Makes sense to me, your other comment that elaborated on the scenario adds some useful context. I assumed there was quite a lot missing and tried to frame the comment for future versions of myself that might think it's a good idea to just run with a wildly out-of-scope idea with too much hubris.
I'm not certain, but it seems like you're not being entirely serious here, however..
If you aren't joking, or for other people in this position, I'd first wonder if the landing page required a search function that would hypothetically be subject to the vulnerability, then I'd wonder about what the normal nature of your business is and how much latitude you personally have in the allocation of billable hours to arbitrary technology choices and whether those do actually align with the deliverable, then if I was the boss I might wonder why you created a bunch of (potentially) out-of-scope random liability using unusual lesser-known tools based on a personal vendetta against WordPress.
I've been in this position, conceptually if not literally, and I've probably been (in a way, rightfully) fired for it, but my country's labor protections are likely not quite as good as Denmark's.
If there's a question about why money was spent on implementing a bunch of stuff nobody knows for a reason nobody cares about, especially for a very short-lived thing like a landing page, then it's a sticky situation if the answer is basically novelty. Something like this, if it does serve a purpose, should be planned for and a case made for it, but that also doesn't really seem like agency work.
If I was asked for WordPress, which I have, and I delivered Rust, I don't think I'd keep that job, but mileage may vary.
Most work is about solving problems as they are, not what we wish them to be, and if a 5 min job becomes a month long job that the customer didn't ask for, it's an extreme case of yak-shaving.
My impression of Costco's selection is that it's the retail distillation of car-centric suburbs, despite it not being exclusively those people who shop there. The happy suburbanite cares about convenience and quantity above all else, from what I can tell anyway. They don't really have a varied sense of taste, they just want stuff, and they want easy access to that stuff. They like a "haul" that they do once a month, and buy vehicles that will fit it.
For me, I'll join a friend who has a membership from time to time, but I'll only get chicken breasts, a rotisserie, maybe frozen fruit if the price is competitive, and... soap; everything else is just noise and/or extra calories that I wouldn't have bought anywhere else but happens to fit in the industrial-size cart and usually isn't a substantially better price, or it's just not a good offering. I could buy greek Yogurt cups, but really I don't want that brand or the lemon or lime ones, so I'm paying marginally less to enjoy half of them. I could buy salsa, but unless it's a party, I have no need for a year's supply. It's just a lot and it's probably kind of agreeable. Also the blankets, they're alright.
The small selection of things I get are the few items—as the probably AI author suggests—that I'd either buy anyway in smaller quantities or just don't have opinions about. The one time I actually did have a membership, I'd find myself working backwards from it to justify to expense. I let Costco borrow my money and to get it back I'd need to exploit their good deals, but ultimately they just made a killing off of me filling my cart with arbitrary bullshit stuff.
You only have as much institutional knowledge as you're willing to cultivate and be liable for. Many companies already don't give a shit about institutional knowledge, indicated by how little they're willing to invest in keeping a strong team together, caused in-part by long-standing toxic incentive structures.
Ask an AI to solve a problem and it may do that, but if you don't understand why or how it works, or what to do with the information in order to keep it useful for even the medium term, then all you've done is taken away the opportunity for someone else to be responsible for something you shouldn't be.
It's not necessarily a mystery how to make good food. You can ask an AI how to make good food, follow the instructions, and you're off to the races. The question then is whether you want to be in that race.
Would you have gone to chef school? Would you work in a kitchen? Are you willing to deal with customers, or risk RSI from so many repeated kitchen movements? Are you willing to practice and be tested?
If the answer to any of those is no, then get the hell out of that kitchen and let the people who have more grit than you do their job. Do what you can to make it easier for you to pay them consistently and well on the back-end.
Politicians also like to pat themselves on the back for things like zoning density "particularly along transit corridors" as if only the immediately stroad-adjacent parcels are viable for accessing the bus and anyone who makes less than $300k a year should be grateful.
Like thanks, I guess, for doing the absolute minimum that should have already been the default policy for 50 years
> is estimated at 10 months by Anthropic themselves, and it's growing.
How is this different than any business with something to lose saying a competitor isn't as good? Not saying it's false, but it would seem to me that it's more important how customers feel about the issue.
There's a subtle difference between what each of us is describing I think. It seems you're arguing that wearing headphones in public isn't generally inherently rude, and you have a selection of anecdotes to support it, and I'd agree that those are plausible and fine.
Incidentally I have no interest in living in SF, Boston, or Japan for various reasons, but it is interesting that I also wouldn't necessarily anticipate they'd be suitable for completely random friendly, welcomed interactions, in transit or wherever. Japan gives me a very siloed, weirdly socially isolated vibe, Boston I haven't been to, and SF just gives me a sort of aggressive individualist capitalism achievement chasing vibe. California cities in general feel like a departure from what I like.
