I constantly call out juniors who do things like ignore warnings, completely unaware that the warning is going to cause serious tech debt in a few months.
But Ive also unfortunately shrugged after seeing hundreds of warnings because to update this requires me to go through 3 layers of departments and we’re still waiting on these six other blockers.
Yeah I’m one of the “I only want to write this fucker once so I will make it as solid as I can” types… and my manager/team-lead/principal dev (all the same person - that’s a whole other story) is the “yolo send it” type.
We do not get on well. I’m probably going to switch teams or jobs soon.
So, obviously, people don’t generally change their legal gender for an advantage somewhere. But if they do, that’s a pretty good sign, not that it’s too easy to change your gender, but that there’s a gender bias in the law.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is. Conservatives must love this! End liberal overreach in one easy step!
I agree. The Daily Mail no doubt uses this as a way to say “legally changing your gender should be harder”, but that’s fixing the wrong problem. Gender fluidity isn’t the problem, gender inequality is.
Gender should be as unimportant as eye color in most things in life. If your system breaks from someone changing their gender, you need to fix your system.
Thing is, There are less women in STEM, there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men. The rational behind affirmative action and programs geared towards women isn’t that women are less skilled and therefore need more help, rather that society makes it harder for a woman achieve the same as a similarly skilled man. By treating women differently we can help level the playing field.
Also, making gender “as unimportant as eye color in most things in life” is a completely unrealistic goal in the near future even in the most liberal countries in the world. We can (and do) strive to reach it, but that’s not a viable solution for issues we have right now.
And you know what? Legally changing your gender SHOULD be harder than filling a form. Someone who’s transgender should have no problem showing that’s what they are. The thing is to make sure the legal process is done respectfully, without making the person feel like they’re being interrogated.
[…], there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men.
For management its actually a quite complex problem. First of all, women themselves seem to underestimate themself more than men and so don’t apply for higher jobs(e.g. Manager) since they underestimate their skills and potential thinking, they aren’t able to suit such a role, even tho they could. At the same time the manager(etc.) Are mostly males, so the stereotypical view of a manager iis a guy, which may also lead to women not believing in themselves. When women do apply for a higher role they often get overlooked. They get judged much more critical in terms of skills, while their potential often gets overlooked. This causes female applicants to often not get accepted for said positions. This is also one of the reasons, why women are less likely(around 14%) to get a promotion. Last but not least the typical Charakter traits that a manager needs, are often associated with masculinity(e.g. Strength, endurance, rationality,…).
Yeah, there’s a similar issue from the other side (at least in my country) - Men will usually apply for a job if they don’t meet all the requirements, while women won’t tend to do so.
Going on a tangent off “The traits that people typically associate with success in leadership, such as assertiveness and strength" (from the article), that almost sounds like something form the 50s - “Look here Johnson, I need those forms, and I need them yesterday, now get moving!”. Traits I associate with leadership (at least in high-skill modern work place) are good communication and motivation skills, ability to plan ahead and multi-tasking/ability to prioritize. Sure, once in a while a manager has to bang their fist against the table, but the real skill isn’t in banging on the table as hard as you can, it’s the ability get what you want without needing to do so in the first place. Point being that, if anything, womenarebettermanagers.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is.
Gender-based public sector affirmative action exists to counterbalance discrimination in the private sector. I would argue that becoming trans to undermine gender-AA is penny wise and pound foolish, unless you were already tending towards that inclination.
But what I’m seeing here is “I’m changing my gender but only for the purposes of gaming the system, then I expect you to recognize me as my original gender again”. And that’s on par with carrying a pair of crutches in your trunk so you can park in handicapped spaces.
You don’t really want to take on the burden of being recognized as a woman. You just want to pocket a benefit in the public sector and then go back to your privileged position in the private sector.
And also, it’s actually a complicated question. A one-man boycott doesn’t do anything. If you work at a FAANG, work for a better world when you’re off, and go whistleblower when they do something really evil, I find no fault in that at all.
The other consideration is that pretty much every company you could work for as a software developer is going to try to take advantage of your work. Most companies are morally bad at best and morally terrible at worst. If you discourage any good person from working there, the problem will only snowball from there.
If working at FAANG gives you the resources to support things you’re passionate about, and you’re willing to stand up for your values when they do something bad, there isn’t a problem with that IMO.
My point wasn’t that FAANG isn’t exploitative (my bad if it came off that way, I didn’t mean for that), it’s that everywhere else is also exploitative to some degree (most probably less so than FAANG, there are definitely a few that are worse though), and that it could still be reasonable to work there for some people.
Bioinformatics isn’t used only for medical research or within big companies. Sub-topics like metagenomics, that are helpful in many areas of research, require high level of technical knowledge, that the life science people don’t have.
