tikiman163

CoPilot broke github actions in such a way that if too many requests to start a workflow came in at the same time it would reduce the capacity of the build server's queue until you did a full manual reboot of the build server and completely reset the queue.

Some people are saying they aren't doing testing, I know this to be incorrect in one very important way. When it comes to people, the ways in which a co-worker is going to be wrong are predictable. When it comes to AI written code, there is zero predictability as to what could be wrong.

Trying to test AI written code is like writing code with no try catch blocks, and expecting the application to not crash within 15 minutes of giving to the end user. They will try everything you didn't think to explicitly handle, and when it comes to AI there is no try catch block for subtly incorrect or incomplete logic.

Literally just watched the video of you posting this. Amazing how few people got the irony.

A big part of the problem is that means testing is largely a waste of time. If you boost people based on income you end up wasting a huge amount of time trying to figure out where the income line should be. Even if you can find a good point to put that line, the "rich kids who just didn't test well enough" will sue because they think college admissions should be a meritocracy, and bossing anyone for any reasons is somehow descrimination. They recently won a significant court case with that exact logic.

My next statement will be controversial, and is largely anecdotal, but there is very little to no research that contradicts my opinion, so I'm going to say it anyway. Smart, capable people who simply "don't test well" are almost non-existent. Even if they did, you can't accurately identify who doesn't test well except by giving them a job and letting them prove they were capable when they aren't under testing pressure. I have met hundreds of people who claimed they simply didn't test well, and only one of them later proved it by being genuinely capable and competent.

The thing that pisses me off the most about this whole debate, is that it only really matters if you think it matters whether you went to one of the top 10 universities available to you. Frankly, most employers will throw out your application if it says Harvard School of Business. The number of management jobs that want Harvard graduates is less than half the graduating class, and Business majors have it easier than most of the engineering degrees in that respect. If you're an electrical engineer, there are fewer than 100 jobs Nation wide, and they are already occupied. If you want to be a civil engineer, straight up forget about it. The medical and legal schools are the only exception, and those are graduate schools only.

There is far too much focus on whether the top 10 university admissions are fair and equitable, and far too little focus on whether we have affordable universities that meet decent educational standards for everyone who could reasonably earn a useful degree.

We definitely shouldn't be trying to get rid of standardized tests. There are arguments that can be made about their content, especially historically, but they have merit in showing whether a student is ready for certain classes. At a normal university, they use SAT and ACT scores to decide if you can skip algebra and go straight to calculus, or if you need to take even more basic classes before algebra, and they do this for science and English courses as well. Having such a laser focus on how the top 10 or top 50 schools that actually turn away applicants because they're at capacity is a massive failure to see the actual big picture when it comes to education.

I'm not a huge fan of writing a ton of documentation about the code. I am a huge fan of requiring developers to write in-line comments explaining what they're doing so the next person can build that internal model more easily. There should be some documentation about the system, but this is much more helpful if it only explains how to get the project running locally, including configuration settings and how to interact with it (if data has to be uploaded for a process, what should the data look like and how do you upload it). From there, a mid level developer should be able to locate the code entry points and follow the online comments to find what they need.

Just because it seemed obvious what you were doing and how things worked while you were writing the code doesn't mean it is, or that it will stay that way. Especially if that code ends up getting abstracted out. In line comments demystify code for the next guy way better than any amount of well written documentation.

As for what they're making you do with the RFC documents for changes, try writing your stuff as an ordered multi-tier list. The first tier should be the "manager" description of the change. The next level should be the more technical description of changes. The third tier is the location in the code where that change needs to be made (like a file path sort of thing, but you could use name spaces and even method names if you want). The forth and final tier if you need it would be cross references to other related items in the list and implementation notes/challenges specific to the file path. I've used this approach in the past myself. It's much faster, and it allows you to write a spec doc that isn't a huge waste of your time because it allows you to half write your code at the same time. It also provides a sort of semantic map from how the manager thinks about things to how you think about them, making it much easier for a manager to discuss it with you without having to write nearly as much.

Another benefit to this is you can often use stuff from the second and forth tiers to add in line code comments.

First off, no, not everyone should be on these drugs, there are side effects as well as known drug interactions that can be dangerous and not everyone needs them.

