4 ms·
Yes? That's not really relevant. You can just as well say "The company does not exist to give you money. It exists to provide a product to its customers." When
by scrollaway 11y ago
Yes? That's not really relevant. You can just as well say "The company does not exist to give you money. It exists to provide a product to its customers."
When you're getting a salary you're standing in the way of the company making that money they're giving you. It's very counter-productive (and illegal, as you mentioned), but if you find this silly maybe you understand why I find your original reply silly.
- rosser 11y agoBut the company doesn't exist to give you money. That you, specifically, get paid for your specific services is incidental to the company's purpose, which is, indeed, serving the needs of its customers. Your job is to facilitate that, not to play with cool new tech. You aren't "standing in the way" of them making the money they pay you; they're making a choice, with every paycheck, that your time is worth more to them than what they're spending to keep you there. You upset that balance by introducing instability into the stack because it's new and shiny at the ultimate risk of making that exchange no longer worthwhile.