bpt3

34 ms·

721.
by bpt3 1y ago
The idea is that smaller group of people actually have some integrity and sense of duty to the people they represent and the country at large, rather than just pulling the lever for the thing that benefits them the most in the immediate ter
722.
by bpt3 1y ago
These sound like the exact reasons we don't have a direct democracy. “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” - not Peter Thiel
723.
by bpt3 1y ago
The people who voted for the politicians implementing this generally live in those areas, so I think everyone is getting what they wanted on the whole? To be clear, I am not in favor of these cuts, but nothing is preventing state, local or
724.
by bpt3 1y ago
It's almost like that declaration doesn't have the impact you seem to think it does. Open access means just that to most people, not free reign to do whatever you like with the content as the hosting piece isn't all that rele
725.
by bpt3 1y ago
Servers are commodities, a on-prem cloud is not.
726.
by bpt3 1y ago
Cloud computing is significantly more expensive than self-hosting for most large organizations. People are slowly figuring that out, and Oxide was a bet on the timing of that realization.
727.
by bpt3 1y ago
Almost every other role is at least one level removed from putting cash in the company's account, which is what leads to the shenanigans you described with metrics that are a poor proxy for revenue generation (and/or are too easy
728.
by bpt3 1y ago
> But that's the same no matter if you work in sales, customer support or many other roles, a lot of people just care about the money with little regards to anything else, It's actually not the same for many roles. See the comm
729.
by bpt3 1y ago
The target audience as I understand it is companies that have gone cloud-only or close to it and are big enough where moving workload on-prem makes financial sense. They can migrate to an Oxide "cloud" without too much difficultly
730.
by bpt3 1y ago
It's not that they're unable to; it's that the field attracts people who are financially motivated and other companies have compensation structures that reward personal performance. Top salespeople generally won't work f
731.
by bpt3 1y ago
> Other authors of research and I are the ones demanding this. We're the ones giving the gift horse in the first place. People who don't play a part in creating human knowledge generally aren't interested in reading papers
732.
by bpt3 1y ago
Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth... And to claim that new articles aren't important or that the ACM will never publish a highly impactful paper again is absurd. Enjoy your free access to a wealth of human knowledge you play
733.
by bpt3 1y ago
sure, whatever you say
734.
by bpt3 1y ago
You think you live under constant surveillance in the US? While there might be more surveillance than you like, claiming there is constant surveillance everywhere in the nation (or anywhere really) is ridiculous.
735.
by bpt3 1y ago
They (we) do, just for groups that incur the highest medical expenses on average. Why we can't just open up Medicare to all is beyond me, adding on the portions of the population who are on average the healthiest (and who are already
736.
by bpt3 1y ago
That's not how subsidization works at all. Until people like you figure that out, you're going to continue to be sorely disappointed with your political progress, because your "perspective" is not remotely logical.
737.
by bpt3 1y ago
Things like the soundproofing regulation you are advocating for are written in blood? And there is no example of oversupply not leading to price drops in residential construction. See every existing city with population declines as an examp
738.
by bpt3 1y ago
Who is this imaginary "historical communist" you mentioned? You're claiming Mao killing millions with idiotic policies (not to mention all the scapegoats he killed intentionally) was okay because he was "trying"? Or
739.
by bpt3 1y ago
Sure, no one is. However, a top performer is much less likely to be exploited and much more likely to have their pay reduced by collective bargaining.
740.
by bpt3 1y ago
I work to make money. My obligation there is to ethically make as much money as possible for my company, myself, and my employees. I build community/commons/etc. in my personal time (which also includes some overlap since I do hav
741.
by bpt3 1y ago
All that matters here is that the CEO and company are negotiating without one side being able to apply some sort of external pressure to force the other to capitulate to their demands. Unless of course you're claiming that CEOs are bri
742.
by bpt3 1y ago
Because it's not a massive disruption? The CEO of Starbucks currently commutes to the office for his 3 days a week of in person work from southern CA to Seattle via private jet. Would it be a massive disruption if he commuted from Cana
743.
by bpt3 1y ago
And because the stronger engineers are giving up some earnings to the less skilled engineers, the larger pot doesn't matter to them. Unions basically buy job security for a fixed duration of time for their members by offering concessio
744.
by bpt3 1y ago
I did not misread it. My point is that you can fall well below the top 1% and still fail to benefit from a union.
745.
by bpt3 1y ago
Most CEOs do own a majority share in their company, because they are very small businesses. But even talking about publicly traded companies and their private equivalents in scale, plenty of them move their HQ when it makes financial sense
746.
by bpt3 1y ago
The gap is much smaller for private sector workers, and it's somewhat self-selecting by the fields where a union exists at all. If I'm one of many types of service worker, sure I very well might join a union because I'm prett
747.
by bpt3 1y ago
I have no problem with unions as a concept and if people want to join them that's fine with me. However, unions in practice enforce mediocrity while also becoming an institution that exists to support itself (aka its leaders) rather th
748.
by bpt3 1y ago
Why? Assuming you're talking about a standard US union and not something like a guild, it would ultimately suppress wages for the top talent to provide job security to the other end of the bell curve.
749.
by bpt3 1y ago
In reality, the people who earn that much will do what it takes to avoid those taxes, including moving themselves or their business to someplace that won't confiscate their income if needed.
750.
by bpt3 1y ago
US style unions generally require the above average workers to give up some form of compensation to benefit the below average workers. While you could argue "too many tech workers think they are some kind of top 50% of tech workers&quo

More ›