MathCodeLove

You're conflating hard with requiring skill and knowledge. Doctors tend to have a much deeper well of knowledge than most nurses. Almost anyone can do customer service without exactly 0 years of training. Becoming a doctor is a much more difficult process than customer service. Becoming a competent programmer is much more difficult than customer service. I've worked customer service jobs and while it's not fun nor easy, the requisite skill required is much less than actual skilled labour

Because that's definitely the same thing.

Lol are you joking? I would wager my life that not a single blue collar worker in America takes or remains in a job that they hate out of societal pressure to do so. Having grown up in am environment where my social group was almost nothing but manual laborers, the only pressure they felt was financial. The difference between them and say, a SWE was often to some extent baseline intelligence coupled in with lack existing accreditation in terms of degrees or certification, and lack of motivation, interest and or ability to obtain such.

The suggestions that we as a society should basically just bully a certain number of people into undesirable positions is egregious and almost worse than blatant authoritarianism. At least today the people working those jobs are usually compensated better than they would be in another obtainable position given their skills amd ability.

I've heard people who have similar beliefs to yours and IME they've never been able to rationalize what their society would actually look like and how we could maintain the same quality of life as we have today.

Given that HN is a higher quality social media platform than most, maybe today that can change. Would you mind answering a few questions:

1. Who does the hard/dirty jobs in this society? Farming being one. But also construction, sewage, trash, ad inifitum. There are a lot of undesirable jobs and while maybe some people would be willing, I doubt our needs could be met when the same individuals could just work an easier job for the same reward.

2. How are "needs" defined? Food, shelter, clothing. Then what? Electricity? Internet? Smartphones? Gaming consoles/PC's? Games to play on those? Music? Memory foam mattresses? Etc. If all of these aren't needs, then how would individuals with varying interests actually choose what they want to own?

3. What are the incentives to advance amd become highly skilled? Take doctors. Some are really passionate about what they do. Most may be a little passionate, but are mainly just intelligent people drawn by the money and prestige. Assuming medical school and university still exists, for what purpose would someone go through that pipeline when they could do something far easier?

I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort.

Food is required for a healthy society but would anyone here advocate for farmers to give away all of their produce for free?

Text-tiles are necessary for society but would you advocate that clothing be provided by the creators free of charge?

The only thing different about software is that little to no physical resources are required as a prerequisite to its production, but an individuals time and energy is.

A world in which no one was paid to write software would be a world with much worse offerings than what we currently have and would be a net loss for humanity.

Aside from the WMD's, it's not the products themselves that you likely have grievances with, but the advertising behind them.

Payday loans, while a bad reputation, can truly help someone out in a pinch who has no other options - but often they're not presented to be as abhorrently predatory as they usually are.

Extended car warranties are pushed by the car salesman who tell the consumers that they need it when they almost definitely do not.

Life insurance is actually a wise investment for some, not even sure why you put that on the list.

Pain killers provide an essential service when used properly, the vast majority of consumer don't form a habit, and those that do were almost certainly not told by their doctor or pharmacist the potential addictive nature of the chemicals.

All those products are, in my opinion, completely fine. What's not fine is the often fraudulent advertising required to sell those products. But that's a different discussion.

I assumed that was implicit given the context of the conversation (a comment up the chain discussing their uncle who got higher priority because he continued to make poor lifestyle choices). Obviously I'd still rather my liver go to the aforementioned alcoholic than into the ground, but they wouldn't be my first choice.

There was and is no condescension present. I don't look down on them just like I wouldn't look down on a 90 year old man whose liver is failing from natural causes. Neither would be my first choice for recipients of my liver.

Logistics is something else entirely.

Any consumer driven market is strongly indicative of its consumers morality, people just don't like to admit it.

Oh so it's a pyramid scheme as well? What a horrible payment system. Imagine if whenever you sold your car you had to take a fraction of what you received for it and give it back to the dealership (or rather, the manufacturer in this case).

They're not encouraging crypto anymore than a liquor store encourages alcoholism. The liquor store may lower the barrier to entry for obtaining a bottle of alcohol, but it's ultimately the alcoholics choice to enter the store and purchase it.

Offering a product is not evil or immoral. It may be amoral but that's not the same as immoral. Ultimately the market decides what stays and goes except in extraordinary circumstances.

