This is some real ball-fondling born-into-privilege nonsense.
I could write to CEOs too, but I wouldn't be so impressed with their boilerplate social interaction, and the predictability of it is why I won't.
The substantive part is that nothing they wrote back to him, and nothing he wrote in this article was substantive aside from a vague claim about how CEOs who respond (with junk) are better CEOs.
i don't agree with your opinion, but don't think you should be silenced for having an opinion
it is always really refreshing to receive a response from anyone that is semi human. i'm in sales, and 99% of my outreach attempts end in silence or rejection
to form a personal connection with someone who is running a multi billion dollar business that could very well go bankrupt if mismanaged, well, its interesting to share ideas with them
I don't think it's a case of being born into privilege. From another blog post on the same site:
"I graduated from college with six figures in debt and no savings or investments. My first job out of college paid $400 per week. I ate dollar-menu fast food every day until I got sick and landed in the hospital. I paid $650 a month to live in a dank basement, ridden with bed bugs, and I slept on a mattress strewn on the floor. I hated my life."
Where's the part about not having a safety net?
Rich, secure people love to tout their riskless efforts as perilous when they did it voluntarily with no potential for long term negative consequence.
"Enterprise development" is not the same as "serious development". Anyone still doing regular old JavaScript without the transpiling and megaframework dependencies is arguably taking their task more seriously than those who are.
I'm sorry, but after having used TypeScript there's no way I'm ever going to back to writing pure JavaScript anymore (for anything but the most trivial stuff). It's borderline irresponsible, IMO.
I'd like to say I love typescript, too. It's better for collaborative development than raw JS. My point is different, that working in the "low level" or raw JS, obfuscated or not, is where the substantive work happens. Good example is the people working on frameworks.
Who's talking about transpiling and mega-frameworks? I'm simply talking about the headache of managing dependencies on a reasonably complex project. The "mega-frameworks", by which I assume you mean products such as Angular, React, Vue, etc., are often not the worst offenders when it comes to external dependencies. Of course, when you start pulling in extensions that story can change, but that can be true of pulling in any other library that provides equivalent functionality (where such exists).
Let's go out on a limb here and consider that people aren't overly self critical, and the problem is actually that they can't do anything about their failure to meet high self expectations, because they are in effect trapped in a prescribed lifestyle where they have no power to make meaningful change.
Let's go out on a limb and consider that while being less critical of yourself addresses the symptoms of disappointment, it doesn't address the causes of inutility of smart and capable people.
Let's consider that the quote "it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" is actually pretty insightful.
We are, as a culture and a species, failing in myriad ways. In my humble opinion, we should feel bad and we should change as well. We're just powerless to do much because of the strength of institutions that exist out of ritual and not out of rationality.
We're left to hate ourselves, because nature and ignorant humans with money and power do not care what we think, and have an answer for everything we do.
So what do we do? How can people force the world to change to utilize talented people? Meritocracy works decently in software, but as a too to manage other humans or other groups of humans, is there any good evidence that it will work?
Furthermore, is there evidence that mankind is meant to be well? I've heard native Americans talk about how nobody went hungry and nobody was broke before the concepts that colonialism brought to reality, but isn't that part of the cost of a modern world?
It's horrific that human history reveals that periods of conflict are usually actually pretty helpful for advancing technology (ww2, middle east, Internet to some extent), but there's no obvious alternative.
It seems that humans are invested in not going collectively backwards, technologically and this the possibilities created by new things becomes a sort of ew cursive expectation that we are trying to meet.
Folks a hair older than I am remember a time when man had not gone to space, much less landed on the moon. Now we are within several decades of having permanent structures on the moon that human beings will live on. It took us tens of thousands of years, but now we are here.
Humans being have to go forward until there's a better alternative.
Personally, I think we'll all be better off when AI surpasses us. If we behave, maybe it will fix our planet and leave us somewhere safe while it explores the cosmos.
I don't hate myself, either. I used to, but I had to stop when I put the bottle down. I'm not a psychologist, but self loathing is very often linked to some sort of addiction or disruptive emotional condition, just by my experience with other addicts and other miscreants like myself.
Sorry for not having some deep meaning, it just came to me when I read:
I don't hate myself, either. I used to, but I had to stop when I put the bottle down. I'm not a psychologist, but self loathing is very often linked to some sort of addiction or disruptive emotional condition, just by my experience with other addicts and other miscreants like myself.
I can relate to that - not exactly "putting down the bottle" but with the self loathing, being a miscreant and at the same time letting go of the self loathing. Not suddenly, but bit by bit in different scenarios of life, as I hopefully become a more mature person.
The phrase "Approach, friend" is from a song lyric that stuck with me.
