When you like your profession, your job you still do for money. Otherwise you’d be playing with similar things at home to much more satisfaction.

So here I won’t agree and say that tech needs unions. Union pressure would solve the problem of labor organization and on-job education, so that they wouldn’t be shit at their jobs.

Skill and such things are practically important for scientists, maybe.

I wanted to become a dev 12 years ago, when it was still cool.

Needless to say that I haven’t, even if doctors I talked to refused to diagnose me with ADHD, my ASD and BAD and anxiety from many things kinda make it not a very good direction.

So - now I could probably become a dev, with the experience gained. But it’s really not the time when this is a good choice LOL.

In the 90s “web” was about knowing FTP, HTTP and HTML. Should have stayed this way. Scripts in browsers were a mistake.

I take it there are not going to be many autistic new devs in the coming decades over there, with such requirements.

To the quote in the summary - might be because debugging dozens of layers of bullshit is hard. Anyway, debugging is about sitting for hours and reading logs and looking for weirdness, and looking at dumps, and what not. It’s a very different skill from “being the next Zuckerberg”. Also Zuckerberg is a psychologist most of all, his computing knowledge is not that unique. Network effect is more important than skill and knowledge here.

Good news would be them strategically repositioning in favor of their mid-90s image. Would be hard, but doable.

Green energy, autonomous devices, openness to tinkering, friendliness, “other companies mess with you and we don’t”, perhaps some retrofuturism. It wouldn’t even be out of character, they sort of hold the window open, with the kind of series on AppleTV they are making, and part of their advertising, and even honestly with their devices being not yet as enshittified.

Just do that for real.

And honestly, Apple is not the worst of these companies. Perhaps they were just worse at baiting.

In general, over years I’m slowly becoming more and more appreciative of Apple. Their advertising is just atrocious and their stuff is very expensive in, eh, pretty outrageous ways (like a charger costing like some devices together with their chargers), but that’s pretty open and honest. “We sell you that for our humongous price, we say it’s miraculous and magically cool, and it seems like a scam, but you can say no”. While with Google and Meta and such they first sell you something looking normal, and then farm and abuse you indefinitely.

So I’d wish for Apple to survive the bubble bursting (for which I hope they don’t go the AI way) and become a more general-kind computing company. Maybe hold closer to 50% of personal computing in the world, not the luxury niche they are holding now.

All who argue in the interwebs are potential victims honestly. And those who argue with them, even if only IRL. How do you tell which news, which discourses and which commenters are bots (or repeat after bots, or consult bots)?

eh, sorry, I’m sometimes starting to get a feeling most people in the English-speaking interwebs are from the US, and I’m a fool playing in the wrong sandbox

a good reminder that no

The jerk has his own Wikipedia page.

Basically an ideologist of what you get if you remove NAP and common property of unmade resources from ancap. Would be a funny thought experiment if there weren’t crowds of people, working in those big companies, thinking his ideology is good and right.

Thanks for what? I’m not knowledgeable, it’s just poking with my finger into the sky

Translation is the only task that seems to make sense for it.

The is a genuine question that I don’t have the answer to.

I would say that because nobody can muster the consensus on any real policy. There’s plenty of legacy, with many different people and teams responsible, knowledge lost and so on.

And then this requires some sort of unified vision. Despite, eh, all the downsides, Apple can do that. MS can’t.

They’d honestly have to make a separate “neowin” subsystem with new GUI and everything, and make win32 and win64 and all the old tooling optional and parallel. Because their approach to backward compatibility means keeping everything around. They can’t fix the mess maintaining that.

If that “AI” is getting feedback from fixes they make, then it makes sense. They are basically training it all the time. Except training it on their own devs seems to be pissing against the wind.

They know that they know nothing. They do what they must and let be what comes. An enlightened monopolist corporation.

One lesson they took from RedHat, is it not?

A funny idea, but not always. Some of the “ruling class” are genuinely racist.

It’s a logical continuation of them being on top. Some people are better than others, in their opinion. They are better than those not of their group and set of opinions, their country (sometimes of residence and not where they rule) is better than other countries, their ethnicity is better than other ethnicities, and their race is better than other races. The reason they want to impress these hierarchical divisions is they want to impress their worldview, not to create division.

So, again about USA. You guys have that crap in everything. That’s why motivational letters by American students to European universities are a comedy genre. You don’t even see it, but your official tone (and even much of the political discussions and social one) is half bullshit, half markers of identity (that kind of neighborhood, that kind of ancestry, that kind of some other tribal classification, all clear cut and exclusive). Well, there are also markers of connections thrown here and there. And your discussions are usually not discussions, they are like playing cards with those markers instead, where one marker beats another, there can be no discussion after that.

Sigh. I have relatives in the USA who moved there long enough ago to be carriers of that and other things too, so when my uncle was helping me with writing a CV, for the initial variant I just followed his advice and I’m not ever showing that pretentious crap to anyone. Despite him being a tremendous help with my executive dysfunction (and unfortunately impediment where he conditioned one project on me finishing uni, I still haven’t finished uni, it’s indefinitely paused).

Sockets are an operating system abstraction and have nothing to do with this conversation.

Of course.

That’s the second Indochina war, and American bombing was mostly done against Vietnamese targets in the jungle in the neighboring countries, so mostly it was still Vietnam. But yes, they regularly hit civilian targets in the neighboring countries.

The first Indochina war was France testing its contemporary new and shiny western military doctrines in the wild and finding them lacking.

In general this seems to be a pattern, western nations indeed value lives of their soldiers very much. I doubt it’s because of humanism (they don’t value enemy civilian population’s), rather because of inherent racism. But it shows in the doctrines, they are always looking for a way to create a situation where they can hit their enemy, but their enemy can’t hit them, and where they are moving so much faster than their enemy, that their enemy could as well be a sitting duck. To create a baby beating disposition. That’s harmful for military’s experience and esprit de corps, but appeals to the western nations’ feel of superiority. Long term harm, short term impressions.

So - it didn’t work. They were using air logistics and supply depots in a system all over the place and small expert mobile forces and all that stuff the western public still considers proper way of fighting a war. In other words, they tried to cheat. And Viet Minh just did their work honestly, in many small steps, over long enough time.

Of course the French logistics were conditioned by fighting on the other side of the globe from metropoly, and Viet Minh fought at home. But honestly it seems to be a pattern in all wars for any European nation, ideas of superiority and quick spectacular solution are always replaced for more classical understanding once actually tried. It’s a cliche that USSR’s approach was mass assault with no regard for lives, but, ahem, Tukhachevsky is one of the creators of the ideas that became Wehrmacht’s doctrine in the beginning.

While the USA in Vietnam decided to show another thing - that they are not France and can just burn all of the fucking jungle with their power. And they burned much of that, except their population wasn’t ready even for the pretty moderate losses there (like 4x what USSR lost in Afghanistan).