Governments are completely run by monetary expenditure.
You don't spend all your budget cause you savy? Great, we'll put that money with someone else next year.
Spend all your money on junk? Great we'll give you more money next year because you clearly need it.
What needs to happen is to decouple monetary spend from incentives.
Incentivise saving money and use escape hatches to protect budgets from fluctuations (saving one year might not be recurring, this shouldn't affect your spend next year)
Elaborate on what? They're an opinion that data integrity is dependent on foreign keys containing pointers at existing data.
In systems where actual row deletion doesn't actually happen its kind of a pointless kick to the nuts.
Now I have to create things in a specific order for no reason other than foreign keys say so. When you're using uuids for reference keys you're not beholden to what order you insert you can have these things span databases or have separate systems do the insert.
For a naive example, maybe I have an order A, and two orderliness A1, A2, why do I have to create A before I create A1 and A2. Why can't I loadbalance those three operations to different systems that insert at different timings.
Eventually they all line up, and my system is resilient enough to be ok with that.
With foreign keys you're just beholden to some feigned idea about data integrity but it's mostly bullshit.
The other common situation is when you need to backup tables and restore them elsewhere in whatever order you want, foreign keys just get in the way.
I see your point for decentralised systems, "eventual consistency" is an unavoidable evil in many cases there at least if you don't want a performance hole caused by distributed transaction requirements.
But otherwise, I disagree strongly.
> feigned idea about data integrity but it's mostly bullshit
I call BS on your call of BS.
> The other common situation is...
If that is common in your production environments, then I never want to work with your production environments.
> foreign keys just get in the way.
Disable them, do the jiggery-pokery, and then replace them. Again, but not in production systems.
If FKs are an inconvenience day-to-day then you have something seriously wrong somewhere. They are protection against bugs and other unpredictables causing corruption of data that other code later relied upon being correct.
Mac os hasn't just worked for developers for a long time.
They missed the entire container revolution with docker. I still come across Devs using Mac's that are afraid of docker because it's too confusing and black box. (It's Linux in there right?)
At work we have a rather overengineered method of proxying to our production services for security reasons. Mac users are currently constantly having to deal with abstraction layers on top of abstraction layers to make things barely reliable. I just use a systemd unit file and haven't looked at it in years.
Homebrew tool, while great for more obscure things, it should really only be a fallback, not the default. It's basically a confusing and black box version of the AUR.
BSD/apple ways of doing things are just annoying. It's fine for the average user. But for Devs that want to do things in the same way they do them on their server it's just another hoop to jump through.
The sad thing is that moving every Dev in the company over to Linux would probably be worthwhile long term, but I really don't think they have the willpower to relearn things even if they are that much better.
I evaluated it less than a year ago, and it froze after about 30-60 seconds. This happened about five years ago as well, when I evaluated it last time. It turns out to be the global search that somehow just... freezes the whole program while indexing.
To be honest, outlook for mac isn’t particularly great either. It is not much of a step up from outlook web access, which is what I ended up using on linux after trying all the mail clients. Evolution with the ews plugin came close, but required a ton of configuration and the tasks integration was never quite right.
> To be honest, outlook for mac isn’t particularly great either.
I've never used Outlook for Mac, but there's the Apple Mail.app on the mac which works great with Exchange. I'd choose it over Outlook on Windows every time.
It shouldn't matter what his role is. Saying some off the cuff stuff a few years ago in an obscure book doesn't make a workplace unsafe. That is disingenuous.
I've seen people fired for similar "unsafe" bullshit. Literally anything can trigger these deranged individuals. They're just out to play victim and get attention.
And no, I don't think all toxic workplace behaviour is like this, many places have narcissists and similar types roaming the halls making things extremely traumatic for many people. That stuff is real and I feel for the people that get out through the ringer by these environments.
But a book? 6 years ago? In the context of a zombie apocalypse hypothetical? Get the fuck outa here.
Dude was hired as a senior exec. Part of the job description is being a public persona representing the company. And the majority of the public disagrees with him. What are we taught to do as engineers when we don't agree with the majority? Disagree and commit. What did he do? Throw a temper tantrum along the lines of "how come Dre gets to be sexist and I don't". Forget opinions, he screwed up a basic job requirement. It's OK, we all make mistakes, and his was big enough to get canned. Life goes on.
“ They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.”
so this is ok because he’s saying they’re only useless in an apocalyptic scenario? he’s literally saying that the core of women is useless in the “real world”.
i understand that it can feel like there’s a group of anonymous “woke thugs” wondering the internet trying to get people. if you feel that way it might be useful for you to try and empathize with why someone would feel that way.
If I recall, the context was that he was dating a woman who was a bit of a tomboy and saying how cool it was that she was better at power tools and such than he was, and this comparison to typical SF tech women was part of that extended riff. It wasn't part of an incel monologue about 'femoids' or something.
Ultimately, if we let this continue, it becomes a war on flavor and humor, where no rhetorical fun is allowed lest someone take it the wrong way.
your point is fair. i agree with the idea that allowing outrage to drive all conversations is terrible.
at the same time, i feel like i’d have known better than to generalize like this and publish it. i understand there’s context about how/why it was said.
i’d really love to be able to express my thoughts that border on “anti-woke” but i don’t. i feel like the only way for us to be honest about our feelings is to be anonymous.
i guess at some level i would hope this person would’ve been smart enough to know that. there’s a social game we all have to play, and just because it sucks we can’t not deal with it.
In a modern social media world, it's generally a pretty bad idea to make over the top controversial statements even if they have a context and you don't intend them to be taken seriously. And it's probably worth noting that in this case, it became an issue because the person in question wrote them in a published book and was being hired for a fairly high-profile position. But it can just as easily be some 20-something who posts something on Twitter (or gets captured for YouTube)that goes viral, given they're essentially disposable from the perspective of their current (and potential future) employers.
And I don't even blame the companies. They're just looking out for their own interests and individual current or potential future employees have pretty much zero weight as balanced against any public PR hit.
Governments are completely run by monetary expenditure.
You don't spend all your budget cause you savy? Great, we'll put that money with someone else next year.
Spend all your money on junk? Great we'll give you more money next year because you clearly need it.
What needs to happen is to decouple monetary spend from incentives.
Incentivise saving money and use escape hatches to protect budgets from fluctuations (saving one year might not be recurring, this shouldn't affect your spend next year)