So, your answer now is to argue that you don't know whether or not the working conditions are bad, after arguing that they aren't bad enough to entitle people to complain?
Which is it? Why are you now equivocating over this instead of being able to answer for your own conclusions?
Clearly you think the working conditions of Twitter aren't that bad, that was literally the thesis of your first post. Clearly you think that there exists a set of working conditions that are deeply immoral and deserving of at least complaint. That was also the thesis of your first post.
So where does that line exist? When do working conditions go from "not deserving of complaint" to "complaints are fully justified"?
So ... what's the wage cutoff where you're no longer entitled to sane working conditions?
The real "deeply depressing" bit here is how many of us would rather focus on pulling down the top crab than question why we're all in this bucket to begin with.
I never even got to meet one of my grandparents. All I have is stories, and honestly not a lot of those.
I don't think you should feel narcissistic at all. Family is one of the prime places where we share our wisdom and values. Where we pass on the results of our mistakes in the hopes that the next generation avoids them. Don't feel bad for trying to do that, it's one of the fundamental elements of human progress.
Yeah, that's gotta be one of my biggest complaints after years of working with Rails. Eventually you sort-of memorize the conventions and can relatively accurately guess where a file lives, until someone decides to get clever and put things in a weird place.
It also implicitly discourages you from asking yourself if you should be accessing the thing you are. IMO a lot of the tight coupling in Rails codebases begins with being able to grab literally anything and use it with no one the wiser unless the read that specific line of code.
Right, and on the flipside significant effort has been invested in Clang performance when compiling for Intel CPUs. Much of that is likely to the benefit of all backends, but some of it surely is specific to Intel.
IMO this bit right here is worthy of highlighting again:
> Especially when you consider that during the build the workstation is belching hot air and screaming like an airplane about to take off while M1 is whisper-quiet with barely warm air coming from its exhaust.
I have never run a significant amount of compilation on any machine that didn't hit heat issues. So either the M1 is doing very well at managing heat, or Clang is doing incredibly poorly at exploiting the full system. In either case this makes the M1 look like something special.
"Competing" in this sense is delivering similar user experience (battery life, performance, seamless hardware interactions) that Apple is achieving through their top-to-bottom control of the hardware and software.
It's not enough to show off Intel/AMD SoCs and call that good when the other components and software force subpar UX.
> The Ansible vault is a bad example of this. They have a little command `ansible-vault` that lets you manage encrypted files and strings. If you run `ansible-vault edit ./nonexistent_file` it tells you that you meant `ansible-vault create` and vice versa but doesn't just do it despite the user intent being clear. This ultimately lead me to just patching it to do the right thing.
IMO it's a bit much to decide what "the right thing" is there. Blindly assuming that someone attempting to edit credentials didn't mistype a file name isn't exactly safe and sounds like a great way to cause problems based on believing you updated something you did not in fact update.
All of the license-encumbered code lives in a separate directory, with a clear warning that it's licensed, and builds result in license-encumbered code being an entirely separate artifact from the purely Apache 2 licensed code. Besides that, anything that goes into package managers is also fully clean Apache 2 licensed code.
Literally the only way to "mix this up" is to not read anything, ignore package managers and build from source, then somehow decide to use 'x-pack' over 'elasticsearch'.
> ircd with logging enabled + elastic search/sphinx/lucene + web frontend
Slack is way more than that, though.
My recollection is that even the initial version of Slack was more than that.
At this point, it's enough that "let's extend ircd" isn't exactly a practical answer. Either they maintain their own incompatible fork of ircd or they try to force their business desires into the irc protocol.
There's plenty of things that are "just X plus some paint" if you don't look at them deeply. That usually does an extreme disservice to the difficulty of the "plus some paint" part, and often represents a failure to understand the features involved.
So, what you're saying is there's tons of technologies lying around that are a solid UI and some extra features away from being valuable to normal people. But somehow doing those things and making lots of money is bad?
Which is it? Why are you now equivocating over this instead of being able to answer for your own conclusions?
Clearly you think the working conditions of Twitter aren't that bad, that was literally the thesis of your first post. Clearly you think that there exists a set of working conditions that are deeply immoral and deserving of at least complaint. That was also the thesis of your first post.
So where does that line exist? When do working conditions go from "not deserving of complaint" to "complaints are fully justified"?