RHSeeger

The courts are either ignoring the problem, supporting the problem, or just being ignored. They courts themselves have no power to enforce their rulings. The ones that would enforce the courts decisions are doing what the Trump tells them to.

Skipping code reviews and the bugs it causes can be a problem, or it can be easily solvable later when the bugs are found. It varies a lot.

Skipping code reviews and the poor code that can happen because nobody took a second look - that's more of a problem. Because 6-12 months down the line, there's not a few bugs that need to be fixed. Instead, there's a horrible code base that causes all _future_ development to be a lot slower.

> It's easier to stop incentivizing people to ruin the commons

It's impossible. No matter how good of a job you do, there will _always_ be people out to watch it all burn.

Only, we've seen

- People that didn't go through the proper channels, but have been here contributing peacefully to our society - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out, even though they're valuable members of our society

- People that are trying to go through the proper channels -hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out

- People that are currently going through the proper channels - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out (sometimes literally _at_ the court houses while trying to go through proper channels)

- People that have already gone through the proper channels and have their greencards, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out

- People that are natural born citizens, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out

So our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd that is claiming "we're just trying to get them to do it the right way to prevent abuse" is... just gone. It's not believable. Are there _some_ people that are honestly trying to do things right? Sure.. but the ones with the actual power, the ones out there taking action? They're not. They're out there causing harm just for the sake of causing harm.

This seems like a poor example, because we _also_ made it illegal for minors to buy (and smoke?) cigarettes.

> Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate

It looks like the policy intends to prevent immigration in every way possible, and (along with other policies that have come about recently), kick out as many people as possible; even those that are immigrating here legally (or have already done so).

So, other than a hate for immigrants/immigration, I don't see another possible explanation.

And, honestly, if they came out with a statement that said (effectively), "Look, we're losing money here... we just _can't_ support free going forward. Here's our plan" that would be understandable. Sometimes you have a plan/goal, and you realize later that you were wrong and things need to change. But that's not what they did.

I find this comment mind-boggling; in an honest confusion, not insulting way. I use Claude Code (and desktop) on a daily basis; but I can't even imagine doing anything complex without being able to see the code.

I remember playing this in college. Such good times.

Right? "We don't regret that we did this, just that people are mad about it"

The folks I work with rave about how well the LLMS work with Go.

Ah, the old "you're doing it wrong" argument. Moving code from one place to another (copy/paste from online or just from one file to another) is a fairly common source of bugs for a lot of people when it comes to Python. At some point, it becomes clear is an issue with the language, not the people.

I enjoy Python, but the significant whitespace is _not_ one of the reasons.

Whitespace and braces work together to make the code more readable; both by the computer and the human. And they make it less likely to have errors, because the braces convey intent (much like parens in math when they're not "needed")

I have many years of experience with Java, and rarely use Python... and I'd say Python is, in general, easier to read. There's generally a lot less "having to go look at _other_ code to know what _this_ code is doing".

Agreed. I know plenty of people that are looking for jobs and failing to find anything good. People that I look up to; highly skilled developers.

> Cloudflare is paying out terminated employees thru the end of 2026, imagining this is a case of people going hungry requires some very serious ideological capture

We were talking about the people interviewing and picking jobs in general, not specifically ones that had been laid off from CF.

> I think you have to squint pretty hard to think that's the case in software engineering.

Maybe not right now (though I imagine that varies a lot even now). But I've been there. I've gone from making plenty of money to 100k+ in debt and having less money in the bank than I need to pay the rent + buy food next month. Admittedly, that was after the dotcom bubble; but it left me with a mindset of not assuming everyone has a choice to work at the company they want to. Sometimes you need a job, and being picky about which one you choose isn't always an option.

> We did not ask for your location. Your address arrived before you did.

Bunk. You asked a geolocation api/service to map my ip address back to a location. You _did_ ask for my location, using my IP as a key. And my IP is pretty much required in order for communication on the internet to work (outside of using services to hide it, but then _they_ have your info instead).

> Employees can and do choose these companies completely of their own volition.

Except for the part where, some of the time, it's "this company, or I can't buy food or pay my rent".

But, I won't be there to see how they feel about me at my funeral. I'm here now, to see how they treat me. So yes, doing things to conform / be one of the crowd may not be what people remember you for... but it may be what impacts your daily life.

Just an observation. My computer bag is older than most of my coworkers.

Oddly enough, asking an AI to add docs to a classfile explaining "what it does, why it needs to exist, and what uses it" is a great way to include some of the "why". I know it's not ALL the why, but it does a pretty good job of finding the reasons that someone new to the code wouldn't be aware of.

> The claim you should know everything about everything you work on is an intensely naive one

This is a slight tangent from that, but I place a lot of value on the ability to offload some/most of the mental model to AI. I need to know less about everything (involved in this one task) when working on it, because a lot of the peripheral information can be handled by the AI. I find that _incredibly_ useful.

I think the point was that, when you make a metric goal of "you must use AI this much", then people will use AI even in ways that isn't adding to productivity.

When I drink a non-diet cola, it tastes awful to me; sickeningly sweet. I don't have any problem with diet colas (though I don't like Diet Pepsi, it's slimy to me).

The main point is that it's not that X has an awful taste. It's that different people have different reactions to different Xs. It's not that X tastes bad unless you happen to get used to it.

Fair enough. It's certainly not like that for most people though; which falls back to the _to you_ issue.

Maybe, as you questioned, there is a genetic component. Or just "something different about you" (not necessarily genetic).

I don't have a problem with them actively choosing to break laws to protest the laws themselves; to try to get them changed. Civil disobedience is a long standing practice. However, part of doing that is facing the consequences of breaking those laws; being arrested, etc. Just because _you_ think the law isn't just doesn't mean it's not a law - it just means you think it should be changed.

And the companies in question break the law and then whine and complain like they shouldn't need to face the consequences; like the law shouldn't apply to them because they don't think it's fair.

For root beer, I can't tell the difference. For colas, the difference is staggering to me.

It's just a preference thing. They taste bad _to you_, not to everyone.

Even among people that like artificial sweeteners, people have preferences. I prefer pink and my wife prefers yellow. When I'm forced to use yellow, I just can't enjoy the drink as much.

And, yes, it's a totally different kind of "sweet" for each of them. So if you're expecting "sugar sweet", it won't be that for the others.

Sorry, I was ambiguous in what I meant.

It is not realistic to say that no person is allowed to keep track of another person; watch where they go, when, with who, etc.

It should not be acceptable for a company to gather information on "everyone"; where they have been going, when, with who, how often, etc. And it should not be acceptable for them to sell that information (to government agencies OR private citizens).

It's a matter of scale.

- Making the first one illegal/impossible would be difficult/costly; and not doing so has a limited impact (to society, not to the single person affected).

- Making the second one illegal is much easier, and it's much easier to shut down a large company doing it than it is 1,000 individual stalkers. The impact of making it illegal is much wider and better for society as a whole.

We don't want anyone being stalked. But in a cost/benefit analysis, we can do something about one of them but not the other.

Not just the government. It shouldn't be possible for any random stalker to find someone's daily movements.

I unsubscribe twice (allowing for one possible bug), then spam.

And, as others have noted, unsubscribe cannot involving going and logging into their system. If I need to do that, it generally goes directly to spam.