Second, please, please, please stop listing your BMI as if it were a definitive measure of health. To begin with it doesn't correlate well with actual percentage body fat because it doesn't differentiate between fat and muscle. Second, the study which created the BMI was based on a population sample from a single town and all participants were within 4 inches of each other in height, and nearly all were effectively average height with similar lean body masses. If your lean body mass does not conform to the expected range from that study, BMI cannot accurately determine if you are obese, skinny, a body builder or just tall/short.

Finally, rapid weightloss is dangerous, and if you're eating fewer than 1k calories in a day while experiencing extreme fatigue and brain fog, you are more likely to be losing significant muscle mass than fat. This is may be extremely because your heart could be weakened, which could kill you. It's great that your cholesterol and overall weight is down, it's terrifying that you're eating so few calories while being unable to maintain enough physical activity to keep your body from canabilizing vital muscle tissues.

You're not an Indie Entrepreneur, that is complete nonsense. Indie just means independent, and given that all entrepreneurs are by definition independent, you're kind of giving me insight into why you failed. Indie only applies to 2 industries, game development and music, both of these industries are mainly dominated by major studios which people work for even if they are well known publicly.

Don't get me wrong, starting a business is extremely hard work, and I'm sure you did everything you could, but when every 5th word you say or write is essentially a buzz word, people don't respond to that. Also, if all of your advertising was digital, then you need a minimum startup capital that can pay influences to make people aware of you and your product. It sucks, but unless you have a sizable following or are yourself a really good salesman, you're more likely to fail.

This is something I've studied extensively, and it's painful every time I have to tell a friend they would suck at running their own business.

People are idiots, but the cops and everyone else in the justice system had a legal requirement to actually know the law, and letting their kid walk half a mile straight up isn't child endangerment. These people had thier lives turned completely upside down, over the dumbest shit I've heard all year.

It was extremely shitty what the neighbor did, but the neighbor had no authority or control beyond making an unfounded complaint. The cops and everyone involved after that point she be ashamed at just how much they screwed over the lives of everyone in that family. Most people don't know this, but just being arrested, even if no charges were filed will show up on your credit score and background check forever. Those parents aren't stuck with a couple of shitty weeks they can move past, they'll be explaining that arrest to every potential employer and loan officer for the rest of thier lives. That assumes they even get asked to explain it, rather than a generic rejection letter they can only assume is due to one unbelievably unqualified cop making an insane decision.

I primarily agree with you, but his primary point is mainly regarding the tendency for projects at large organizations to have a substantial number of unfished attempts to rework existing applications, which often results in serious headaches for whoever owns the code.

What I mean is that even if you've followed a specific set of programming principals, code practices and design patterns consistently across the life time of the application, there will still have been initiatives to change how things are done. Maybe they want to use a "better" authentication library, or add a material framework that has capabilities they need. The exact initiative, and how valid the request or decision is doesn't matter. These initiatives may occur one at a time, or be competing with each other for priority while being incompatible without anyone noticing. But some of them will fail to be completed, and someone has to back out the changes that shouldn't go to prod. Inevitably something will get left behind. Over 5-10 years this can have a shockingly large impact on the code base in ways engineers frequently notice but don't understand how the code got to the state its in.

This frequently means dead code, unused dependencies, comments that don't make any sense, properties on objects that are never displayed or referenced by business logic, and multiple classes/services which accept the same inputs and produce the same outputs but do the job just differently enough you can't be sure it's the same. That, and over abstractions (any piece of code which branches based on the context of "who's asking").

And frankly few things any me more than someone who felt the need to implement their own logging implementation, especially in C# (yes I know we're talking about React, but people do the same stupid crap in that case as well). Reinventing the wheel has to be done on occasion, but you need to ask yourself if it has to be you that makes it happen,and whether it already has been.

Graphql does not address the problem he's describing. When he says "transformation" his meaning is similar to transformation in an ETL process. What he means is the application loads data, the user takes an action, and the front end code handles updating the objects locally, then sends messages to the backend telling it what the new data state should be.

This is very dangerous behavior for any application. You don't want the front end to determine how much the shopping cart costs or to just tell the backend they've paid, therefore add the items to the orders list. Even if there isn't blatantly obvious security concerns, you should still never let your front end blindly determine data state changes. All such business logic belongs in the backend as much as possible.

What he's talking about is when business logic is split between the front and backend, which makes everything much harder to test on top of increasing the likelihood of duplicate code or even code which does the same thing but looks different enough to not be caught as duplication (which means changing business logic requires finding all the places it was implemented and changing them all, and if you miss any its unlikely anyone else will realize it until it hits prod).

