Did you even read my comment? None of your provided alternatives solve the issue of the current market being in demand of such a wide set of skills outside of the "normal software development" practice (whatever that even is), that labeling all of those under whatever title will get some people butthurt.
If its a matter of gatekeeping the "developer" status, go read some actual job posts with the title DevOps in them. Its not uncommon to come across proficiency requirements in at least one programming language (e.g. Go/Python/Rust), used in automation libraries, cli tools or whatever, which the applicants are expected to "develop". Or is it just constructions that can be developed?
I do not like the title either, but I do understand the motivation of taking all those "non-software engineering", technical roles and putting them under the same umbrella, due to a lack for a better title, because a company might not afford to have separate roles for each of those areas you have listed above.
"OPERATIONS ENGINEER" might work, but it raises another set of problems, e.g. does it imply operational responsibility (on-duty) work, which I don't think is a given in DevOps jobs nowadays.
Maybe I don't know how Twitter works, but I didn't manage to find a single personal attack or judgement on her character from the Tweet replies or from the comments here. The responses were rather on the contrary, enforcing her view with some anecdotal testimonies etc. This is a bit surprising given the provoking nature of her initial comment (calling peoples engineering roles bullshit)..
This might just push users to more narrower content options. ”ChatGPT FREE Verified”, anyone? Has its ups and downs I guess, but already before ChatGPT I had grown quite a filter for estimating the trustworthiness of a site. I guess the BLOCK -rules just keep on piling..
Of course not the only reason, but a reason nonetheless.
"Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."[1]
Please bare in mind that I'm not advocating against GMO. I'm advocating against hailing GMO as a win:win to all of society and environment.
> Pesticide resistance is the most established on the market becauae there happened to be particular success with it decades ago, that’s it.
This might be the case, but still my original bone to pick remains. GMO is not without downside, and people cheering for it without a hint of scepticism reeks ignorance and unwillingness to learn from past mistakes that were made in the name of science.
As you've highlighted, said technique was used for decades, for the detriment of soil health, bees and all kinds of smaller organisms, without it being questioned.
As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that voicing these 'uneducated' opinions about GMO simply pushes the crops to incognito mode, making them less visible for consumers? Better to see your killer face-to-face than being stabbed to the back? Not sure about that.
First, Monsanto and its way of operating very much still exist. Just because it was purchased by another company (which of course resulted in an even greater monopoly), does not make its impact to the world disappear.
Second, everytime this topic comes up, pro-GMOist make it sound like the technology is making some great strides with providing 'healthier food for everyone' with no downside. Why is it that the current model for GMO aims to increase resistance to pesticides instead of simply growing the yield? It probably has nothing to do with the fact that the company that provides you the seeds, also sells the pesticide. And how about the said pesticides tendency to destroy the micro-organisms in the soil, in effect making it harder to grow crops, and ultimately starting a loop for "more GMO, more pesticide, more land, repeat".
Figure a less disruptive business model, and I might be more pro-GMO myself.
Actually, at least in Helsinki part of the rising costs of housing in the centre has been attributed to so called vacation housing, where apartments have been bought by rich people from abroad or rural areas, yet occupied maybe a couple of days/weeks a year, or rented out as an airbnb flat. I'm not saying its a major factor, but still an indicator that theres more than enough money to spend for some people, for them to take out from the 'necessities' pool, just to achieve some form of luxury.
What occupation does an ordinary worker have in your books? I'm curious, since for example I have always held doctors in the higher end of middle class workers: not quite 'i own a yacht' rich, but still economically set for a more cushier lifestyle. Yet, according to NHS[1] doctors in the UK earn 120k at best, so I'm sorry but something doesn't add up.
I hate to say it but at least for me, yes. On many occasions I catch myself on a mindless infinite scroll, or youtube binge while filling a seemingly small gap of idleness. So even though I'm completely aware of this being possible, while also being in some sort of moral opposition against such behavior, I still fall for it rather easily. Addiction to some is a strong word I guess, but once I started associating it with my own behavior, it was easier to make some more drastic changes to get away from it.
Can't both models for work exist at the same time? At my job there's a 'work as much remote as you want', but for similar reasons mentioned above, I tend to work more at the office. Am I forcing others to join me? No. I simply assume that those that come to the office, enjoy being there. Whatever their reason might be, doesn't matter. The fact that you are referring to what to me seems like a basic human need as some kind of a service is frankly a bit absurd. John Doe wants to be a cashier because he enjoys seeing and talking with different people. Do you send him a bill after coming back from the grocery store?
At first I was all-in for working remote, but after having done it for two years, the question that made me think otherwise was simply:
- Ten years from now, would I be glad that I had spent ~70% of my time at home?
As you can see from all these comments, whether working at the office is good or bad, depends hugely on context. E.g. what type of commute are we talking about? 15 minutes walking to the office or spending 4 hours everyday standing still on the freeway? There simply is no single answer for this.
Working remote certainly has its upside in that it allows one to have more control of the day. Bad storm projected for next morngin? I guess I’ll just work from home. Not having to walk out the door means more predictability. But coming back to the original question, this sort of control might come at the cost of losing some color in your everyday life in the long run. And thats what freaks me out the most: am I purposefully grayscaling my life for the sake of convenience and control?
If its a matter of gatekeeping the "developer" status, go read some actual job posts with the title DevOps in them. Its not uncommon to come across proficiency requirements in at least one programming language (e.g. Go/Python/Rust), used in automation libraries, cli tools or whatever, which the applicants are expected to "develop". Or is it just constructions that can be developed?