It's maddening that this is considered so novel and cutting edge. The fact that this hasn't been a standard for research for a hundred years is a mockery of science.
danielquinn
joined 2 years ago
"Oh hi! Here's some code. I didn't write it and don't understand it, but you should totally run it on your machine."
I honestly remember it being good... in the 1980s. The doughnuts were gloriously big and fresh.
There is no appeasing a tyrant, only resistance.
Ahh yes, agreeing to respect international law: the lowest bar of effort. How sad is it that this feels like something we must celebrate?
Oh I'm not defending China. They're oppressive assholes who are jamming their populace into the gears of capitalism even faster than the Americans. Fuck those guys.
I just think it's a bit rich to try to make the argument that we should defend an industry that profits from building things we don't want so they can run over more kids, ruin more cities, and make a shittone of cash and then cry poor and demand a bailout.
Personally, I wouldn't buy one myself, but then again I try to avoid cheap Chinese crap as much as possible and I don't want a car. The "BuT sLaVe LaBoUr!" Argument would be great, if anyone seemed to care about that when buying phones, or solar panels, or basically anything else, but when it's invoked to defend American car companies, it's obviously not in good faith.
This would be a bad deal for ~~Canada~~ the big car companies that have been producing massive, dangerous, filthy, wasteful monster trucks instead of smaller EVs thanks to protectionist policies.
FTFY
Am I the only one who thinks this might be a Caretaker reference?
It still feels a bit much like a CW series, but it's Star Trek, so I'll give it a shot.
Also, I'm dying to know what The Doctor has been doing for the last thousand years.
Oh noes! Whatever will we do if we can't keep building ridiculous emotional support trucks like land rovers??
I fucking haaaaaaaate cars, but I'll take a fleet of smaller, cheaper EVs over the filthy, dangerous, antiquated, artificially propped-up monstrosities we're dealing with now.
Working from home sucks. Yeah I said it.
I'm a software engineer, and yes, there are days that working from home really does help with concentration and focus on a particular project, but unless you're a contractor, tasked with "build this and come back when it's finished", building anything is typically a collaborative process. You know what sucks for collaboration? Working from home.
There are no tools that can sufficiently replace what the office offers: interaction, chance conversation, camaraderie and socialising with the people with whom you're trying to build The Thing. It's why people still go to actual conferences and no one cares about gigantic Zoom calls masquerading as real interaction. Slack sucks, Jira sucks, Teams suuuuuuucks. They'll do in a pinch, but they'll never offer real collaboration. For that, you still have to be in the same building.
That's not to say that offering remote work isn't great. There are people who work best in isolation, but that's not all of us. I'd argue that it isn't even most of us, and headlines like this "working from home makes us thrive" aren't helping. They're objectively bullshit. Having been in software development for 25 years, I can categorically state that the more remote the team I've been in, the less organised, the more disjointed and disconnected it is.
And don't get me started on the whole "overemployment" trend, where people try to hold down two jobs by doing neither well at all. Yet another "perk" of remote work I guess.