malthuswaswrong

over the years I have seen a good 30% refuse to do it

I'll do reasonable take homes, but I'll often pass on interactive coding sessions. I don't like coding in a browser, and I use my dev tools as a major crutch.

"Why did you store that value as a string instead of a long?"

"Because it's a string from standard in and I have no idea what bullshit inputs there will be so I can check it before casting it."

"But the user story said it will be a number."

Well if I had more than 15 minutes maybe I would have been able to gain confidence in the input. Something like that comes from many years of experience getting burned yet it's considered a negative mark. Some of these places are actually selecting for recklessness.

There is too much to learn out there

It's crazy. I sometimes get the itch to learn a new language like Rust, but I haven't even come close to reaching the bottom of all the languages I already know. They are inventing new things faster than anyone can acquire them.

I'm working with a junior dev now and the phrase that I keep repeating is "slow the fuck down". He's completely frantic with the copy and paste. I'm watch him google something, click the first link, paste the code into his project, and when it doesn't work he's on to the next link, paste, repeat. He doesn't even back out the changes he made the first time that didn't work.

I spent hours fixing his code and hand it back to him and it's broken again in a week.

I had to wash my hands of it. The only advice he's getting out of me now is to follow a single tutorial all the way through until he gets that one tutorial working and then compare the tutorial to his code. I'll answer specific questions, but I'm not going to try to mentor him until he's ready to receive the wisdom.

There are already self replicating carbon drawing machines. They are called trees.

Everything is going to be okay.

Are you unaware that the Free Software Movement is a political movement first and foremost?

Bingo. It is a political movement. One rooted in idiotic ideologies that no thinking person takes seriously. Communism was defeated by taking the few valid points of Marx and addressing them. The 98% stupidity was easy to refute and discard when the 2% valid points were accepted and addressed.

its possible to convince people of really anything with enough exposure

Not really. You can spend days, weeks, and months; millions of dollars; thousands of paid shill accounts; all geared towards selling a single lie. And that lie can be exposed to millions of people in 10 seconds for free. But only if there is free speech.

Within reason of course, nobody wants Nazis or Pedophiles to spread their opinions because they are obscene.

Who decides what's reasonable? Who decides what constitutes a "Nazi" or a "Pedophile"? If someone tries to suggest that convicting a 14 year old girl as a sex offender for having nude photos of herself on her phone is preposterous that person can be effectively silenced by labeling them as a pedophile.

"But that's ridiculous. Nobody would do that." -Somebody who has never been on the internet.

Every idiotic position you can think of exists on the internet, and can be amplified to make it seem like it's a more popular opinion than it really is.

The only logical course of action is to allow all speech and let the reader discern for themselves.

That's a very diplomatic way to say he's crazy and people who put him on a pedestal are crazy for doing it; despite occasionally have a valid point.

Also I agree 100%.

Do not most free democratic countries practice 'secret ballot' voting specifically because not doing so caused all kinds of problems like voter intimidation?

Seems like you answered your own question right there. A faction inside the project want to intimidate and punish people who don't conform to group think and a larger faction wants to squash that possibility.

Public voting is not status quo outside of Debian. In the real world the only places that have public voting are places that are controlled by dictators.

But it's deceptive and political to complain 3 and 4 are too similar but then not also state that 1 and 2 were too similar. 2 also lost votes to 1 being similar.

Also 3 and 4 were not similar. 3 would have changed the constitution to require public voting, 4 would simply do nothing and leave the issue an unanswered question.

This wasn't the general public. This was a few hundred people who carefully follow and care about the Debian project. I'm highly skeptical anyone who voted was "confused".

But NOTA and Affirm the Public Vote are not the same. Choosing ATPV would have changed the constitution. NOTA would not have changed the constitution. If this were an American election full of idiots and people who have no idea what they are voting for, then the argument would have weight. These are people who follow the Debian source code debate close enough to give a shit and vote. They knew what they were doing.

If those two were represented as a single "NOTA" option, that option would have won the ballot in terms of votes.

Looks like Option 1 and 2 were similar enough to "split the vote" too. What would have happened if 1 and 2 were combined and 3 and 4 were combined?

There are exceptions. Mostly in the realm of regulations. Sometimes you pay for programming that you simply have to do by law, even if you don't actually want it.

if that were the case we would all run "programs " 24/7 on our computers and produce infinite value.

Ever heard of bitcoin mining? j/k :D

A penny saved is a penny earned. Many programmers are employed to automate tasks and reduce labor requirements. That adds value to the organization. You are splitting hairs by saying "the program" vs "the programming". You are a wizard that casts spells to make people's jobs easier. What exactly that means depends on the management. Once a job becomes easier they can either pay fewer employees to do the job or they can take more clients with the staff they have. That's not my decision. My job is to add value to the enterprise by reducing labor costs.

