How bad must these people feel about themselves after though. Driving out to some seedy "sex box" to pay to have uncomfortable car sex. The self disgust on the drive back must really be something lol.
I get the whole "home grown industry" and sovereign production of defense and all that, but just like when Australia tried to build its own submarines, really you're better off just buying them off the shelf from your allies who've already been ploughing billions into design and development of the things for decades.
Spain has an active defense shipbuilding industry (e. Eg scorpene submarine), why would they buy them from someone else ? And these kind of program secure a lot of jobs, when you buy from outside you secure those jobs abroad.
From what I read about american airplanes they have this days software that call home and send tracking data, plus imagine some diplomatic incident(like a tweet of some extradition case) and you now have to worry if your submarines will be remotely bricked ... so yeah if you buy important crap from others make sure you can control the software too.
How many languages do we need again? The amount of time we spend playing around with special case languages and frameworks. Would be nice if machine languages followed the lead of natural languages, with a single one slowly pushing the rest to the sidelines.
What a terrible world that would be. For a while, 20 years ago, it looked like Java was going to be the one language to rule them all; dodged that bullet.
Kitchen sink languages are my least favorite. Give me something with a tight focus on a problem space.
There were some studies about the impact of the loss of some natural languages. Some represent a complete different ways of handling the world that are worth keeping.
It'll be interesting to see how things pan out from all this.
The internet has only really been with us for a few decades, and yet has completely transformed the fabric of humanity, acting as a bizarre and extreme lens upon existing human traits.
At some point, logically, there has to be sufficient reaction to bring us back in line with what we came from. The "winner take all" effects from the internet are just too extreme to be feasibly sustained.
You can't have a happy society with such extreme gaps between rich tech people and everyone else living in tents or off what they choose to spend their money on. You can't have a happy society where the top 5% of beautiful men are paying people to schedule their calendar of tinder lays while other guys buy thot bathwater, or where the top 5% of women get all the attention and the rest wonder where their prince charming is who's been denied them from all this as they sadly pass 30 alone.
The fact is, a huge amount of bad has come from the internet. A seriously huge amount. And the opportunity cost of all that capital that went into enraged politics on twitter and inanity on facebook, that could've gone into medical research... At least we got Musk from it I guess.
It's a strange feeling. Being an active participant and facilitator in something that is clearly not naturally aligned with human happiness, only human progress. In the end, what choice do we have. This is our natural aptitude, and succeeding in it can mean the difference between living paycheck to paycheck and becoming financially free. So we're going to do it. We have little choice. But we can't say any of it is fundamentally good. At best we're peddlers of the neutral and inevitable.
> You can't have a happy society where the top 5% of beautiful men are paying people to schedule their calendar of tinder lays while other guys buy thot bathwater, or where the top 5% of women get all the attention and the rest wonder where their prince charming is who's been denied them from all this as they sadly pass 30 alone.
This is so reductive of human relationships. You’re basing your entire worldview on what happens on Tinder and Instagram. That’s not the world, not even close.
Inevitability is the most important, least understood concept I think. You hear it expressed sometimes as 'great surfers need great waves.' (Of course 'great' leaves room for taste, but it conveys the right gist).
These forces are much larger than individual humans, or even humanity -- and yet we love to forget this and glorify the surfers as having, somehow, caused the waves.
Elon Musk was 'on it,' in a big way, sure. He clearly has exceptional wave selection, or maybe just tastes that aligned perfectly with a time, place, and kind of wave.
But the swells are coming, regardless of how you ride.
I think that you're probably spending too much time on the Internet if your model of romantic/sexual relationships is primarily based on what happens on a few apps/discussion boards. I don't mean that as an insult, just an observation of a trap that I think is easy to fall into.
In the real world pretty much everyone I know (say early 20s through late 30s age group) might have had the odd partner from Tinder or similar but the majority came through interactions in the real world like interest groups, work, the pub, extended friendship groups, etc.
In my experience of having used Tinder for a few days to see what it's all about it feels like a shitty digital version of going to a nightclub, which aren't going anywhere soon.
The answer to "I'm bad with social things" is to go and do social things, not to move about pixels on a phone.
This comment reminds me of the many cautionary comments and sermons made during the advent of rock'n'roll, TV, and film. I think it's complicated, to be sure, but I'm not so sure everything boils down to a net negative. I feel like our ape brains just need to keep iterating, and, with time, we'll naturally find a sort of middle path between mindless dopamine addiction (e.g. constantly checking our phones for that crack-cocaine-like short term good feeling) and asceticism.
Like a lot of us here I grew up in the 80's/90's when television was going to destroy civilization and global nulear war meant we were all doomed. Now social media and climate change are the next horsemen of the apocalypse.
> You can't have a happy society with such extreme gaps between rich tech people and everyone else living in tents or off what they choose to spend their money on.
Doesn't really apply to EU. Bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, some doctors, etc are the (small-time) rich.
Most of tech people barely touch the upper-middle class.
I have a feeling we're just not a respectable trade.
"Rich tech people" is such a bizarre and mostly imaginary group to rail against.
> Doesn't really apply to EU. Bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, some doctors, etc are the (small-time) rich. Most of tech people barely touch the upper-middle class.
Yep, like 80% of tech people don't make as much as the average doctor ($270k+). Of course this is ignoring the opportunity cost of the extra education. Same applies to top lawyers and bankers.
I think many people don't realize that we've so inflated our currency that you can be worth $2 million and still be upper middle class. Doubly true if you choose to deal with the extortionate taxes of California.
I'll try to respond, even though "lol" and linking an article isn't much to argue with.
