greenthrow

People have lost their homes and everything they own to a natural disaster that was not under their control. I don't care where you live in the world, this could happen to you. The lack of empathy and victim blaming in these comments is absolutely revolting. I am done with this site. It has been taken over by heartless people with zero intellectual curiosity. Good riddance.

That is a red herring. The frequency and intensity of the wildfires has increased. Stop repeating fossil fuel talking points meant to distract from climate change.

The frequency and intensity of droughts in the area has increased due to climate change. The increased winds is due to climate change. It is obvious. It is not explained by "radical population increase".

Stop trying to distract with fossil fuel propaganda trying to distract with everthing else they can. Yes controlled burns still happen but it is also understandable that people would be jumpy about them with the problems fire has been causing in that area in recent years.

Stop trying to muddy the waters, we already agree that wildfires do happen. Nobody disputes that. The frequency and intensity of what we are seeing in recent years is what is not normal. That is due to climate change because of the increased frequency and duration of droughts as well as increased winds.

Yes I remember as a kid in the 80s when wildfires woukd devastate LA every year. Oh wait no it did not happen until recently.

Yes wildfires do happen in nature. No this is not normal for this area. Yes it is about climate change. Stop believinf fossil fuel company propaganda.

The losses were already socialized without the controls. Look at how the insurance companies always behave in these situations. They always find a way to stick the public with the bill. Don't listen to the corporate talking points. The price controls may have been stupid but they are a distraction.

Did you miss the part where I said the public has been lied to for the past 50 years?

I didn't say we shut off all the gas pumps tomorrow. It will obviously take time to transition off. I said we seize their assets and use the proceeds for climate relief. We can keep the revenue coming and using the profits for disaster relief while we transition off fossil fuels. It's not that hard to understand.

An hour in and nobody in these comments is addressing climate change? The risks of drought and the resulting fire or hurricanes and floods is much higher than it has been in recorded history in these areas because of climate change. Should people be forced to abandon their homes because the fossil fuel companies lied and misled the public and bought out our governments for the last 50 years?

IMHO we should be seizing the fossil fuel companies' assets and using them for disaster relief around the world due to the catastrophe they have deliberately caused.

The talk about insurance rates is a deliberate distraction.

Anyone who thinks non-engineers can build quality products with just AI doesn't know anything about being an engineer.

As I explained in my initial comment, the problem is average parents are not equipped to be good teachers and homeschooled kids are being denied the variety of experiences that kids going to an actual school are getting. That's why I said all homeschooled kids are being abused by definition. Not the same type of abuse you got at school or I got at home. But they are being denied a proper education. They are being denied the opportunity to learn to make friends and socialize with different people. When it's time for them to finally go out into the world they will be poorly equipped to do so.

If I thought home schooling was a sure fire way to avoid violent abuse for any kids, maybe it would be worth the trade off. But we both know if anything abusive parents are also going to abuse their kids via home schooling.

I honestly think on the whole homeschooling is doing more damage to the kids being put through it and should be illegal. Obviously before actually doing that we should do scientific studies and surveys of adults who went through it and make a decision based on that rather than just my opinion. But right now we let parents do it just because extremist parents insist on it. And I think we are failing those kids.

I'm glad that you have a way to help your daughter. But there are many kids with similar issues and homeschooling can't be our solution for all of them. Instead we need to figure out how to accomodate them at schools.

Lots of kids home lives are worse than your school life. But that's not the point I was making. You are letting your personal horrible experience define the whole discussion for you. But that is completely beside the point I was making. Yes some kids are physically abused even tortured at school, some kids are physically abused even tortured at home. You don't make policy decision based on outlier cases that are already illegal.

Yes some kids face abusive situations in public schools. But all kids are by definition facing abuse when home schooled imho.

I grew up in the US and I hated every single day of school. I don't have a favorite teacher I remember fondly, I don't have friends from school, etc. I absolutely hated it.

But I still am against home schooling. I still got social skills from going to public school that homeschooled kids lack. I still don't think your average parent is equipped to give their children a good education.

I have people I know who have homeschooled their kids. Without exception these people are narcissists with insane views who are using it as a way to indoctrinate their children into having the same worldview that they hold.

Homeschooling should be illegal. It is child abuse.

I think you misinterpreted him funding development. Read the linked article. Should clear you up. He was funding (via Automattic) an estimated 4k+ hours of work per week and is cutting that back to 45. Not himself coding but people that work for him.

Are you under the impression he himself has been a meaningful contributor in the last decade?

You're lumping big changes with small changes. If you really won't go back and change one function or one class because someone shared a better idea at the PR stage that's unhealthy and you will improve by letting go of that.

I don't disagree some people have bad, overly nitpicky PR habits and they should be trained out of that.

That said, sitting down before hand and planning is useful for the big picture but one of the big benefits of PRs, as I explained earlier, is to eliminate lots of wasted time going back and forth in meetings about how to implement something and instead empowering engineers to go write code and then to iterate on actual implementations instead of endlessly discussing ahead of time. So there is a balance there where you make sure everyone is aligned on what you're building but also being open to suggestions on your PRs. Sometimes that may mean rewriting large chunks in exchange for drastically reducing pre-coding discussions.

I addressed that in the comment you are responding to...

I'm not advocating for constant nitpicking or demanding perfection. But somewhere between that and "PRs are too late for changes" is where most good teams operate.

What? This is absolutely incorrect. There's be no point in PRs if it's too late to change anything. Part of the point is to reduce the number of synchronous discussions your team has to have about code before writing it. PRs let you iterate on actual code instead of endlessly discussing hypothetical implementations.

You're missing a third category which is "here's another way you could do this..." which isn't just about legibility but more tangible tradeoffs.

Certainly I agree architectural decisions shouldn't be made in every PR and ideally should be discussed before that point.

If you are never getting good suggestions on your PRs that's a bad sign. Any team of more than 2 people should have some ideas sometimes for each other. Either this means everybody's too checked out to put in effort on PRs or they think it'll fall on deaf ears.

I've been a software engineer for decades and even so, teammates will have good ideas sometimes. Nobody can think of every good idea every time.

They never did it. And what little immigration Canada has had (compared to the US) has been beneficial, as it always is.

The fact that you think this is remotely the same thing is telling.

The H1B system sucks. Open the borders and just let everyone come here who wants to. We have plenty of room and immigration has resulted in so many great parts of the US due to the intermixing of cultures. If you're worried about crime well all the ICE agents will need new jobs.

If git was aimed at regular peope I'd agree it's not well designed. It's not. It's a tool for software engineers to do a job. It is not flawless. But it was massive improvement over the code management tools that were in use before it and I haven't encountered a replacement I prefer.

A lot of the problems people have with git are actually problems with bad workflows. You can argue that git should support arbitrary workflows but that's like arguing a garbage truck should support offroading.

This take is cynical to the point of wilfull ignorance. My spouse works in DEI and I guarantee you her and her coworkers are sincere and trying to instill better, less biased hiring practices and to make everyone feel welcome and part of the team. Not everyone is going to be the same but that's like anything else. Being 100% dismissive is as much of a mistake as being 100% unquestioningly accepting.

If your non-engineers have to deal with git you have an org or process problem. Git is pretty clear and easy to use to a competent software engineer. I'm tired of this meme that Git is hard. It doesn't get enough pushback.

My dude it's not hubris. Git is pretty damn simple compared to many problems you will have to reason about as a software engineer. If you can't understand file versioning, branching and merging then you aren't going to be able to think effectively about much more complicated problems.