However, I'm not exclusively talking about literally accepting every random encounter in public transit or on the street only. In those places, you do have bars, gyms, third-spaces, cafes, etc.. that are for the most part, "public"; you should be able to connect with people in your community and avoid signalling that you aren't there to participate.
I'd basically agree that wearing headphones out in the world at all is not inherently rude, but wearing them in all of those places, an overwhelming majority of the time, intending to avoid almost any interaction with strangers, is deliberately socially rusty. It almost seems like a strawman I'm arguing against, but it's my impression that's what the ease of AirPods enable, compared to larger less-convenient headphones. You can leave your house with the AirPods in, no wires, take calls without your hands, go to the gym, do your shopping, go to the park, go for a jog, bike ride, and keep the world out end-to-end. It's my view that unless you have a real sensory issue, that's shit for everyone involved at some scale.
Edit: I'd accept that I may not have articulated that so well in prior comments, but thought the overall was implied to mean the degree to which AirPods uniquely enable this
You're still not saying anything specific, what about it wouldn't look like that and why? Again, looks pretty legit to me, and all I'm using is my eyes and exposure to people in the world.
Ya that all sounds about right. Crazy times. Ironically, I followed a similar progression with slightly different variables. Maybe intermediate engineer in 2020—certainly not fresh anyway—but because of the volatility in the job market I couldn't bring myself to spend on a new PC then, so I built a piece of crap out of used parts I literally found on the street. Fast forward to now, finally stable and earning decently, decide to pull the trigger on these recent (modest) upgrades, and then bam, fired. At least I'll have a gaming rig to kill time for the next two years of unemployment lol
> Driving is also something (nearly) everyone does and benefits directly from, so negative externalities are easier to accept.
This reads a little too close to driving being an inherently good thing or some sort of objective requirement, but it's only that way in certain urban places because the built environment makes it as arduous as possible to do those things without.
Something that pisses me off about many urban places that don't even otherwise require people to drive, is that many who do use their cars the most often have their neighborhoods protected from the noise they contribute to everywhere else. This whole thing of putting apartments only where there's already the most disgusting car-infested thoroughfares; "sorry, can't have an apartment one street in off the main drag, that's only for bungalows! Don't like it? Get richer. Excuse me while I drive through your bedroom and park for free in front."
Because of the proportion of the two critical component increases as a part of the whole. It's not like a screw, more like the propeller or something. I just bought ram at retail price, and in my currency it went from $100 to $600CAD for 32Gb. I can't even justify a nvme drive at this point, the prices are comical.
Funnily enough, ostensibly for creating more work for others, I was just fired... before my day started. I'm not sure what failed or why, but because some of the team was on the opposite coast, they found out sooner and had to roll something back. All I know is that it was probably among a stack of deliberately organized PRs that definitely created more value than not, and were all reviewed and approved by the people responsible for the system, one of whom fired me and definitely couldn't have shipped most of the changes on their own. Despite it being a mistake and putting me in a vulnerable position now, I found it to be a sort of hilarious example of a headstrong control freak making impulsive decisions that detract from the team.
Seems like a tragedy of the commons. People don't have a right to your attention necessarily, but you also don't have the right to be unbothered arbitrarily.
> I feel like your conception that “ignoring people either consciously or through technology is rude” makes more sense in higher social trust situations.
Yes, but I meant that the more people who block everyone out by default, passively and indiscriminately, contributes to social rust rather than trust. Ignoring or especially telling some people is not inherently rude or bad, but conducting yourself as though everyone is de-facto untrustworthy is a problem that doesn't seem likely to be solved by passively blocking the world out.
Like I added, I don't know why I'd pay to live somewhere where I'd prefer not to interact with anyone. If the place actually does suck, then I should do everything in my power to find somewhere that sucks less.
If you have social anxiety or ADHD, those are personal issues that need to be managed, but I still don't think it's generally a good idea to pick the easiest, least superficially confrontational method to signal that you don't want to talk to anyone.
> You’re not interrupting my focus for me, you’re doing it for you.
While it may be selfish and pointless, it's the default expectation that in public space people can be spoken to, but it costs something to remove that possibility without also physically isolating oneself in some way. Not all public space is necessarily social, you can be alone in a wooded glen which creates a proximity barrier, but trying to preserve your whole private sphere while being in an otherwise potentially social space removes something from that space.
When I deliberately don't want to chat with anyone, I just take a side street or something. Not always possible, but it's rarely worth it; usually work is the semi-public space I'd prefer unbroken focus.
I do think it's overblown to make some grand statement about this behavior if it's only an occasional thing, but if the default expectation shifts to people hesitating to talk to people only because they might have headphones in, I think we've lost something.