I don't work in IT, so I can see some differences from that field to mine. But being a functional manager in a business, I can't tell you how invaluable it is to walk outside my office to 20-30 cubicles and being able to get a quick answer or have a quick discussion on something, and how often people overhearing conversations in the office saves useless work.
I'm not "insanely wealthy" and I am getting a benefit from the tax cuts, as are most people. Or we can get rid of other obligations like welfare to fund it as well - give money from the non-working (and in some cases arguably useless) to the working.
Nearly as ironic: the first public big splash article about Theranos was a puff piece in the WSJ by a Pulitzer Prize winner (the investigative story was from a 2-time Pulitzer winner, John Carreyrou)
Because non-IT users (your customers) are sick and tired of apps from 2000 that run clunky and ugly because someone is "forcing you change it" (aka doing your job) and you don't feel like it. Yes,
I know some extremely well-written apps from 2000 without trendy obfuscating flat interface, and many trendy albeit unusable monstrosities from the past 3 years. What kind of argument did you make?
Embracing pure technical churn is no ones job. That's why Python3 is viewed as a problem by so many. People embrace true technical innovation, which it is not.
Free market will judge the right price. Lots of people put free content out there, some of it pretty good. Not as good as Code School's content, but people have to see the value difference. Just because you put a lot of hours in doesn't mean people will appreciate it and pay more for it.
Going to jump out on a limb and assume you're an American like me, if I'm wrong change the metaphors. What if another country killed a million of our countrymen. 20 years from now, would you have to apologize for the actions of the CIA, or the worst actions of all our leaders in the prior 40 years? Would you have to apologize for that before, during or after any reminiscences about the destruction of your country?
And similarly it's a little odd to hold an entire country of 350 million people responsible for the self serving decisions made by a small cabal of powerful oil people(Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.)
Similarly was the entire country of Iraq responsible for horrific transgressions against the Kurds, Iran and Kuwait or just a small cabal of corrupt people with real power?
I guess "Fifteen years ago, American armed forces and American mercenaries destroyed my country at the bidding of the democratically elected leaders, but with only partial consent of the citizens" was too wordy.
To be serious, blaming an "entire country" is a little more understandable if that country is a functioning democracy. Of course, if it's actually an oligarchy where the government is above the law and many voters are disenfranchised and easily manipulated by unchecked propaganda, then... well, that's frustrating.
>"To be serious, blaming an "entire country" is a little more understandable if that country is a functioning democracy."
No it would be "more understandable" if that country was a direct democracy and the people actually voted on the resolution. The US is a representative democracy and often resembles a plutocracy at that.
So continuing with your simplistic analysis - if someone was from a democratic leaning state and none of their elected officials voted for the resolution does that mean those people are free from blame? What if someone's elected official voted in favor of the resolution to invade Iraq but that individual was themself against it. So that individual is held to blame?
The US may have a system of democratically electing representatives but many(most?) of those elected representatives look out for themselves first, their party second and the will of the people that put them in office a distant third.
The US may have a system of democratically electing representatives but many(most?) of those elected representatives look out for themselves first, their party second and the will of the people that put them in office a distant third.
Good thing you didn't start off with a snide remark about the simplicity of my analysis.
Anyway, I would separate "blame" and "responsibility". There's a difference between the blame for the war and whatever responsibility the United States has to Iraq going forward. The blame lies in the past. The responsibility to improve upon our mistakes is pretty obvious if we want to pretend we have some sort of national morality.
>"Good thing you didn't start off with a snide remark about the simplicity of my analysis"
There was no intention on my part of being the least bit derogatory. Your entire argument for why and entire country is to blame amounted to two pithy sentences.
I'm not sure why you would fail to see that how that might considered overly simplistic. Instead you have chosen to interpret it as a personal attack of which it was not.