If you work 40 hours a day and you feel everyone around you is moving in slow motion and you need to fill your day with extra stuff just to give everyone else a chance to catch up then you probably aren't supposed to be working a salaried job. You are supposed to start your own company.

because results on other sites aren't trustworthy

Reddit is gamed way more than google. Paid posters, moderation of anything against a narrative. Google search may be dying, but reddit ain't doing much better.

I have to occasionally remind myself that games have not become bad. I've gotten old. I can only imagine what it's like to be 12 and play Fortnight. They can republish Command and Conquer, but that feel will never be real again.

What is a fairer way to allocate resources than you produce for me and I produce for you?

Seems to me any other system is open to being gamed. Sure there are people born into generational wealth. But those are like one in a million and generational wealth doesn't typically last more than a handful of generations as the number of descendants grows exponentially.

That's one theory. Another theory is that the ad industry is exploiting a human nature that has been there long before ads or industry.

How would we test that theory? How would we test if humans have always wanted things or if nobody wanted things until ads were invented?

More likely they hired workers who created that wealth.

More likely they hired workers and everyone created wealth together. A worker can't work until someone builds the assembly line, buys the materials, and sells the final product.

If it's so easy to do the whole process that anyone can do it, what's stopping you? Marxists claimed the capital class denied the funds to the working class to start their own companies. Well since the world went off the gold standard there is no lack of funding. It's the opposite now. Inflation is an attack on wealth. Wealthy people are ravenous to get their wealth out of currency and into "things" like property and businesses. Venture capitalists will fund the most ridiculous ideas in the desperate hope that one of them will "hit".

I don't disagree with any of that. People should pursue alternate energy sources. However world governments should not be putting their fingers on the scales in favor of green energy. Legislators who also just happen to have financial investments in these same new technologies. Yet another reason to be skeptical. Everyone points their fingers at the oil industry for the studies they fund, but Al Gore was a hair's width away from becoming the world's first green billionaire when he tried to pass a law forcing companies to exchange carbon credits and he was a 40% owner in carbon exchange network that would mediate it.

Green energy is making advancements. Unfortunately for them the fossil fuel industry continues to make advancements as well. Every year they get better at drilling, better at harvesting, better at converting from crude to fuel, better at burning, better at extracting energy from what is burned. At least a dozen different metrics get 2% better year over year which keeps fossil fuels competitive and makes it harder for other sources of energy to replace it.

Which is fine. It's all fine. I just want the best energy available. And the way our civilization has historically measured the "best" is through the free market. Green will win eventually. No need to rush it prematurely. It will happen.

We don't do that currently because there hasn't been a new plant built in 50 years and the designs of the old plants were specifically engineered to make materials for nuclear weapons.

If there wasn't a huge stigma against nuclear energy they would be making advancements, but nobody is going to fund advancements while there is no guarantee they will be allowed to apply them.

What would happen to the JavaScript language if every year half of congress gave speeches condemning JavaScript and calling for a prohibition against any new JavaScript code? How many new people would bother learning JavaScript.

Agreed. It could also be real but no where near as serious as they are claiming. Mankind went from the first manned flight to footprints on the moon in 60 years. I'm not losing any sleep about a mathematically insignificant projection that may or may not lead to something 100 years from now. 100 years from now if they want terraforming to strictly regulate the climate it should be well within their capabilities.

Again, these people aren't serious. And their actions prove how the threat is either not real at all, or extremely distant to the point of being irrelevant for us.

Nuclear is totally economically viable. It's not viable in the current regulatorily climate. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will return profits for 80 years is an easy financial decision. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will be shut down by moonbats every 4 years when the next batch of princess unicorns is voted into office is not economically viable.

That's how you know none of this is real. If mankind was actually on the brink of extinction all options would be on the table. Especially one that offers free unlimited energy. Mankind does not have an energy generation problem. It only has an energy storage problem.

False. We learned that an agrarian society can resist democracy and nation building. They were incapable of withstanding military destruction. They didn't even last 90 days.

In fact they've already destroyed the military infrastructure we left them. "Soldiers" are literally parting out $20 million helicopters for $10,000 in scrap metal.

Would you change your opinion if you were presented with hard data proving that 80% of wealthy people earned that wealth by delivering goods and services to people who voluntarily paid for it, and only 20% of the wealthy inherited it and that inherited wealth does not last more than 3 generations?