Agreed. Just working for somebody bad doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve given up, though. I mean, they made a movie about Schindler, and we all know who he worked for.
Why not? Unlike Schindler you don’t have to worry about how many beatings are necessary to keep up appearances, and you might have a specific role that exposes you to very little evil at all. Meanwhile, you can donate some of that big wage to people like EFF, or volunteer using the flexible schedule.
You can do all those things while also not supporting FAANG
Depends. If you can find another employer that’s more ethical (which is not guaranteed just because they’re smaller) and pays as much with as flexible a work schedule, yeah, you should probably do that. Otherwise it might indeed be necessary.
I don’t know, are we doing concequentialist ethics here, or deontological? I feel like we’ve reached the level of splitting hairs where we need to decide. For the purpose of actual advice people reading might follow, I’d say just try and be a good person, and don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.
And go bankrupt when something happens on the way to work because they slipped and fell on the ankle.
Thanks, but I’ll take lower pay over financial bankruptcy.
Yeah, that’s true. It amazes me how some of my team in NYC will make double what I make, but live like I lived when I was a student, and be amazed that I own a car.
I was kind of assuming that, since FAANG are American, but I’d guess they probably have foreign employees as well.
Canadians make pretty much the same as Europeans, I think. The Americans have a bunch of monopolies, and are characteristically weird and nationalist about who they share the spoils with. (I know, it’s not all of you guys, but it’s definitely some)
I personally don’t have an issue with WFH as long as you are getting work done. If you can manage yourself go for it. It is nice to see people face to face once in a while but that doesn’t mean 3 days a week.
I don’t mind walking but sometimes the distances are a but far. I do know a lot of people who ride bikes. Bikes has the benefit of being small and having a place to put a bag. It also probably has to do with air quality as in some places the air is bad.
I couldn’t have done it if I stayed in the states. No judgment on anyone who lives in a structurally car dependent area and doesn’t have a good alternative
This is only true if you think it’s true. Pepe serves as a template for internet culture and can have anything projected on to it. Pepe has been used to push evil views like Marxism and Fascism to pragmatic views like universal healthcare and freedom of the press to non political things like complaining about video games and the weather.
I refuse to install any work related software on my phone. Not only because I don’t want to be contacted after hours, but companies often “require” full read/write access on your device, so they can remotely wipe their data if you quit or get fired.
This is absolutely correct. Heck, you’re free to deny that based on any reasoning, maybe the shoddy icon of the work app doesn’t match your phone wallpaper.
The phone is your private property, if an employer requires an app to be installed to do your job, they can provide a phone.
I would also never let corporate IT manage a device, e. g. a laptop connected to my private network at home.
No, have the company buy a laptop, and if necessary, also have them buy the hardware that allows for proper network separation, if not already available.
Surely not. But also many employees won’t even ask for it, and change will only happen if people care about it.
So first, raise awareness, and naturally, implement those things at any companies you manage or own.
I’m not saying quit your job and become homeless if your employer won’t corporate with you on the issue. Everyone should think about how this could potentially affect them and what they can do within the constraints they operate in, though.
As someone else in this thread said, a separate (VLAN, guest) network for work devices, reasonable access rules etc. can go a long way. Eventually, I would like this to become unacceptable though.
I would also never let corporate IT manage a device, e. g. a laptop connected to my private network at home.
That’s pretty standard for working from home. I’m expected to use the company provided, managed laptop with my internet connection.
I figured so long as I made sure of things like there weren’t any open file shares and things like routers and IP cameras were password protected there wasn’t a whole they could see.
If I was really paranoid I could set up a VLAN or something.
I know it is somewhat of an accepted practice, and a lot of people lack the means or the knowledge to handle it any other way, but I’d still like to raise awareness that you’re basically inviting a foreign actor into your network.
The days were people would trust corporations, including their employers, to be generally benevolent and to do the right thing are long over.
No modern MDM solution allows a company to access your personal data on BYOD. That’s why containerization of work profiles exist. Anything else would be a massive privacy scandal.
Company-owned devices, though, do have that level of access when MDM enrolled.
You’re talking about MDM in Intune which is only used on corporate owned devices. MAM is used for personal devices and does not have device administration access. It’s in the name - Mobile Application Management.
Good luck if you run a de-googled ROM. I can’t install sandboxed Google Play Services inside the profile because its not approved. I could try and sideload it in, but I’d rather just go without.
This implies that the company has a competent IT team that rolls it out correctly, and that there won’t be some way to exploit it and dig in further than expected.
Also:
On personal devices, it’s normal and expected for users to check email, join meetings, update files, and more. Many organizations allow personal devices to access organization resources.
