Privacy846

That “Cli Guideline” seems to be written by people who are enarmored with terrible shells like Bash.

Corporations are not people, however.

I have used `grep -r` a ton on our codebase and purpose-specific tools like “find usages” are always more to the point while `grep -r` can easily be misleading.

Also you can’t just tend toward greppable names (whatever that means) if you share a codebase with developers who are on Windows and wouldn’t be able to tell grep from sudo.

> I think the point is that with [Unix] you aren’t just stuck with what some product manager at JetBrains thought was a cool feature.

But you see that’s exactly what you are, because you can’t refactor Java code with what you call “Unix tools”. So your only option is to install actual IDEs on Unix.

And “find usages” finds... actual usages (e.g. method calls), not simple text matches which can end up being 80% noise. For `grep -r` you might try `Ctrl+Shift+f` instead.

Unix isn’t integrated enough. You can’t go very far with just throwing strings around (or bytes). You can’t safely refactor, say, Java code like you can do in Intellij.

Maybe you can piece something together manually that does the same thing, eventually. But if you have to do all of that work yourself then I wouldn’t call it integrated.

But enough about you. There are a lot of places where people aren’t exposed to English-spoken media even if they might consume American media (dubbing in particular).

> Are there people who would be interested in how Python works at the C level but can't read English easily?

They said that there might be because they know people who are interested in the subject but don’t speak English. So I don’t know why you are asking the question.

If most of programming is code maintenance, and you think of that as an anti-passion activity, your “passion for programming”—you didn’t state that explicitly, but let’s be real about the implicit comparison you’re drawing here—may be a mirage.

Thank you. The article doesn’t unpack the initialism, and the author just links to a Rust Playpen (or whatever) site which supposedly uses this three-word thing.

What you talk about in your first paragraph is irrelevant. I am talking about the actual value the employees bring through their value, not what price they managed to negotiate for their labor on the market. If a restaurant is operated by 10 employees who manage to do all the work while the owner lives in Costa Rica, then all the value is created by the employees, even if they are only paid 10 USD an hour each.

Secondly, it’s just laughably wrong to suggest that a “company tries to pay employees based on the value they bring”. Employees are paid what they need to be paid in order to get them to work there. No more, no less. A sweatshop worker might bring much more value than the cents they are paid, and a programmer might bring much more value than their 100K salary would suggest (see e.g. no-poach agreements between Google and other big companies).

(Seriously. Cite on economist that claims that “company tries to pay employees based on the value they bring”.)

And risk is irrelevant to the question of value. If someone wins a billion dollars, should we thank them for their hard work if they donate it to charity? Maybe for the money, but it would be misleading to conflate speculation/gambling with work.

You are so fundamentally misguided that it’s just laughable.

What I see here in the comments are (in part) people that are concerned that the business model is just based on exploiting regulatory loopholes. Is the concern for people’s living safety (as well as other things) a crabs-in-a-bucket “fallacy”? Come to think of it, maybe regulation itself is a fallacy, in your mind.

In the article I a see a success story for the people behind the company. The results (valuation and whatever) speak for themselves and how they got there is irrelevant if the only question is whether the company is successful in dollars and cents.

Here in the comments I see concerns not just about whether the company is successful or not, but whether it has done any good. That is, _good_ for people other than the owners of the company.

That is not about “attitude”, or some other self-help slogan. You can’t evaluate the outside world based on what you read in Think and Grow Rich.

Lerner? Is his name also a joke?

If you think authority and hierarchy is the way to go then there’s nothing wrong with proprietary software (both the product and how it is produced).

It’s interesting that the biggest _diss_ here seems to be that they are “not that bright”, not the implication that they are doing something blameworthy.

> You also use this word "democratic" in a way that does not mean "rule by the majority".

I’ll take the bait. “Democratic legal system” is, according to you, an oxymoron because of the “rule by the majority” part? A common sentiment although easily debunked, since there are always rulers in any system with legal codes. In any case this seems pretty off-topic.

Another in any case (since I can’t help myself): when political scientists talk about “modern democracies” they mean liberal democracies with rule of law etc. Even though very few modern countries are truely democracies.

Notice how these two things are divided based on different criteria: one is about aspiration/stated intent (“making things people want”) while the other just plainly describes a person’s role in a wider context. Sounds like a setup for falling for Fundamental Attribution Error.

It is, however, relevant to my claim—which you took such offense to—that it is virtually impossible to become a self-made billionaire. The Economist author seems to agree that capitalist class struggle will help the would-be billionaire, not just his ability (pace Graham) to Build.

Here’s a recent quote from the Marxist rag The Economist:

> One reason for the measure’s current strength is that the balance of power seems to have moved in favour of capital, and against labour, in recent decades. The decline of trade unions, and the addition of China to the global market, have weakened workers’ bargaining power; in the past 15 years, corporate profits have been regularly equivalent to more than 10% of American GDP, and at a much higher level than they were between 1960 and 2000.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/12/04/expensiv...

But I’m still Graham’s Billionaires Build la-la land is still a reality, though.

> Ownership capped at 1 billion, you get a sticker saying "I won capitalism" and all further growth and income goes to the government for social programs. You get a new ticker that estimates lives saved and people homes/fed/educated - that becomes your new boasting figure.

But that would be a lie since most of that money/value was created by other people, most likely their employees.

I don’t know who Graham is talking about—“politicians”?—but this is a very famous claim, or corollary, from Marx: capitalists exploit workers. Why? Because of the labor theory of value. (1) All value is created from labor. (2) Capitalists employ workers in order to extract surplus value from them (what’s the point of employing them if you don’t get more out of your “investment” than you pay it?). (3) Ergo capitalists exploit workers.

Of course millionaires and billionaires can still _work_ themselves in the sense given above, i.e. in a way that creates value. And one could argue that one can be a self-made (no exploitation of others) millionaire. But it becomes farcical to claim that a person can become a billionaire without exploiting people. Any person on Earth would need much more than one lifetime to create a Billion USD worth of value _through their own labor alone_.

> Therefore, privacy-preserving products will always lag behind their less private counterparts in productivity gains afforded to their users.

“Always” is a very absolute word. Isn’t it absurd that you (presumably, based on this conclusion) have to sell your privacy in order to be sufficiently productive (perhaps to stay gainfully employed) only so that your now-lost privacy can be used against you to sell you more stuff? Are there not political ways out of this quagmire? Or are we as technologists only supposed to apply our stereotypical tunnel-vision towards narrow problems like how to google more productively?