I'm not worth that much money, though I do fine and have plenty of time to change that. I didn't have the SAT services or country clubs or private schools of your article. I went to an excellent school on a merit scholarship and not from entitlement.
You need to provide evidence for the middle class dying off. And you need to provide more than an opinion piece of rhetoric to substantiate your claim of a "10% aristocracy". Finally, you need to provide some evidence of why someone having more money than someone else is bad.
One thing I do agree with in your article: medicine and law are two state-sanctioned monopolies. I absolutely agree that the government ought to stop preventing competition. I also agree that the government should not prop up the financial sector or bail out any company, ever. Inflation is the biggest tax of all; great for finance and lousy for Americans.
From your article: "Let’s suppose that some of us do look up. We see the iceberg. Will that induce us to diminish our exertions in supreme child-rearing? The grim truth is that, as long as good parenting and good citizenship are in conflict, we’re just going to pack a few more violins for the trip."
I agree with removing government, but what's wrong with the way the top 10% of Americans are raising their children? What's the iceberg?
> My grandparents never lost faith in the limitless possibilities of a life free from government.
Yes, good.
> But in their last years, as the reserves passed down from the Colonel ran low, they became pretty diligent about collecting their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Unfortunately true. Everyone wants his handout, just take away the other guy's. Cut medicaid and increase farm subsidies, says one side; remove agricultural tariffs and more food stamps from the other. Let's get rid of both. Nobody gets to steal the wealth of another.
> regressive sales and property taxes.
You'll have to sell me on why "regressive" taxes are bad. As far as I'm concerned, here's how to fund the gov't: total expenses / number of adult citizens = each citizen's bill. Send it to everyone and everyone pays the same amount. This makes a lot of sense: within the stuff government ought to do (keep the peace, uphold property rights, and enforce contracts), no one gets significantly more in services than another.
> The income-tax system that so offended my grandfather has had the unintended effect of creating a highly discreet category of government expenditures. They’re called “tax breaks,” but it’s better to think of them as handouts that spare the government the inconvenience of collecting the money in the first place.
This is disingenuous; stealing less money is not an expenditure.
> None of them can afford to live around here... In 1980, a house in St. Louis would trade for a decent studio apartment in Manhattan. Today that house will buy an 80-square-foot bathroom in the Big Apple.
Move elsewhere. I choose not to live in an uber-expensive metropolis of the "coastal elites" because I don't want to spend that much. Sounds like St. Louis is a fine place to start looking, especially with the advent of remote work.
> Local zoning regulation imposes excessive restrictions on housing development and drives up prices.
Yes. Zoning is stupid. The state has no right to tell a citizen what he may or may not do with his property.
All this amounts to roughly a hundred pounds of fine whine. One having more than another is not an issue except for envious people who wish to steal their wealth through the club of the state.
> You need to provide evidence for the middle class dying off.
Well, the demographics themselves might be elsewhere (or not), but the graph in the article does show the 90% doing worse. Especially if one equates "middle class" with "being able to afford health care and to go to college without being saddled by crushing debt".
> And you need to provide more than an opinion piece of rhetoric to substantiate your claim of a "10% aristocracy".
No, I don't think so, this isn't a research paper.
> Finally, you need to provide some evidence of why someone having more money than someone else is bad.
I don't, if only it was so easy !
> Send [the government bill] to everyone and everyone pays the same amount. This makes a lot of sense
No, it doesn't, I'm surprised that there are still people that would even think that - and how exactly are you going to tax homeless people that way, huh ?
>Doesn't really apply to EU. Bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, some doctors, etc are the (small-time) rich.
Lawyers aren't doing that great anymore thanks to so many people jumping on the bandwagon and I'd be very wary of AI not completely revolutionizing court anytime soon, considering most of it is rule evaluation. Regarding doctors, aside from dedicated specialists and dentists, they also aren't doing that hot given the effort and sacrifices they make. The other jobs are self-explanatory: they have a long history with money, so money should be the least of their problems. If anything, I'd wager a self-employed tech person working as a senior dev or a consultant will do much better than any of those at an earlier age, and self-employment as a tech person would be much easier than any of those (aside from maybe a lawyer?).
Aside from that, most of these people I'd generally consider upper-middle class. Moving to the upper class only seems to happen if you invest or become an entrepreneur / self-employed, and even then its unlikely. Most people in upper class were born in that state, raised with a huge advantage and require less effort to stay upper class than someone else getting into the upper class.
I would probably retire, before I reached that kind of salary as a Software Engineer in Germany (especially as a foreigner from a post-communist state). There's a very hard glass ceiling here.
Alternatively I could highly increase my chances (and quality of life) by jumping the border to Switzerland.
I'm a big fan of the "fire and motion" concept of dev social paradigm.
The idea is that devs and large companies have a tendency to constantly move away from tried and tested concepts not because the juice is genuinely worth the squeeze, but because doing so forces the devs "in their dust" back into learning mode and out of productivity mode, thereby maintaining or creating leadership over them (i.e. you force them into playing catchup -- catchup to your new "hot" thing).
Case in point with this article: an attempt to declare that a tried and tested and widely used concept is now outdated, and they know the "right way" we should be doing it.
This paradigm is important from a dev management perspective, in that there must be an element of actively suppressing this in a dev organisation.
E.g. having approved tech lists so you don't have another half dozen js frameworks inserted over the next 12 months, requiring permission to stray outside standard paradigms, and compartmentalizing experimental time from production time.
Otherwise your dev output drops through the floor.
MVC is fine. Its a basic concept that aligns with the underlying hardware: model - memory, view - screen, controller - cpu. It ain't broke, don't let your devs fix it.
