> enacted by free riders who wish only to benefit from the effort and concession of others?
You mean like doing something once and then expecting to be paid for it in perpetuity?
Expecting to be paid for the efforts of others, decades after their death?
Redefining the legal system in order to prevent others from carrying out the, distribution?
I'm much more concerned about those free riders than a teen with no way to pay for digital goods, someone who couldn't afford it, or someone who'd like to keep the things they pay for.
There's nothing social about intellectual property law. It's been shaped by and to the benefit of corporations who would have us paying royalties to the descendants of the man who "invented" the wheel if they had their way.
It goes entirely against how humans think, strangling creativity and innovation. An artist is harmed far more when they're forced to spend years in court, debating whether their chord progression is too similar to a song written by someone who's been dead for 50 years.
Both can be bad. Even more so when you don't know which party established the idea as bad in the first place.
A purchaser who insists they only see white employees in the office is bad. Anyone that forces their non-white employees out of sight to secure that purchase is just as bad, if not worse.
To play along is to accept the notion, to contribute to it's perceived validity, and to harm anyone who happens to be honest. The result is that people we'd be better off without are pushed upwards in society.
Top down decision making, typically by non-technical people who often have no idea what software development even involves.
Eventually things get so bad that there's no choice but to abandon feature work to fix them.
The business loses out multiple times. Feature work slows down as developers are forced to waste time finding workarounds for debt and bugs. The improvements/fixes take more time than they would have due to layers of crap being piled on top, and the event that forces a clean up generally has financial or reputational consequence.
Collaborative decision making is the only way around this. Most engineers understand that improvements must be balanced with feature work.
I find it very strange that the industry operates in the way it does. Where the people with the most knowledge of the requirements and repercussions are so often stripped of any decision making power.
> But here's an example of the tradeoffs. I hate this behavior. It incurs an overhead that provides no benefit that matters to me. So, your useful feature is my useless bloat.
> Yes there is. In the UK, as per the latest changes to the highway code, slower traffic should let faster traffic pass, when possible to do so in a safe manner.
I haven't been able to find this change sorry, where did you see it? It's not mentioned in any of the update articles I've been able to find[0]. The pre-existing rule 169 is the closest match and only suggests that road users do not create long queues of traffic. This doesn't mean that slower road users are required to pull over for any faster vehicle, only that they should try to if a longer queue begins to form behind them.
Older articles[1] indicate that 169 doesn't apply to cyclists at all but I imagine this is an overgeneralisation of the rule that allows cyclists to take a lane position that prevents cars from overtaking when it is unsafe to do so.
I find it kind of funny that your stance is basically "It's never my fault". Try to self reflect at least a little when you're attempting to make a point.
> let's not pretend that the majority of cyclists are Tour de France participants, they are usually terrible.
Let's not pretend that the majority of drivers are Formula 1 participants, they are usually terrible.
I think the prevalence of this behaviour can be explained by the fact that in car centric infrastructure only people willing to take a fairly significant risk will be cycling in the first place. As a result you've selected for people willing to engage in risky behaviour towards themselves resulting in a fair few of them running red lights recklessly.
Couple this with the fact that the infrastructure was clearly not built with their safety in mind and it's no real surprise that many cyclists choose not to use it in the same way as cars.
Personally I think there's a good argument to be made for why, in many cases, it would be ok for a cyclist to carefully make their way through a junction at a red light. Although the real answer would be to build infrastructure that removes the incentive to behave that way.
This is a pretty poor argument to be honest. For a start you're misrepresenting the claim.
Cyclists are very aware of how car-centric the infrastructure of their country is and the vast majority of them are arguing for resident focused planning, along with cycling infrastructure that allows people who aren't well-off to do away with the expense that is owning a car.
You can't purposely design everything around owning a car and then use "poor people need to own a car" as an excuse against any kind of mass transit planning.
You mean like doing something once and then expecting to be paid for it in perpetuity?
Expecting to be paid for the efforts of others, decades after their death?
Redefining the legal system in order to prevent others from carrying out the, distribution?
I'm much more concerned about those free riders than a teen with no way to pay for digital goods, someone who couldn't afford it, or someone who'd like to keep the things they pay for.