811–820 of 890 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah because marxists systems "take such good care" off people in comparison.
Marxist systems don’t exist in real life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't just Apple, in the late 90s/early 2000s there was a not insignificant number of folks in business/academia who thought Java would take over the world. Windows XP also shipped with an embedded JVM for running Java apps out of the box at one stage too, just before Microsoft doubled down on c#/.NET. Along with MacOS X, Apple's Xcode IDE even had native java project support briefly in this era as well.
Java really could have taken over the world, and it can be performant, too. One of the versions of the most popular game in the world is written in Java, and it's quite capable of being very fast.
I just remember that GUI programming with Swing felt like molasses compared to native GUIs at that time (i.e. Win32/MFC, Cocoa, Motif).
But of course the cross-platform aspect was cool and since I did quite a bit with Solaris back then, Java got of course pushed a lot by Sun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The grocery stores were run by national chains. Starbucks is global. So you’re confirming my point that billion dollar companies (like Starbucks killing mom and pop shop) have disproportionately more power over individuals or what are you saying? > It's symmetric. Companies employ at will, and workers work at will. Workers don’t work at will. Last time I checked UBI is not there, so workers work to pay the bills an…
> billion dollar companies (like Starbucks killing mom and pop shop) have disproportionately more power over individuals or what are you saying? They have zero power over individuals. They cannot make you work. They cannot prevent you from working for someone else. They cannot arrest you. They cannot confiscate things from you. They cannot tell you were to live. They cannot shoot your dog. They cannot evict you. They…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> billion dollar companies (like Starbucks killing mom and pop shop) have disproportionately more power over individuals or what are you saying? They have zero power over individuals. They cannot make you work. They cannot prevent you from working for someone else. They cannot arrest you. They cannot confiscate things from you. They cannot tell you were to live. They cannot shoot your dog. They cannot evict you. They…
Ah, there's your fallacy - you seem to think that when someone has a legal right to exercise some right, that also means they have a freedom (in the practical sense) to exercise that right.
It was chains of their own making, the company was not even aware of it.
They weren't poor people, either. They had a McMansion, nice furniture, snazzy clothes and his&hers new cars.
A friend of mine, much lower on the pay scale, came to me once for some financial advice. He was married, and lived in a modest apartment. He could not pay the bills. The problem was he had his+hers new cars with stiff payments. I advised him to sell the cars, and buy ones he could afford. I was surprised that he followed my advice, and got his finances back on their feet.
A reasonable goal is to save/invest 20% of your income.
P.S. You can cut spending dramatically by getting a roommate. I had roommates for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We were building a payments system in the early 2000s and got a diktat to not use Oracle. The amount of things we had to build to satisfy the availability and durability requirements were so huge it consumed the first few years of work. We didn’t get to the business side of things until much later. Funny thing is we ended up giving up on MySQL and went back to oracle after all that work. The whole thing was scraped a…
We should really be more thankful for the existence of PostgreSQL
As I understand it, you would have to script a separate watchdog process for the basic PostgreSQL, to get high availability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The grocery stores were run by national chains. Starbucks is global. So you’re confirming my point that billion dollar companies (like Starbucks killing mom and pop shop) have disproportionately more power over individuals or what are you saying? > It's symmetric. Companies employ at will, and workers work at will. Workers don’t work at will. Last time I checked UBI is not there, so workers work to pay the bills an…
> billion dollar companies (like Starbucks killing mom and pop shop) have disproportionately more power over individuals or what are you saying? They have zero power over individuals. They cannot make you work. They cannot prevent you from working for someone else. They cannot arrest you. They cannot confiscate things from you. They cannot tell you were to live. They cannot shoot your dog. They cannot evict you. They…
What’s your net worth? How much do you own at moment? How much have you inherited?
> They cannot tell you were to live.
Yes, they can. If you don’t have money to pay for mortgage, you have to leave.
> They cannot shoot your dog.
No, but landlord can say “no dogs”, which will reduce your pool of rental options.
> They cannot evict you.
The banks and government will, right.
> They cannot fine you
So you going from $100k+ salary to, potentially, welfare isn’t a problem at all?
> They cannot tell you what to do after hours.
Of course not, they can just gaslight you under threat of pip to be on-call for extra hours.
> Your rights are completely intact.
Companies have responsibility to society beyond making money to shareholders and upholding legal laws.
> "at will" has a legal meaning, meaning they can work or quit or change jobs at any time. No law or company rule can prevent that.
No wonder “the American Dream” is dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, there's your fallacy - you seem to think that when someone has a legal right to exercise some right, that also means they have a freedom (in the practical sense) to exercise that right.
I've known people who chained themselves to their desk by spending 110% of their income. They built a financial house of cards which could not withstand any interruption in their pay. It was chains of their own making, the company was not even aware of it. They weren't poor people, either. They had a McMansion, nice furniture, snazzy clothes and his&hers new cars. A friend of mine, much lower on the pay scale, came t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never, ever understood this whole mandated period thing. Aside from what you mention -- do you really want to keep these people around against their will -- I don't understand how your (ex-)employer can force you to do anything against your will. All you have to do is say "no". Yet people keep believing mandated work after a layoff is a thing.
It's not against their will. It's a part of the contract they signed when they started working at the company. The contract stipulates how it can be terminated (in accordance with the local law). If it says each party can terminate a contract with a prior notice of two weeks, the contract is enforced for those two weeks after giving in the notice. There's still an employee-employer relationship at this point, even if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More victims of AI According to the article as well as blind, the main teams hit were associated with Cerner (EHR) and NetSuite (ERP). Oracle's AI spend is part of Oracle Cloud. That said, I guess it can be argued that Cerner and NetSuite being on the chopping block can be attributed to AI because now procurement has the choice to either build in-house via an Anthropic or OpenAI SI like Accenture or TCS or they can…
> That said, I guess it can be argued that Cerner and NetSuite being on the chopping block can be attributed to AI because now procurement has the choice to either build in-house via an Anthropic or OpenAI SI like Accenture or TCS or they can negotiate better purchasing terms from a best-in-breed product in HRM and ERP like SAP instead. Cerner isn't an EHR, it's an EMR. EHR == Electronic Health Record. Your FitBit da…
Here is an article in English: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Scrapping-the-millennium-introd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, there's your fallacy - you seem to think that when someone has a legal right to exercise some right, that also means they have a freedom (in the practical sense) to exercise that right.
I've known people who chained themselves to their desk by spending 110% of their income. They built a financial house of cards which could not withstand any interruption in their pay. It was chains of their own making, the company was not even aware of it. They weren't poor people, either. They had a McMansion, nice furniture, snazzy clothes and his&hers new cars. A friend of mine, much lower on the pay scale, came t…