A-grade bullshitter as the article puts it is pretty accurate. Thought I would test it and just asked ChatGPT if it knew the Voyager episode "11:59", the answer got everything wrong. Season, number and date, all incorrect.
>"11:59" is an episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. The episode originally aired on February 9, 2000 as the 11th episode of the sixth season.
I watch a lot of DIY and gardening videos. Occasionally a video gives bad or even dangerous advice and a high dislike ratio can at least indicate that something is off. Comments are also useful to figure out what the creator is doing wrong, but the dislike ratio is a big indicator. This is a terrible move.
It's more practical at this point to start weaning off carrying a phone at all times. Not necessarily going off grid into the woods, just not carrying it unless you'll need it for something specific that day. I'm not sure more tech is going to solve this issue, we're just digging the hole deeper.
Don't be ridiculous, you're just making assumptions based on your value system. I have children and I've passed on higher paying jobs (perhaps not double but 50%) out of principle. I also wouldn't work for Google whatever the compensation, and there are plenty of people who don't value money above everything else.
What a mean and immature article. The "influencer" is stupid (and a psychopath apparently), everyone is stupid, well everyone except the author of the text.
It does read like someone very young wrote it, I guess the author is young enough to know everything.
These stories used to be funny when it was about crap that just didn't work. They are becoming terrifying to be frank. Counting people in rooms for on-demand tickets, in-car purchasing of additional features, mandatory bio-metric monitoring of delivery driver behavior...
If your primary motivation is short-term monetary gain then you're right, it doesn't sound like a rational undertaking.
I can think of two reasons to work on open source. Altruism, you want to give back to the community without expecting a monetary gain in return. Investment in skills, if you want to differentiate yourself from peers, you'll have something to talk about to potential employers. It is a great opportunity to learn and become a better software engineer.
I agree with your points with a couple of caveats. I've written a lot of terrible code. For the good stuff it's usually not the existing lines of code or structure that are butchered rather the additions which do not follow the spirit of the original code. That ranges from trivialities such as code style of another developer or more serious issues of making a mess to fit a completely orthogonal new requirement, not utilizing existing functionality rather just doing similar things in different ways etc. In such cases a small refactor would suffice but that almost never happens due to time constraints.
On the topic of overly complex stuff not being touched, I find that's usually because no one understands it and hence others refrain from touching it lest it break.
I've found being too attached to code is a recipe for frustration in the workplace. You code something elegant, simple, dare I say beautiful and inevitably it will be butchered by new product requirements, business needs, that quick hack to satisfy a client or more generally uncaring colleagues who are looking to get their job done as quickly as possible.
Perhaps romantic aspects could only be achieved when there are no third parties, just the programmer and their code. Working in or more importantly leading a team mandates a different approach by putting aside aesthetic considerations for more pragmatic ones that will satisfy all parties involved.
It's hard to be romantic in corporate environments.
>"11:59" is an episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. The episode originally aired on February 9, 2000 as the 11th episode of the sixth season.