If we don’t learn, then WTF are we doing with ourselves. The human existence is the pursuit of knowledge. The only depressing thing here, IMO, is the idea that living out a life as grazing cattle, concerned with nothing more than gorging oneself with the next meal is the only reason to live.
Comfortable? Sure. Self-actualized? Not a chance. There’s more to life than living out only the most basic biological needs.
Not all jobs are measured by time spent on the clock, so no it doesn’t have to be that way. Many jobs can and should be measured by simply meeting productivity requirements. A parking attendants job is being present on shift because that is a requirement of that job. But a programmer’s job is to create software that performs a certain way. There is no time requirement of the product there.
Just cause you suffered your way through it doesn’t mean you should encourage others to do the same.
You are not wrong about the lack of corporate culture. But at the end of the day, is that worth giving up family time, company of your pets, a corner office of your choosing, with access to your own fridge and amenities, being able to receive people at the door at reasonable hours, and not having to commute asinine hours?
Many people will reject that notion.
But here’s the kicker: companies don’t care about your well being. They only care about the bottom line. What incentive do they have to cater to your needs? None, other than the minimum for employee retention.
This idea of “team building” is just smoke and mirrors. An excuse to not have to admit the real reason: adapting away from buts-in-seats as a performance measure is hard.
You’ve got bigger problems than labour relations when “having a pleasant feminine voice” is the success criteria you use to measure the performance of a reporter.
I dunno, this logic sounds exactly like the fucked up logic that went on in the conference room that dreamed up this shitty idea only to have it face reality and be pulled on day one.
It’s faster until you need the human operator to keep coming over because the anti-theft sensors keep getting tripped up by false positive readings. Or you need to find some vegetable code that a normal cashier has memorized.
Self checkout is great when it’s done well, and total shit when poorly executed. And unfortunately, it’s not always just a matter of technology (which normally keeps improving); it’s often a matter of business model: sometimes customer convenience is really important, other times loss prevention (which creates frustration) is more important.
I’ve seen countless good self-checkout experiences backslide into crap experience because the business felt that a controlled client is more profitable than a convenienced client.
Driving off with the rental car is a fine analogy if we were comparing this to not returning a DVD you rented.
But this is not that. And that is kind of the point.
Piracy is a breach of contract for sure. The point the author is trying to make is that our current licensing contracts around media are out of touch with the social contract (you pay for something, you get it).
Hence the moral hazard. So companies will flaunt the social contract (like in the case of Sony) with impunity but will get rightous as soon as people flaunt the legal contract. It’s a double standard, where all the power is in the hands of those with the biggest legal department.
You can’t define “theft” untill you first define justice. And if consumers and media holders can’t even agree to a just system, then why bother categorizing anything as theft at all?
There’s a fine line between deserving of being scammed because of who they are and consequences of actions or inaction and it’s important we do not cross that line.
People have to take some responsibility to think critically about the content they consume. If people are not capable of consuming content responsibly, perhaps they should not consume content at all.
The alternative is policing content itself, and that is a very dangerous place to be for a whole host of other reasons.
I think you missed the part where the person you are replying to is talking about the ethics of the platform itself, not the ethical viewpoint of the users using the platform nor the personal views of the developers.
I despise Twitter’s leadership as much as the rest, but increasing ads is not at all a “cause a problem” situation Twitter doesn’t owe you ad-free usage of their platform. So no, not a scam/scummy behaviour, just bad value.
And you don’t owe Twitter your patronage. So just move on from it.
But it makes sense in the grand scheme.
How? Signal doesn’t have the leverage to get the bulk of users to stop using SMS. So all that move did was to force people to reinstall an SMS. Then, signal became yet another messaging app for like one contact to manage and forget about.
Matrix does what signal does, but it’s distributed, unlike Signal. Plus you have protocol portability.
6, 7, 8, 9 is the golden age of the series. I have a favourite among those four, but let’s leave it at that.