If you've already changed your build system to Vite (a breaking change to any app started before Vite), and opted in to all current "future flags" (breaking changes), and multiple forthcoming future flags before 7.0, then you will have no breaking changes. And let's not forget its history, including the previous merge with Remix. The only lib moving even faster is Next. Both are highly focused on PR at the expense of accuracy and good faith.
I've been writing code for 20+ years and I did not recognize a single product you mentioned. I am so glad I got off the front end treadmill. If you need me I'll be over here writing APIs using the same stack I was using 5 years ago.
Do you believe that the ontology of science, namely the fundamental entities of the standard model and general relativity, serve as the only valid foundation for all other ontologies encompassing the human experience?
That depends what you mean by "foundation". The fundamental entities of physics (still somewhat unknown) can be the ontic foundation for reality even though various other available ontologies genuinely reduce down to them or abstract over them in our special circumstances. The problem comes from claiming that the other ontologies are not merely effective theories but instead fundamental theories, at which point you're starting to make very contentious metaphysical claims and meta-philosophical claims about what you mean by "ontology" and even "exist".
Sure, those claims are often exactly those made in subdisciplines like metaphysics and plain-language philosophy, but they're still suspect in a way that, for instance, philosophy of science is not. Plain language is ambiguous and full of conceptual holes: everyone learns that. The difference in dealing with the sciences is that we try to ground all of our "sentences", as philosophers would say, in actions that an experimenter can actually perform in the real world.
When you start elevating "plain language" above the actions that actually cash it out, you start running into problems.
I haven't thought of ontologies in the plural; I think it resists multiplicity by definition? I expect to be able to chase secondary facts back into their basis in reality.
Anytime one attempts to abstract entities and features from reality in order to work with them - whether you're practicing philosophy, physics, medicine, writing laws, coding animal behavior, or describing a database schema, one must base one's work on an ontology whether it be implicit or explicit. Many ontologies exist - arguably at least as many ontologies exist as conscious entities capable of conceptualization.
Your second statement assumes the affirmative to the question I asked; that the ontology of science does indeed serve as the only valid foundation for all other ontologies, unless I'm missing something. Philosophers call this the theory of 'causal closure'[1] It has many implications that you may or may not agree with in the areas of consciousness, free will, ethics, etc.
Very interesting, thanks. I was thinking of logic as the foundation, but now I realize that I was actually thinking of a combination of logic and science.
I don't think Latour's criticism of social theory applies to the causal closure of physics, or science's claimed exclusivity to describe fundamental ontologies; it criticizes the approaches of 20th century post-modernist critique.
Are you familiar with his follow-up, 'Reassembling the Social'? I'm not, but in reading a summary it seems to propose better methods for comparing ontologies and systems.
It's been a long time since I read that. After posting the link, I reread it, and it seems I misinterpreted it somewhere along the way. I thought that it develops an opposition between "matters of fact" and "matters of concern", and that it breaks along the same lines of the discussion here, but it doesn't.
And there is a tendency towards (politically-created) monopoly because only monopolies can concentrate enough wealth to buy elections. Natural or political, the only way to do away with monopolies does not have to do with public/private, but with campaign finance reform.
"Relative surplus value is produced through the reduction of the value of labor power (variable capital) by means of improvements in the production of goods (effectively the appropriation of productivity gains by the capitalist class)." -Marxist definition
In other words, they will no longer need a wage that also represents the value of eggs, so:
-the wage will ultimately be reduced
-the portion of their unwaged labor (raising chickens) will increase
People who raise their own chickens can work for less than those who don't.
tldr: A service they could once afford will become unaffordable.
Lots of hocus-pocus in these comments looking for a qualitative measure of class. The only meaningful definition is quantitative. Do we still need to explain why? This fact is the fundamental subtext of all journalism and art since mid 19C.
this is the real story
"The median duration of employees in these jobs isn't very long to begin with, about three months." from the article
Service work is scandalously undervalued. I would think that if the technocrats were motivated, they could create tax codes and whatnot to gradually correct this (socialism), and then we would also see an accompanying decrease in: illness, crime, as well as the birth of a real discussion about the purpose of public education, which is now a farce which at best looks for models that will give one group of kids a temporary edge over their neighbors.
If we will always need some amount of service work, then we will never need all students to "get ahead (of their peers...)", and this would be so much more tolerable if we would finally begin to value the entire bell curve.
There is an accompanying ideology that regards a proliferation of choices as an emerging consequence of greater multiculturalism/individuality. This is a very convenient analysis for market apologists, and more importantly, it puts off a kind of anxiety-filled absolute reckoning of reason and utility in our decision making. If we were more rational we would likely have to confront an essential emptiness...or maybe that's just how it seems to those of us embedded in the prevailing values.
Most people in the US need to exercise more, right?
A very large fraction need to lose weight.
We weren't exactly designed to sit all day in a chair, were we?
I believe these bits from Amazon:
However, the company said it provides prospective employees with extensive information, including a video, so they understand the physically taxing nature of the work. “IT’S GOING TO BE HARD,” one brochure warns. “You will be on your FEET the entire shift and walking upwards of 12 MILES per shift. (yeah, that's really far!) ... YOU WILL HAVE TO: LIFT, BEND, SQUAT, REACH & MOVE (there are no sit-down positions.) DON'T BE AFRAID; YOU CAN DO IT.”
A former supervisor at Jeff’s warehouse described the safety culture as “very, very methodical,” with “exceptionally high standards.” Amazon, she said, required Amcare to call 911 in certain situations even when there was no obvious emergency —say, if a worker's blood pressure reached a certain level. Still, she said, some workers were clearly unprepared for the pace. “We had people who were bookkeepers or laid-off accountants or other desk-type jobs,” the supervisor said. “We tried to be very, very upfront. ... I said, ‘You are going to hurt after the first week. ... You are going to crawl into bed and pray you can get out in the morning.’”
And I believe that some people are just not going to be up to the requirements, and others, apparently including this poor fellow, are going to die like the student athletes we read about every once in a while.
This is the very reason the US has workplace rights that were fought for by unions. The weekend, forty-hour weeks, vacation, sick leave - unions fought hard for every benefit. Without regulation and oversight, companies will gravitate towards just this kind of disregard for their employees in the name of profit. Unions have their own set of problems, but given one group that's allied with protecting employees and another group that's allied with profit, I'll pick the one on the side of the employees every time because the alternative benefits a much smaller group.
