More accurate headline would be "75% of Software Engineers Who Reported Wrongdoing Claim They Faced Retaliation". I know there are some obvious cases where people were explicitly retaliated against, but I'm also not sure you can just automatically trust someone when they say they didn't get that raise they obviously deserved due to retaliation.
Also, I stared at this sentence for a long time trying to figure it out: "Meanwhile, the Horizon IT Inquiry continues to investigate how faulty accounting software has been blamed for multiple suicides and what has been described as “the most widespread miscarriage of justice in UK history”, with those wrongly imprisoned including a pregnant woman."
Maybe if I'm British that makes more sense but seems like it was just thrown in there to crank up the drama.
I worked in a big media company and the department next to me had a manager that would get angry and throw stuff on the wall. Once he grabbed the desk IP phone and threw it at the white board, cord and all.
Made some of the employees pretty nervous in weekly meetings. One of them complained to the HR. The employee's contract was not renewed that quarter and nothing ever came of the manager.
I have a LEAF and generally very much like it. The massive Achilles heel of my car is the 24kWh battery, which is slightly annoying about once a month and seriously annoying about 4x per year.
Any Bolt is a better car hands-down on battery capacity alone.
On the infotainment topic: I have the top-spec LEAF for my year and the (upgraded) infotainment unit is hot garbage, easily bested by the $175 Android touchscreen I put in my wife's car.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this story. But the whole "work harder" is a business euphemism for "put in more hours". It probably wasn't the words that were used. Your dad was asking someone to put in more hours, maybe miss dinners with the family, maybe work some weekends, for an unknown "share of profits". But it seems like you're presenting a worker choosing better work/life balance over higher pay as proof of laziness.
You should accept that you are responsible for all the code you run in production, whoever happened to write it. Whether you feel you are more likely to write bug free code than anyone else is your call.
I think it means you should look more closely into the contract you have with the maintainers. Either you rely on trust, like you would do if you used OpenSSL or NaCl because the creators and maintainers are known to go beyond the required minimum, or you get an official contract.
This. There is no free lunch. Either you pay for quality or assurance, or you risk you might get something rotten that wasn't obvious at first glance and you can't do anything about it. That's the difference, when you pay, you might also get something rotten, but you can do something about it. Your options are of course only constrained by what you pay.
The problem, as I see it, is that a whole generation of programmers have grown oblivious to this implicit relationship, and when that relationship is actually exercised in some way, they default to what they understand, which is paid services and products, which results in both sides feeling like they got a raw deal.
Again, in my experience there is very little correlation between how much you pay for something and how rotten it is. And I find the opposite, when you get open source software and it's rotten, you can do something about it. You can patch it locally, even if the maintainer won't accept your patches. If you have a proprietary product written badly, paying money for a support contract will not magically make it a more secure product or guarantee that they will be able to fix your issues.
I think the reference is to the fact that on Windows you download some random .exe installer from some place on the internet and trust it, rather than selecting a signed package from a trusted repository that gets automatically updated. Should have been "download it, drag it to your desktop, and install it".
Many languages are not strongly typed (where "strongly typed" means "variables must be predeclared with their types (though they may be inferred)"). If your only experience is with strongly-typed languages, then MANY things about Python will be different, because Python is one of many languages that is not strongly typed.
For example, in Scheme (a Lisp), a division (/) presented with exact input values and a non-zero denominator will produce an exact value (an integer or rational). E.g., (/ 1 2) produces the exact fraction 1 divided by 2, and not 0.
In addition, both Scheme and Python have different ideas of what an "integer" is, e.g., both are happy to compute the exact value of 2 to the 9999 power. There's no requirement that "integer" correspond to the underlying machine integer.
Decades ago, the Pascal camp hijacked the term for the requirement of explicit conversions in a static language.
Pascal would be strongly typed because for instance, characters and integers will not inter-operate without chr and ord, and also floating and integer conversions must be explicit. This is in contrast with something weakly typed like C. The weakness in C can be a problem. For instance, a floating to integer conversion that is out of range of the target type invokes undefined behavior. Also, when in range, it can produce a value not equal to the original integer, due to lack of precision. So an innocuous statement like f = i; that passes static type checks without any required diagnostics can go wrong. If a cast were required to make the diagnostic go away, then that at least creates a visible record in the program text that a dangerous conversion is taking place.
Another use of "strongly typed" in the realm of Pascal is that it refers to name equivalence for type alias definitions. The C typedef mechanism is weakly typed because "typedef int user_id_t" doens't create a new type; user_id_t is the same thing as int, such that a pointer to user_id_t is compatible with pointer to int and so on.
I don't think it's "you aren't going to find any startups interested" as much as "you aren't going to find DoD interested in trusting startups to be around". No one gets fired for giving a billion dollar contract to General Dynamics.
Also, I stared at this sentence for a long time trying to figure it out: "Meanwhile, the Horizon IT Inquiry continues to investigate how faulty accounting software has been blamed for multiple suicides and what has been described as “the most widespread miscarriage of justice in UK history”, with those wrongly imprisoned including a pregnant woman."
Maybe if I'm British that makes more sense but seems like it was just thrown in there to crank up the drama.