a high profile example, but I am sure he's the tip of an invisible and silent iceberg)
Amazon is losing brand capital which will hit the bottom line (ethical consumption is an ever increasing trend)
Amazon will continue to irk Governments with its lack of respect for sovereignty laws (tax in particular, but also labour and monopoly).
it makes no profit yet Bezos is the richest man in the world by some margin?
How can you buy into that narrative.
The no profit book keeping is just a way to avoid paying tax.
As a shareholder I would rather see them pay fairer wages, be taxed appropriately and have a slower rate of growth.
If the cost of scaling at the speed they scale comes from unethical business practices then the answer is to scale slower, not exploit the worlds poorest and most vulnerable so that Jeff, myself and a load of other privileged capitalists can get even wealthier.
I feel like this is promoting wantrepeneur lifestyle and taking low paid long hour start up jobs to get on the ladder.
Whilst innovation is important, and earning your stripes too, I get sick of this unspoken attitude that anyone who doesn't work for a "cool" startup must be unambitious and lack talent.
Big tech are dominating most of the interesting problems. Startups likely can not compete with google - if they choose to let you exist it is because they have decided the problem isn't profitable enough.
Hiring Java devs is the problem. It's a lowest common denominator language.
Try looking for Ruby or JS devs. It's a lot easier to teach someone from a dynamic background how to leverage a type system than it is to teach an imperative developer to write side effect free code. State is a crutch.
Personally I am making top money on Scala gigs, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. The people I meet on these gigs share my opinion. Most people wouldn't take a Java job even if it paid more, same for Go or Node ( both of which I have used in production in the last month, and wouldn't take over Scala, with the exception of serverless)
Teams in Media, Government and Finance are leveraging Scala to do things that take Google and Netflix twice as many devs because they use less expressive languages.
Yes, Go is great because you can scale a team from 1 to 10 to 100 with little effort. With Scala you get the same stuff done with 20 people.
The people that hate Scala are either Java devs that didn't get it because they wanted to write inheritance based OOP code and would still be bad devs in any other lang, or are hiring managers that struggled to get the right people.
This is actually an advantage when you have the right hiring process as you end up with better developers - they don't need to know Scala, but need to be open minded to new ideas and motivated to learn.
With all that said, the church of FP and the hascalator community is a problem for Scala. Overly dogmatic & academic functional programming styles don't have a place in production systems.
Leverage the type system, immutability and the Future/Option monads and you eliminate huge swathes of bugs. If you are looking to write "Java on steroids" or would rather be writing Haskell then you are probably contributing to Scala's perceived problems.
If you are a startup or small business then Scala isn't a good fit - you're probably better off starting with JS or Python and moving to Scala when you have more users and need to deliver something solid. FAANG don't need to use Scala because they can throw money & devs at problems and therefore favour languages that fit that modus operandi.
For all the companies in between, Scala is great fit because when you get the right people you can outmanoeuvre any competition.
One of the earlier comments described Scala as a love child between Java and Ruby that turned out great. Despite not having used Ruby in anger I agree with the sentiment as I believe the best way to write Scala is as a statically typed Ruby for the jvm. It's supposed to be simple and elegant, and the best Scala devs realise this. To re-iterate my earlier statement, if you are trying to write something "oop" or "pure fp" then you are getting it wrong.
The plebs should work 60 hours to support the lifestyle of the wealthy elites.
In all seriousness though it's clear his book is aimed at people that have a chance of creating enough wealth to escape wage slavery. For many people in the world this is simply not an option - I think that is the point the author is trying to make?