Okay that makes sense, thanks for your input.

Okay good to know, thanks.

Thank you for the resources!

Thanks for your input

Thank you.

Im a recovering alcoholic myself, don't lecture me. I didn't say they deserve to die. But if they can't stay sober they don't deserve a liver over someone else who may need it more.

It likely varies hospital to hospital and region to region. I would hope it's more often the case than not though. I'm an organ donor and I wouldn't be happy to find out that my liver went to an alcoholic that wasn't making a strong effort at sobriety.

Agreed.

No. No one is entitled to another humams time, energy, and effort.

Wow! That's crazy. As a relatively Jr dev still early in my career, any recommendations for differentiating myself from those people on my resume/portfolio? I have a github, is that enough or are these people plagarizing github repos as well?

I don't disagree, but that's not what was said.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say many/most candidates on the market are poor developers? Seems crazy that a majority of people applying for any position lack the requisite ability to actually fufull the positions requirements.

I've had the impression that "Web3" is essentially a marketing buzzword without much real weight behind it.

From a technological standpoint, how is it significantly different from "Web2"? Seems to me like it's essentially the same tech we've used for decades with some usage of the metamask API thrown in.

Saying they do no psychological harm is quite am extreme statement and is just blatantly untrue. I tend to agree that these drugs should be dicriminalized, but you're doing the exact same thing thats been done with marijuana where the benefits of the drug are praised while the negatives are ignored.

Once again pundits turn an economic issue into a social one.

No one is entitled to anything. Are you "entitled" to subsidized healthcare by virtue of being born in a European country?

No, you're not, it's just a consequence of your birth. Maybe its not fair, life isn't fair. I bet every single individual on earth could identify some feature of themselves or their lives that they dislike that came about by chance as a result of their birth.

Not too mention that total income doesn't really matter as much as spending power does. I'd rather make $50k a year in Poland than $100k in SF Bay (at least, hypothetically, I don't actually want to live in any European country).

Why would they invest in such great infrastructure for amazon.com if they're just going to sell that infrastructure to competitors?

It's not temporary if the sentiment expressed in your original comment is widely shared. Remember, you said:

> The only thing that needs doing during war is be safe and support others.

If a single firm goes out of business sure, no big deal on a grand scale. If ten thousand firms go out of business, then that is a big deal. The position you hold fundamentally contradicts itself. Either nothing else matters, and therefore the entire world should focus on nothing but the war - which would lead to global economic collapse. Or you're wrong and other things actually do matter, in which case businesses shouldn't drop everything and completely forego local production in order to attempt to support Ukraine or Ukrainians.

Ideally of course there'd be some middle ground in which a company would attempt to support its Ukrainian employees, but regardless the company still needs to function and profit if it wants to keep said Ukrainian employees employed. You can't achieve one without the other. You seem to desire both support from these organizations while simultaneously demanding they cease operating in any capacity which puts them in a position to provide support.

Except people not in the war still need to eat and survive. Maybe it wouldn't matter on a global scale if some small software firm somewhere goes out of business, but it sure as hell matters to the business owner and their family, and the employees and their families.

How do you think western governments can afford to send aid, if not through tax dollars collected via the production of their citizens? If everyone decided to drop what they were doing out of some grossly mislead compassion then the aid currently being sent to the Ukraine in the form of monetary support and supplies would become fiscally impossible due to the lack of national production.

The problem with this kind of anti-industrial sentiment is that on it's surface it may sound morally righteous and perfectly reasonable but as soon as you begin to devote even a moments worth of critical thinking to the ideas you're spouting it's easy to see how totally they break down.

The very people you condemn for selfishness or greed are the same people who keep the world economy functioning in a crisis like this. They're the same people who make it so that there is still some semblance of a normal world for the Ukrainian people to return to once this war has passed.

It's not quite that binary. There are times where your approach is the best one, likely more times than not. But there are also situations in which it'd be advantageous to provide some concrete figure/estimate in the moment, even if its not completely accurate.

Ah yes they should have put their plans on hold so they could interview someone they don't yet know or have any reason to trust.

After all, everyone know that these companies are in business for the convienence of their (potential) employees. Not to do anythig radical like, idk, be successful or make money.