The UI should always just be a shell that sends requests to a backend which determines which updates to make. There are exceptions like when a user makes form based changes to an object, but the only business logic in that case is "let the user decide what the value should be and persist that choice as is". If any additional changes may need to occur as a result of their change, your backend should make them. Even if you just need to determine if a change shouldn't be allowed because of related data, send a request to your backend requesting the answer and any relevant data necessary for display purposes, not the data necessary to make that determination.

There are exceptions to what I've said, but even in those cases, the backend should still verify whether the front end's result is correct. While the front end was working, a change could have gone through in the backend which invalidates that change. This is why things like concurrency/version tokens can be very important.

In any case, Graphql may have capabilities that look like they help keep business logic in the backend, but it doesn't stop programmers from putting business logic in the front end anyway. No matter how you try to look at it, spreading business logic out across your applications various layers always has unintended consequences for maintainability and even scalability.

The other day 8 looked at the IMDB score for the Rings of Power. The score was something like a 3 out of 10, but what caught my eye is the number of user reviews was nearly 200,000. That is way higher than it should be at this point. The problem is that people who haven't even seen it are creating Imdb accounts just so they can give it a negative review. This happened with the all female Gohst Busters movie as well. After the trolls got board they stopped filtering the reviews and it wound up around something like a 7, which is pretty accurate. That Ghost Busters movie wasn't amazing or bad, it was just average, and trolls who had a problem with the premise refused to watch it, which is fine, but then also gave it a 1 star user review just because they hated the idea which isn't.

I find it a little weird and off putting that thierprivate business is having its expansion funded by state funds for coronavirus recovery. I get that this is generally a good thing, and many ISPs, especially the smaller ones, receive government funds for developing and maintaining infrastructure. However, why is the Coronavirus recovery fund paying for this?

If you think his ratio of good to bad business decisions is even average then you haven't been paying attention. Tesla has nearly gone bankrupt repeatedly, and it's stock price has largely risen the most after Musk was removed from controlling the company as a result of a series of tweets that were considered illegal attempts at manipulating the stock market. In point of fact, Musk still controls SpaceX and internal memos leaked earlier this year indicate that SpaceX could very well go Bankrupt within the next 18 months. The Boring Company is generally solvent and under Musk's full control, but it is far smaller, and could be in danger of law suits for effectively failing to meet contractual obligations regarding the tunnel the agreed to provide Las Vegas. The Boring Company's future doesn't look great to me, their results don't meet public expectations which could easily lead to funding drying up.

Also, anybody who thinks accusing a rescue diver of pedophilia purely because he told them not to interfere with rescue efforts is pretty far from being a genius. Musk has been lucky his whole life, people just rarely see his failures.

Basically, his press is full of shit. The claim that he learned to program and wrote a video game at age 10 is quite ridiculous. Seriously, there are online websites where you can play his "game". It's Space Invaders, except theirs only one alien, you can't have multiple projectiles on the screen at the same time, the alien doesn't fire at you unless they get extremely close, if the alien fires at you it locks your controls making it virtually impossible to dodge and prevents you from firing back, and when you successfully hit the alien it immediately respawns at a random location which may be in range of you, resulting in you immediately dying. My own nephew programmed significantly more impressive games at age 10, will people start following him and assume he's never made any mistakes if someone who owns an emerald mine gives him hundreds of millions of dollars to invest into new technologies and the businesses don't ultimately fail?

Yes, Musk could have received that data and had time to analyze it before buying, these kind of merger contract processes have time built into them to allow prospective buyers to look into finances and other information that is not normally publicly available. Musk was so certain he wanted this that he signed additional documents waiving his right to a due diligence period, allowing him to immediately sign the merger agreement.

This next bit is mainly speculation, but the reason Musk is actually trying to back out is partly to do with the fact that signing the merger contract caused his other companies stock prices to drop and public speculation that his existing business would suffer if he needed to focus on running Twitter. The second and more widely believed version of events is that partly due in fact to his other stock prices dropping, Musk cannot afford Twitter without having to sell more of Tesla and SpaceX than he is willing to. Musk is already down to owning only 17% of Tesla and less than 50% of SpaceX, although that's complicated as some percentage of Tesla is owned by SpaceX and vice versa along with the Boring company in such a way that Musk effectively has majority control over SpaceX whenever he wants. If he has to sell additional stock to cover the purchase of Twitter he would very likely lose the ability to control everything except possibly the Boring Company.