"it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"
nature and ignorant humans with money and power do not care what we think, and have an answer for everything we do.
It is interesting to me that you identify an error mode in one sentence, and then demonstrate in yourself a few lines later. It seems you've abrogated your responsibility for your own well being, and moreover intellectually believe that this is the correct position.
The best argument against what you're saying is that if you accept it, then you accept futility of action. Since most such discussions are leading toward positive change, this makes the argument self-defeating. Another argument against is the simple truth that people can find happiness in the most unpleasant of circumstances, and unhappiness in the most pleasant. Society will never be perfect, therefore it really is within our power to be at peace.
Ironically, it is from a position of inner peace that the greatest and most lasting and most beneficial societal change can spring.
The US expects to be asked permission before encryption technology can be used in a software product. Our copyright and general intellectual property policy has been pushed on everyone else. We (The US) even go so far as to heavily interfere in other countries politics, covertly or overtly, to maintain favorable trade conditions and protect our prevailing ideology.
Lots of companies are ready for GDPR, i.e. the ones that handle user information responsibly in the first place, and aren't opaque data hoarders as a central part of their business model.
I'm personally not a fan of the "lets collect it because we can" mentality.
"Data is the new oil" is a great analogy because not only is it valuable, the industry of data gathering is booming with little to no care about the side effects or long term consequences.
Had the right to privacy been enshrined in protective laws much earlier, requiring explicit consent to profile peoples behavior as it pertains to technology, things would obviously be a lot different. Obstacles often represent opportunities for improvement. Hypothesizing:
1. Alternatives to traditional advertising as a method for creating markets for products and services would have a better chance of taking off. A world where we have a relationship with the source of product/service introductions, where we can discriminate and depend on them to discriminate, could prevent a lot of manipulative, misleading and damaging crap from reaching people, and ensure demand goes to the highest quality products/services.
2. The difficulty of gathering would drive the value of peoples personal information higher, likely leading to better protection i.e. more careful handling, fewer data breaches and leaks.
3. A lot of "wasted effort" gathering and storing information as part of this data frenzy that ultimately doesn't provide value to anyone, despite all the moving money, could have been avoided.
> the ones that handle user information responsibly in the first place, and aren't opaque data hoarders as a central part of their business model.
Do you only acknowledge the existence of these two categories? So only "data hoarders" would struggle with becoming GDPR compliant?
I've got clients in the charitable sector having to reconfirm their entire contact list - 99% of whom would be happy to stay in touch - because the provenance isn't up to GDPR standards. We're expecting to lose most of those because people forget to respond to yet another GDPR request.
Expensive audits and code reviews, re-architecting parts of the system that accidentally record fairly innocent personal data (IP addresses in logs and backups, historical shop order data, Test data copied from live data. Staging servers and all the other places that data ends up in when a website has been around for a decade or more)
Yes - this data could potentially be misused and it would have been wonderful to have anticipated when the system was originally built but that was in a more innocent age and nobody could have made a business case for it back then.
I would argue that the cost to organisations (many of whom are non-profit) vs the benefits to users is fairly out of kilter. Protecting user data perfectly is a noble aim but perfection costs.
No, I was a bit hyperbolic perhaps in response to the tone of the article or its headline. Of course there are responsible organizations who are affected and have costs associated with GDPR. Knowing nothing of what your clients do, 99% seems a bit hyperbolic to me, too. The reason email is so "hard" is because in reality not many people want to get the emails being sent. I find it annoying that I have to unsubscribe from a mailing list and sometimes even go out of my way not to get repeat snail mail when I'm being charitable and giving a donation to someone. Aside from all that, costs of doing business happen. I don't think the cost vs benefit is so out of kilter as you say.
Oh but regular collars must be animal abuse too, then, because tugging on a creatures neck is not pleasant. As well as not providing a square mile play area with ideal humidity and temperature and lots of fun toys.
The idea that our measurement of progress only needs to be binary (did we or didn't we progress?) shows indifference to the endless problems yet unsolved. Better than yesteryear doesn't mean good enough. Far from it.
I don't view progress as binary. That some things are worse now than in the past is a banal and uninteresting point, but it's clear that the world is much better now than it was even 50 years ago for the average person by virtually any metric that matters: number of people living in poverty, childhood mortality, life expectancy, chances of being persecuted for your religion, race, or sexual orientation. The list goes on.
There are obviously tons of problems still but the improvements that have been made are vast. I get that we still have a lot of progress to make, but the cynicism of the person I was replying to is inappropriate when you look at the facts.
I'm not sure that it would be ruinous. Isn't RSA still trusted? People have a tendency to overlook or even defend broken protocol when it's "the good guys"
