I don't think it's misleading. I read the OP comment as a humorous warning that we should be cautious around arguments which very probably came out of wish to defend beloved PL. These opinions often bring interesting thoughts, but more often then not they are built as "I need to proof X, therefore I select facts for it"
>Unfortunately the people that get excited building things is outnumbered by the people that is just in this for the money.
I don't think there's a reason to be sad about it. There are plenty of e.g. maintenance jobs in the industry, and people who are passionate about programming may not be the best fit for this niche - it's boring, and sometimes you feel the urge to re-invent a few wheels even in detriment to actual business needs. For not-so-passionate however it's a good place - minimize efforts while having good salary.
In most countries to hire a remote foreigner requires to jump over some legal, and accounting complications. So yes, they do it because they want to find a cheaper deal abroad. It's pretty much the only reason why it makes sense for them, besides searching for very rare skills. And there's nothing wrong with it. Nobody is prohibited to try to negotiate the same rate as in an expensive city in US, and good for you if your qualifications allow you to have success with it, but in most cases it means a company would be better hiring a US employee instead of outsourcing.
UI is confusing, IMO. Coming to the website I don't understand what I supposed to do. I clicked that bias line randomly, and most of the time headlines were from lefty sources. The idea is cool, but to be honest, it's hard to do it better then RealClearPolitics already does it.
For those who missed this fragment of history: US abdication from being the free harbor for the internet was spearheaded by US, and Western European NGOs. At that time I was already amazed why they don't see the obvious fact that they were increasing influence of countries like China, and Russia. Yet all those positive people behaved like the States is the main enemy. And look how it worked out!
Hm, not sure how it supposed to work. For the absolute majority of devs hardware is abstracted away behind the thick walls of IDE/editors, VMs/runtumes, and OS APIs (especially true for JVM, and js hosted PLs such as Clojure) and neither care that much, nor contribute to layers of software important for CPU market.
>individual employees do not have any bargaining power
It's incorrect statement. I bargained with my employers multiple times in individual capacity. There are some points which are easier to bargain about collectively, and some which are better done individually, btw
Unless you are taking these words absolutely literally, the OP is right. Economizing + achieving the marks set by CPSU at all cost was prioritized over everything, including safety even in armed forces. Source: born, and raised there.
Choice of abstractions which suit your thinking is obviously subjective so some people naturally prefer TS or Scala.js or PureScript over Clojurescript, (or whatever else over Clojurescript). However, the statement "you spent more time fighting integration with the JS ecosystem" is evidently not true. In my own experience you can do almost everything never leaving CJS realm, and when you need to combine it with existing JS code it will require some deeper understanding, but nevertheless goes pretty easy. Didn't downvote you btw
>there is a very clear imposition of power over the employee here
Hm, where is this imposition of power? I see what could be clearly called bargaining.
Btw, my apologies if this sounds too harsh, but comparing it to "sexual favors" not only absolutely meaningless, but probably qualifies as a dirty emotional trick aimed at ungrounded shaming of those who disagree with you.
Partly. But let's not forget Microsoft actively kicked Borland in the guts by withholding API information, and hiring away Borland's key figures. Everybody saw it and accounting for Msft weight (especially at that time) it was safer to bet on Borland's demise. I think it played bigger role then any erratic behavior.
Yes, but in the long term everything will break, no matter what language one uses. The question is how long is long? I suppose when talking about PLs it's proportional to amount of working code in the wild.
It perfectly supports my hypothesis. Cobol is bloody 60+ old. It was in the category of “oh so old" languages in 80s already, and it took another 40 years to reach the point when its code became too old to support.
While confusion around P6 certainly hurt Perl, Python started to conquer over areas previously held by Perl even before that. AFAICT educational establishments didn't like Perl because it embraces expressivity. There's more then one way approach feels good once you grok it, but for the most teachers its anathema - it means you need to explain much more.
There are loads of battle-tested well-working Perl code around, and its cheaper to hire one smart dev who can learn Perl to maintain than to hire a whole team to re-write in a new PL. So no matter what is Perl's future in terms of evolution, or mindshare there will be Perl programmers until the code is retired, and its unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Wokeness is certainly among the strongest movements in developed Anglophone countries,
having a huge discoursive power, and embedded in structures of authority for quite a long time. Last 7-8 yrs it became more visible simply because its demands are growing more radical, and it started to fight a wider circles of opponents.
Wokeness is built on networked flexible leadership (which was not possible before the internet) therefore certainly is not as rigid, centralized, or bureaucratic as CSPU. But OP obviously didn't mean structural similarity. It still values ideological higher truth of social justice over empirical truth, and strives to silence those who don't howl in unison.
There's a lot in your comment I can agree with, but it all sounds as if corporate media brands make journalists acquire allegiance to truth while small/personal brands do not. In real world both don't. Such allegiance as well as preference for truth from readers' side is rather rare thing in general, not because everybody's bad, but because group allegiance, and comfortable biases usually trump moral rules. Typical news business model is not about pursuit of truth, or guarding democracy. It's about catering to tastes of a particular audience. And all media - big or small - has a strong incentive to skew things to pleasure their readers (and let's not forget inciting tribal outrage which increases loyalty to a brand). This naturally at times leads to rigid, prominent rejection of truth. And fact-checking observably doesn't stop it - because it's not its function. No difference in this field between big, and personal brands in general.
I see here obvious misunderstanding of what fact-checking is in media biz. F-c is not some sort of tool, or pre-requisite for truth. Neither it's a part of imaginary high standard for reporting. It's a corporate defence line to reduce the risk of an unscrupulous, or just stupid employee damaging corporate brand. In one-man gig such as a Greenwald does, he himself cares for his reputation because unlike majority of journos employed by big media who are names in bylines covered by ad-propelled brand identity, he is brand himself, and cannot make an oopsie, and then find a job in other place after a short vacation.
I re-read the comment in question with great attention, and found nothing OP insists on except for being left alone with his tea. Quote: "Use the combinations you enjoy"
This comment sounds very snobbish to me. If OP likes his tea simple without ceremonies, reciting poetry, or measuring temperature of water to 0.1°C precision it gives you no logical reason to claim he's not smart, or enlightened enough.
Not pursuing "small" - quoted because up to $950 is rather big chewing gum really - crimes creates wrong incentives, and it skews general culture of (dis)respect to law, and property. Essentially normalizing bad behavior will inevitably affect bigger crimes happening. Taking into account that it especially influences youth (breaking rules is cool enough when you're teenager, if you can shoplift without punishment it starts to look like an invitation) we are witnessing a crime problem growing for a at least a generation ahead.
EDIT: "chewing gun" to "chewing gum". Guns are usually not chewy for certain.
>Journalists generally are just people trying to do their jobs within the constraints they are given.
And this is exactly what I wrote about.
>impose their view of the world on everyone else and don't want journalists ruining that
This assumes that journalists are not like us humans, and never want to impose their views. And never work for people who want to impose their views, of course. And their incentives/constraints never push them to publish incorrect, or doctored stuff.