What's more, the contract he signed effectively puts him in a position of buying Twitter at a substantial loss as the stock market has significantly fallen since Musk signed the deal. He would effectively be losing significant control of his two primary sources of wealth in exchange for something he has likely since discovered he cannot run the way he wants.

In short, this was a bad move financially when Musk first announced his intentions, it was extremely foolish of him to waive due diligence, and it became financially even worse shortly after he signed the deal, partly due to the facts that people lost trust in him for waiving due diligence while making a financially inadvisable move, partly due to the fact that he's actually pretty bad at math and doesn't understand the stock market, and partly because the stock market took a nose dive right after he foolishly waived due diligence and signed such a financially ruinous deal.

If you're thinking Musk is smarter than I'm making him out to be, please consider that Musk tried to insert himself into a cave rescue he had nothing to do with, was told not to interfere with the professionals that know what they're doing, and retaliated to being told to butt out by publicly accusing the rescue team lead of being a pedophile despite knowing nothing about the man.

Trying to offer to help without really understanding the situation isn't necessarily a bad thing, but randomly accusing someone of being a pedophile because they were critical of you is so far beyond acceptable behavior it's amazing Musk wasn't banned from Twitter as a result (it was where he made the accusation publicly). That level of harassment violates Twitter's ToS, plain and simple.

I hope this seriously bites Musk in the ass. I hope he's forced to buy it, and then it's such a pain in the ass for him that he immediately tries to turn around and sell only to discover no single entity or investment group wants to privately own Twitter. I hope he makes another dumbass tweet that results in another legal action removing him as the president/ceo/whatever and then decides to just take Twitter public again so he can divest himself.

I hope Twitter users don't have to deal with too much chaos as a result, but if it half bankrupts an idiot who openly accused a rescue diver of being a pedophile, despite knowing nothing about the man, and merely because he told Musk not to interfere with rescue operations, then let Twitter deal with a little chaos.

Interoperability means that hardware and hardware related OS capabilities have to be accessible to third-party developers. End to end encryption isn't a hardware capability, it's software. Also, they only have to give them a mechanism to access it, they don't have to remove the already existing security mechanisms like notifying the user that an app has requested access to things user contacts or bluetooth. If users don't want to grant an app permissions that's not the fault of the platform developer.

How is this only now becoming a thing? We've know TikTok was spying on Americans for years.

Antitrust would be good, but that wouldn't affect the FCC, they'd just issue the same request to as many app stores as they deemed necessary. Technically, Microsoft will also probably have received the same request, but really who cares.

The Supreme Court Justice who wrote the court's opinion on this issue just publicly stated he believes the Supreme Court should reconsider all of its prior procedural decisions, including Gay Mairage, legalized gay relationships, contraception and privacy in sexual or relationship matters.

You don't get to claim you're potentially naive, you're outright ignoring what they've publicly declared they intend to do. This isn't a group of well reasoned individuals removing power from the court, they're just doing whatever they hell they want to make the laws reflect their own religious beliefs.

Fuck this country, the only thing we're the best at is pretending we're the best.

This game has some rather obvious flaws in terms of an economics simulator. Because the is only one product that means any changes to the price of apples is the inflation rate. Additionally, the demand for apples is basically fixed and 0% unemployment will guarantee a supply surplus causing the price to drop (immediately causing deflation). When deflation happens the only way they don't shut down orchards is if the interest rate is below 0%. If inflation hits more than about 5% all of the orchards shut down causing 100% unemployment. This model clearly assumes that if an orchard won't hit a predetermined ROI that it shuts down and won't re-open until it will get that profitability rate, but wages are largely unaffected by deflation, so the price of apples has to constantly out strip the operating costs of the orchard which are entirely variable.

The econimc model here couldn't be more supply side if it tried. It's a perfect analogy for how Republicans think economics work. Either you subsidize businesses to guarantee high profits, or the rich people will instantly take their ball and go home, and everyone will starve. Businesses don't instantly shut down if they think they won't post a profit for a quarter. Seriously, Amazon literally posted a loss every quarter for its first 10 years and they stayed open through investment so people would receive dividends after they finished establishing the scale they needed.

Whoever made this didn't put enough effort into thinking about the difference between a single product economy and real life. One market having a hicup doesn't cause 100% unemployment and a complete shutdown of all production in that market. This game fails to simulate a real economy for many of the same reasons the stock market rarely remains stable.