(From the site)
Lmao WHAT? It’s normal for users to do company shit on their personal phone? What kind of delusional Spongebob bullshit is that? Is the company gonna pay for data or subsidize the cost of my phone? Are they going to pay me to be on call if they expect me to of this shit outside of my working hours?
VERY few companies have been sued for being as big a bunch of lying dinks as Microsoft has.
We need to learn from this shit. Ads on login screens? Privacy issues? Solarwinds sploit letting Russian hackers get to the windows source? How many more red flags are our security groups going to ignore?
I’d love to honestly believe that. But I still wouldn’t risk ever doing a BYOD with a company that forced me to install anything on my personal devices.
Regardless, times I’ve tried to get access to work stuff on my phone I stopped because I had to agree to let my entire device be remotely wiped if they chose to. I had absolutely zero faith that they wouldn’t accidentally do it as a matter of procedure if/when I left the company so I didn’t do it.
Not to mention the possibility of a disgruntled IT person deleting everything they can on their way out. Sure, it would be a whole can of worms for that person and they might regret it because of the consequences, but that wouldn’t bring my data back. Same if it was done accidentally because of incompetence.
Even if it’s an absolute certainty that there’s no possible way they can do harm, I’m unconditionally not willing to install anything on my personal device that isn’t for my personal use.
Yup same. It’s crazy how many people willing installed Intune and shit on their personal phone. If my company wants me to have that level of portability, then they’ll be buying a work phone for me and paying me overtime any time I’m forced to use it out of regular hours
Yeah and they want to install some profile that gives them access and puts your internet connection through their VPN. My coworkers look at me like I’m crazy because I carry a work device and a personal device. Like, why would I give my employer access to all of my web traffic on my phone? You’re crazy if you don’t carry two devices.
I’m with you there. My previous employer wanted a bunch of their shit on my phone. I asked if they were supplying me with a work a phone, and they said no, you already have one. I said I do, and it’s mine, and I’m not putting anything on it for work because work and home are going to be two different things. They gave me a work phone and then wanted to know why I turned it off in the parking lot before I even got into my car. I’m done working for the day sir.
The two consessions I’ve made are Teams, and the MFA software.
I am often running around to various sites and being able to use a quick chat is better than pulling out my laptop, and I turn it off when I’m off the clock.
I used to joke back in 2014 that if Milo Yian-whatever, Ben Shapiro and Gavin McInnes just had a biweekly meeting and decided on a hand sign, an image and a word to use heavily in social media for the following month that everything could be made into a dogwhistle within a year.
Its literally a copy of a 2016 trump meme except they replaced Trump with Biden. This meme was deployed whenever Trump would “shit the bed” by 2015 standards.
But it is. A symbol can mean different things in different context. For example, this hand gesture 👌 means okay in Western cultures but means something more insulting and offensive in Arab culture. Does that mean one is right and is the one and only representation of the gesture? Of course not. Same here. Swastikas have been around for thousands of years across many different cultures and has many different meanings. It’s just one variation of the symbol that ended up being used by the nazis and is offensive to most people. It’s silly and rather close minded to try to disregard all these disregard all these different context and meanings when many of them have been around for longer than the nazi variation. The principle applies here.
Please remember that this particular groyper meme is a literal copy of a Trump 2016 meme with the word “Trump” replaced with “Biden” and was deployed regularly by the alt-right. Please keep that in context while you give the argument that its in a totally different context. Its like responding to dog whistling accusations with more dog whistling.
Please remember that this particular groyper meme is a literal copy of a Trump 2016 meme with the word “Trump” replaced with “Biden” and was deployed regularly by the alt-right
So what? You have to stop doubling down on this idiotic argument because it is getting ridiculous. Guilt by association and purity are heavily frowned upon and criticized throughout history for a reason. Different things have different meanings in different contexts, and you can’t judge people without proper contexts and for things they’re not or didn’t do. This should be obvious, but for some reason it isn’t.
This meme and others like it all originate from 4chan and the other imageboards similar to it, and these boards are responsible for internet’s most famous memes. Just think about what has come out of 4chan for a second:
Wojak and its variations
Pepe and its variations
LOLcats
Pedobear
Anonymous
Rickrolling
The popularization of Chocolate Rain
Greentext
Rage comics
The ungodly origin of “Bronies”
The Shia Labeouf fiasco
The 4chan-Tumblr wars
Pool’s closed
They are quite literally the foundation of internet culture. Everybody who grew up on the internet was used or at least enjoyed any of these. These imageboards are built on the idea that the internet is the wild west, where everybody no matter how tame or extreme, no matter how good or evil, and no matter how pragmatic or delusional can get together and shitpost. And guess what? 4chan and these other imageboards were ALWAYS cesspools filled pedos, Marxists, neo nazis, anarchists, racial supremacists, misogynists/misandrists, and so on, but at the same time, they’re also filled with a lot of normal people. Regardless, if we follow your logic, which is that anybody who has ever used any of these memes is a neo nazi by proxy then anybody who took part in mainstream Internet culture over the past 20 years is a neo nazi… which is obviously ridiculous.
