I don't mean to insult or claim you're not thinking thoroughly or clearly, but this appears to me to be gross oversimplification of several deep topics wrt developing new technologies, the mission to advance the advent of sustainable energy and transport, and founding billion-dollar companies.
Also I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim you would be incapable of your perceived level of dishonesty, because you yourself are selling the idea that it's dishonest based on these gross oversimplifications.
When someone is identified with an institution, any criticism of the institution is taken as a direct attack on their identity and so they must defend with the same righteous indignance that they would from someone assassinating their character.
Using conspiracy theories, bunk science, and outright lies to influence the lower-awareness majority _is_ political action, and evidently it is currently one of the more effective strategies.
I've seen this explicitly espoused on many occasions by many people that only the inclusion of certain groups that are marginalized is meaningful for inclusivity and that explicitly excluding groups not perceived to be marginalized is not damaging to inclusivity and the final determination on this is based on the subjective opinion of whoever is talking meaning that many people who agree on the premise disagree on what meaningful inclusion means at the implementation level.
They all seem to agree that the consequences to people who don't agree with their vision should be severe.
This would certainly not conform to most previous definitions of inclusivity.
The companies I've worked at have been very bad at measuring things like "this is how much that bug cost us in terms of people who tried the app once and then never came back." They're so focused on the data sources that are easy to collect that things like this are basically invisible. They know churn rate is an important thing to track, but look at it much more from a "what about this new feature, or changing the color of the icons" perspective, than from a "what if our software was less of a dumpster fire?" perspective.
If you want to build quickly AND have flexibility AND have some reliability, you're gonna need some experienced employees, but if that's not a thing you've ever seen cause you've only ever worked with people fresh out of school... you're not gonna know what you're missing.
An older employee with experience can often see and avoid problems before they occur. A younger, inexperienced employee will not and will have to find the problem and attempt to fix it, usually three or four times before the problem is actually solved.
So, for six or twelve months, the employer can sail along gloriously, enjoying the benefits of cheaper employees. Until the bill comes due. And at that time no one can really help them except their current employees, who are the only ones who understand the history-dependent system they've built.
Fortunately, the time scales that most employers operate at rarely exceeds six to twelve months.
"A net gain" implies that savings in a youngster's salary exceeds the losses due to their inexperience. You're saying you know how all these add up in the neterprise?
I sure don't. I doubt most employers do either, since IT productivity is notoriously hard to quantify. Generally, it's more important to know what not to do. And that's something that only comes with time -- making mistakes and learning from them.
you have my name, and my views. I don't know how to feel about this. there's some solace in knowing Mike Lyons is an extraordinarily popular name though.
In the context of humanity. People do this even in non-capitalist countries. Or do you think that when a country is not capitalist the people suddenly stop doing things to benefit themselves?
I would argue that this is a perspective of someone with power in the job market, and perhaps that perspective is limited to a small portion of workers' experiences.
I also find "don't like it, leave" to be a very unaware oversimplification of the situation many American workers are in.
The wildfire smoke has brought that future that we'd feared and daydreamed (daymared?) about; where we can actually see the posibility and impetus for living in self-contained bubbles of breathable atmosphere and livable temperatures.
Now is the time that we are finally transitioning to electric vehicles and hopefully toward sustainable policies and economies, but has the collective level of consciousness risen to empower us to meet these challenges?
Electric vehicles are just one piece of the solution. We stop the output of new CO2 emissions for private and commercial transportation. Then we gotta do agriculture. Then we gotta decentralize the power grid. Then we gotta further decentralize agriculture again. Then we gotta better manage tens of millions of acres of hardly traversable terrain that's been fuel loading for a century. The list goes on and on. We've lost decades of progress by side-tracking ourselves with complete bs narratives being pumped out of monied interest groups that prefer things stay they way they are. I hate to be a pessimist but we might be right and truly fucked at this point.
Also I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim you would be incapable of your perceived level of dishonesty, because you yourself are selling the idea that it's dishonest based on these gross oversimplifications.