I program billing systems, and even account reconciliation systems for payment processes. It's not a nightmare, it just take a greater understand of accounting. If you want to be an engineer that works on financial systems, take the first year of classes that accounts have to take and pay attention.

One particularly tricky nuance of contract law is that their must be someone with legal standing who wants the contract to be enforced. If Musk doesn't think he can put the funds together without damaging businesses he cares about more than owning Twitter, then he can pretty much just invoke the $B walk away if he wants to. The Twitter CEO and board were pretty clear they did not think Musk's acquisition was in the best interests of the Company, but they were legally obligated to consider an accept a fair offer of acquisition because it would be in the best interests of the share holders.

Suddenly getting $1B without having to accept Musk as the new owner is beneficial to the share holders, and crucially tying up the company in a years long lawsuit to force Musk to acquire Twitter would be expensive, and until the contract is either completed or dissolved Twitter's fund raising options are greatly limited. Suing Musk for wanting out would not be a sound financial move and could even result in Twitter becoming insolvent. Their stock price could crash, their funds to continue the lawsuit exhausted, and most likely under those circumstances Musk would win and immediately turn around and buy Twitter for a far lower price.

With that said, the only real question here is what will Musk do under the circumstances? Funding the acquisition could cause his other businesses to suffer or even fail. SpaceX is particularly vulnerable, and it wouldn't take much to end the Borring Company if Musk's finances are in a dangerous position. If he just walks away he's out $1B, assuming they'll allow it. That can't be a super attractive option. Most likely he's going to exhaust every avenue in an attempt to raise the cash without putting his other businesses at risk. But there's a clock on that, and he could end up owing Twitter a shit load if he stalls for too long.

Twitter would have to be run by people that don't want the $1B payout and for Elon to just fuck off. News flash, they current executives and even the founder do not want Musk to acquire Twitter. Everyone with the legal responsibility to sue Musk for taking that way out have no interest in doing so. The $1B walk away clause requires musk to pay because being in a position to be acquired negatively impacts their ability to raises funds. They're even under a hiring freeze, and the reason is probably due to a combination of uncertainty around the deal and partly because they can't due things like sell additional stock or bonds, and their ability to acquire new lines of credit are greatly reduced until the acquisition contract either completes or is dissolved.

There is also a simple possibility that these two executives would have been fired anyway. Average executive tenior at a company is only about 4 years, and executives leave or are asked to leave pretty frequently.

As for the hiring freeze, new funding sources are essentially cut off until the purchase either goes through or officially fails. New loans or lines of credit requests are likely to be reject due to the uncertainty around whether Twitter will be acquired or not, and addition sales of stock would be seen as a bad faith act because it would essentially lose the company funding if the sale goes through. Increased spending could cause liquidity issues for Twitter for this reason. It is a known fact that Twitter is not a particularly profitable business, and given all of these facts those executives may have been let go purely for financial reasons.

Trying to read into this without more knowledge regarding internal motivations is purely speculative and cannot provide reliable information. What's more, every major company would be aware of these likely motivations and would see his actions as ordinary under the circumstances even if it turns out his motivation was to keep Musk from having access to those employees.

In short, there would have be extremely compelling evidence of intentional malfeasance for this to impact his reputation or future career prospects any more than Musk acquiring Twitter.

Click bait has been a problem for way longer than the dislike stats being hidden. Also, the algorithm still takes dislikes into account, and it's still easy to dislike content. The problem is that click bait works and when your average person falls for it, they don't hit the dislike or report buttons, they just click away after watching just slightly more of the video than was necessary to identify it as click bait. As far as the algorithm can tell, they enjoyed most of the video, so it ends up getting recommended. Veritasium has a particularly good video on this exact topic, and the honest solution isn't bringing back the ability to see dislike stats, it's that legitimate videos need to stop using boring thumbnails and video titles. Nobody clicks on them, so regardless of likes/dislikes ratio they will never get promoted.

I want to be clear I'm playing devils advocate here. I'm a software engineering team lead who likes both in person and remote work. I'm comfortable with having fully remote team members, I've successfully been a team lead for groups where some members were Europe, other I the US and still other in India all at the same time. Overall things worked so long as I focused on being a team lead and not on being the most productive senior/principal engineer. We actually had this going on both during and before the pandemic even started. I don't generally seeing an overwhelmingly compelling reason not to allow that.

