Under that interpretation of accountability, you could easily hold a machine accountable for decisions; if it loses enough "reputation points" such that people no longer trust it to make the right decision, the machine could be replaced.
I was working on a mobile team, the order came down from on-high that google recaptcha was no longer cutting it for verification during user signup and we were switching to Arkose for our captchas, for some reason, no one could tell me why other than "my boss's boss says so".
The Google and Arkose SDKs were fairly different in their implementation and the Arkose SDK needed a lot more tweaks to get working in our code. The entire company spent around a month migrating web, iOS, and Android and then coordinating a simultaneous release. All went well, congratulations all around.
Fast forward to a year later, new order from on-high: we're switching from Arkose to Google Recaptcha because Arkose was too expensive! Rumors were circulating around then that the only reason we had switched to Arkose was that some VC had a buddy on the Arkose board and pushed really hard to get our company signed on, and then immediately left.
I left the company not too long after the migration back to google Recaptcha, but was waiting with baited breath for another order to be given to switch back to Arkose.
That is sad news. I used to listen to a CD of one of their acts on most road trips with my parents. They were so funny, even though the political references were all well before my time. I had no idea they were so well known; since I never heard of them outside my family, I had always just assumed they were some random little show my parents had found the CD for at a goodwill.
A truly legendary comedy duo.
I dont think it's demeaning. Uber (and others) are not very upfront about the longterm costs and risks, causing (often) desparate people to make serious decisions without critical information. This mostly affects people who drive for these companies as their full time job.
They make it seem like it's a job you can do at your own convenience, but you can't actually do it like that and expect to make consistent money. All of them start penalizing you (by giving you fewer jobs in the future) if you turn down jobs for any reason, driving down their profitibility. It also looks like youre making more money than you are because you have to do all your own taxes (which is mostly just a hassle, but did blindside my poor friend who didnt know anything about taxes and had to go into debt to pay his taxes since he was living paycheck to paycheck).
And its very easy to not make the connection that driving all day for Uber et al increases chances of getting in a car accident, which will increase monthly insurance costs, not to mention car repairs and car maintainance from driving 8-12 hours a day most days of the week. And if your car ever needs to go into the mechanic for repairs (a famously slow process often times) thats lost wages every day youre without your car. It's like being a truck driver; Uber et al just move all the costs of fleet maintainance to the drivers, which really eats into what looks like a decent wage on the surface level.
Of course, there are going to be some people who do all the research and are ok with these risks, or game the system someone. But most people who do these driving jobs full time do it because they dont have a lot of other options, and dont bother to do all the in-depth research because "it looks easy" and they didnt have another readily available choice anyway. This isnt Uber's fault per se, but they benefit from it and do nothing to inform drivers of these risks.
(cite: have a friend who worked for all the delivery and ride share apps before losing his car and being too poor to buy a new one.)
I think youre right. Unfortunately, once the issue of, particularly homeless, severely mentally ill people is out of sight (i.e. no longer on the streets), it will be very easy for the issue to be forgotten by the masses.
And it would be a huge cost center, since many of the patients would likely not have large quantities of savings, so no good material incentives to do it well either.
It would be dangerously easy to fall right back into the terrible asylums of the past.
You're falling prey to the fallacy that just because 1 person's actions can't make a world of difference on their own, those actions aren't worth taking. By your logic, you may as well not vote either, because everyone else is voting.
Every little bit DOES count, because the more people believe they can make a difference, the more of a difference they will make collectively.
You have to lead by example. Rolling over and dying because you dont think you can make a difference makes you part of the problem.
New tech certainly would help, and it isnt/shouldnt be on the shoulders of just individuals to make all the change. But Im not going to use that as an excuse not to change my own behavior for the better.
Honestly, youre doing great. At the very early point in your career that you are at, it is normal and expected that you dont know much. The important thing is that you just keep learning.
There will always be people that are smarter than you. Perhaps even better at your job than you are (currently) in every way. Dont let it get to you; there's nothing wrong with not being the very best. There's also the old saying that "comparison is the theif of joy" (idk who said it, but it has truth). The hardest part is accepting it's ok not to know something; you can always learn it if it interests you.
For me, as a rookie developer, I find I often have little to no clue what needs to be done until I've started coding and figured out through trial and error how to implement it and what the requirements even should have been up front.
I think that throwing more people in jail technically is a solution, but it's a very expensive one that does nothing to address the reason why people are committing crimes.
There are many factors at play, and I won't pretend to know them all, but most people turn to crime out of despiration. Throwing people in jail for more minor offences and giving longer sentences will not make repeat offenders less desperate. Not to mention the fallibility of the justice system, and the ramifications harsher sentences has on people who were falsley imprisoned.
As a previous commenter said, the US has tried the "tough on crime" stance many times in its history (e.g. war on drugs, Bill Clinton), and while it is an effective strategy for easy results to report in time for your next campaign, the problem has not been solved, merely swept under the rug.
I personally am glad that the US is at least attempting to find a solution that addresses the root cause rather than the symptoms of crime. But I would agree that we have not found that effective solution yet.
> To ensure developers are context-switching, recompilation should take at least 20 seconds.
So true. But only 20 seconds? The project im working on takes 20 MINUTES to compile for any code change. I constantly forget about it while trying to get something else done in the mean time. It frequently takes whole days to track down and verify simple issues.
I wont discount that as a possibility, but it kind of goes against the company's mission, so I think thats kind of unlikely.
A more likely explanation (in my mind) is that being a small company, there's a lot more variability of quality in each unit's parts than you would see from a larger company with more mature factories etc.
My partner and I both have frameworks, but mine has had a lot of issues with the track pad and theyve never experienced any.
This is true, but I dont think high school was ever intended to be preparing kids for the labor market; I thought it was to teach a basic education for understanding the world.