Keep in mind, you’re right the groyper meme did originate from neo nazis but so did many other famous memes. I mean the latest famous variation of wojak, the chud, originated from some Marxist imageboard. Marxists are just as vile as neo nazis, does that mean anybody who used the chudjak meme is a Marxist? No, that’s stupid. The meme was started by Marxists, but it was used by a lot of other people, including those making fun of Marxists.
The point that I’m trying to make here is that memes serve as templates. Templates without content don’t mean anything, they’re just a structured blank document. Just like how symbols have different meanings in different contexts, so do these memes. If OP posted this same meme saying something like “Putin is still a great leader” then OP would be a fascist… but he’s not. His meme is about Biden.
Like seriously, do you honestly believe that OP is some secret neo nazi because he used a cartoon frog meme to make a pro Biden post? Even worse, do you seriously think that I’m also a secret neo nazi by proxy for pointing out that symbols and templates mean different things in different contexts? This is where you start crossing the line from a valid critic into a paranoid schizo or McCarthyist virute signaler.
I would do that… If CI wouldn’t be set to -D warnings
Who even does that? Oh wait, it was me.
Joke aside, it does help to keep the code clean, even more for open source projects where multiple separate people may all have their own codding style, and it helps make it easier to organise.
But I do agree that it can be really, really annoying.
I live in Canada, 15 km from the US border. When shit kicks off down there millions of them could come north expecting that Canada will welcome them with open arms. We will be unable to feed or house them. Many will die of exposure in the first winter. They should go south and hope that Mexico will take them in.
As someone living around the Timmins area, we’ve imported some hot climate individuals and still have room, send them up! The Northlander should be running by then /fingers crossed/
I’m not sure if you completely missed my point or if hating Canada is so big a part of your identity now that you just can’t miss any opportunity to spread that Rusian and Chinese anti-Canadian propaganda.
“everything I don’t like is propaganda” - Typical Lemmy user
No, what I said is true. You’re Canadian, how do you not know this?
Source: CBC
Tens of thousands of Canadians are emigrating from Canada to the United States and the number of people packing up and moving south has hit a level not seen in 10 years or more, according to data compiled by CBC News.
There’s nothing new about Canadians moving south of the 49th parallel for love, work or warmer weather, but the latest figures from the American Community Survey (ACS) suggest it’s now happening at a much higher rate than the historical average.
Actual reasons cited in the article: Lower taxes, higher wages, affordable housing, dislike of Trudeau’s politics, cheaper groceries, increasing crime rates, increasingly disappointing healthcare system, and warm weather
Whether you agree or disagree with these reasons is irrelevant. The point is that trend is there and it’s accelerating. So to your tongue in cheek point about Americans mass migrating north, that likely won’t happen because the opposite trend is occurring as we speak.
I’m not arguing for or against, I’m just pointing out the fact that emigration trend from Canada to the US is happening and it is at a 10 year high. I merely pointed out the reasons cited in the article as I clearly stated.
I live in Canada but have worked for US companies and worked internationally for 15 years. I would never, ever move to the US. Ever.
My belief is that the people moving to the US are moving there for, “freedumb” (no realizing that Canadians enjoy more actual freedom and have better protection of their rights than Americans do) I’m more than ok with that.
I don’t care, my point still stands. Your hatred of America or love for Canada is irrelevant, and so are your assumptions as to why people are moving (even they literally give you the reasons in the article). The fact remains that emigration from Canada to the US is at a 10 year high, is far above the historical average, and is increasing.
In the same year (2022), only 10k Americans immigrated to Canada. This is only 8% of the number of Canadians who emigrated to the US (126k), despite the US having 8.5x as many people.
I don’t hate the US. I love Canada. I understand that Canada is one of the best places in the world to live. Those who think they will be better in a country with less freedom, less rights, less safety, and a higher cost of living because they bought in to the right wing bullshit may very well be better off moving to the US. I know Canada will be better for it.
I’ve never understood putting an “lol” or an “lmao” or an “rofl” in a message. Are you trying to suggest that you’re smarter than I am or that what I said wrong or stupid? Are you trying to intimidate me? That is definitely not what I take away from it.
I react very much the same way Russians do to people smiling in photos.
lemmy.world
Oldest