However, I still see problems that are difficult or even impossible to resolve. Even though I was able to maintain team velocity comparable to a fully in-person team there are significant downsides. First off, I have always overworked myself, but I don't think it's healthy and I discourage others from doing so. Leading a fully remote team required me to work more hours even when we were in the same time zone. Yes, you get back time from not having to commute, but on average my hours increased by more than my commute time when my teams were fully remote. I will summarize the root causes of this problem as I have been able to identify them.

First, remote meetings are dramatically less productive regardless of their length the second there are more than 3 people involved. Someone will attempt to multi-task if any topic they are not heavily involved in gets brought up. In short, getting organized and ensuring everyone involved has received and retained important information becomes far more difficult and time concuming. Anything I tell a group larger than 3 will ultimately result in my having to repeat that information for at least 1 person, and the larger the group the more times I end up repeating that information. This increases the time I spend organizing my team to keep them productive from maybe 1/6th of my time to easily half. Given that I also need to train lower level developers to become higher level developers, this tends to reduce the time I have to develop by 1/2 to 2/3rds.

Second, not having clear start and stop times makes it far more difficult for developers to manage their time effectively. I've seen senior devs that would normally have developed for 5 hours (plus meetings) and been done for the day jumpt to 10 hours and burn out. I've also seen a lot more junior devs try to work on a problem for 2-3 hours, feeling they can't interrupt seniors or mid level devs because of our online status, and then give up for the day. In either case, the odds that they quit and look for a different job shoots through the roof. This means developers that would otherwise have productive enjoyable careers are more frequently leaving the industry because they aren't in the upper 10% of people when it comes to self-management.

I'm not saying remote work is a bad thing, but it's really important we understand their are trade offs, and that these trade offs either reduce the number of people we can work with, or may require us to work more hours than are healthy.

To be completely clear, I don't advocate requiring people to come in, but when choosing an employer if everything else is equal I'm more likely to pick the company where everyone lives in the same city and we have the option to come into the office or not. I will especially choose them if I'm able to require that some people come in on certain days if I've identified them as someone that doesn't pay attention during meetings or has time management issues like overworking or giving up because they can't figure it out on their own.

Ah yes, the internet's worst kept secret. The reasons behind it however are less obvious.

Yes, to a certain extent your ISP is watching to see if you run a speedtest and will open up more bandwidth to you in the event you do. However, if they were throttling you, which is not guaranteed, the most likely reason for throttling you is that the network hub for your neighborhood was under an heavy load, and they throttled everyone on your backbone hub to ensure that critical operations don't experience interruptions.

What you might consider critical operations might not agree with what your ISP considers critical of course, but they're a for profit business rather than a utility. So, what you consider a valid reason for throttling you doesn't count for squat. The reason they sped you up is that despite the fact that they carefully crafted their service contract to say they legally can throttle you for any reason or no reason at all, it reduces the number of complaints calls they don't intend to do anything about.

It also gives them plausible deniablity, and weirdly enough a useful metric for identifying hardware problems. They can simply make you think that the problem was the individual web service you were connecting to, or maybe just all of cloud flare. But more than that, they are able to track the number of times in a day that people visited a speedtest site, and whether they were able to get your speed up to the expected level. This functions as an early warning sign that they need to increase the total available bandwidth in an area if those numbers become what your ISP considers unacceptable.

Again, what your ISP considers unacceptable and what you consider unacceptable are not the same, but they're a for profit business rather than a regulated non-profit utility.

I cannot think that Elon Musk owning/controlling Twitter will go even half the way he expects. He clearly only sees it as a potential platform for disseminating his opinions, which have regularly been wrong when it came to things like the pandemic. He's a potentially dangerous egomaniac and if he is allowed to own Twitter the best case scenario is that Twitter experiences a mass user exodus, worst case it turns into a social media platform for crazy nonsense like Newsmax and OAN. Sure, it could just turn into a Fox News equivalent, but that's barely better.

I was super disappointed when pebble failed, it had so much potential and I loved where they were going with it.

Neither side can really claim it, but both will half heartedly do so.

I want you to be right, I really do. The problem as far as I can see it is that Amazon can simply shift the work load away from that facility and then close it, and open a new one somewhere else. Unions no longer have the protections they need. Technically, Amazon could simply shut down that facility for 1 year and 1 day, and then reopen it and the Union will no longer exist. I have serious doubts about whether Amazon cares about the negative press they would get for doing exactly that.