I'm not crazy about SOLID principles either. They don't feel like useful, practical ideas to me. They were born to be memorized for a classroom test or a job interview. SOLID does come up in interviews, though.
Most companies don't really invest in trying to do good interviews. Rarely is there anyone motivated (or permitted) to think about the process and make it a lot better or different. Doing what they've always done, or what everyone else seems to be doing, is good enough.
I'm with you on that. If they removed the product once they learned what it was, I'm not sure how an you could say they "let" someone sell it, rather than that they were tricked into selling it for a while. The name of the show is The Great Amazon Heist, which maybe tells you a little bit about what is going on. I agree with the article, and perhaps with the prankster, that Amazon didn't do enough due diligence on the products they sell, but "let" implies they would continue selling it even after knowing what it was.
Amazon is fully capable of doing due dilligence on new and changed listings. They could even charge a small listing fee to cover the costs of having some minimum wage peon look at it for 30 seconds and hitting the "yep, this is OK" button.
They choose not to implement sufficient checks. They bear some responsibility for what's being sold under their name on their website.
> rather than that they were tricked into selling it for a while
Can you think of any other retailer where this is or could be happening? Could you imagine Walmart selling cocaine? Yet somehow it's ok if Amazon does it because "we stopped after we discovered what we were doing was illegal"?
It's their responsibility to know what is happening and to care what is happening on their store - just because they have completely vacated their responsibilities doesn't mean we should give them a break.
I get where you're coming from. The free content is possible because of the advertisements, and you are sort of consenting to the ads when you choose to visit the site. It's not an explicit agreement but it is at least an understanding of what lets the wheels keep turning.
However, when ads are so obtrusive that they slow down my computer or ruin the use of the site completely, or if they have malware payloads (does happen) then I'm quite happy to use an ad blocker. I didn't use one until I started encountering this kind of nonsense regularly.
Nothing at all unethical about it. We're not obligated to spend even one second looking at ads. They sent us free stuff hoping we were going to notice the ads they bundled alongside it. We're not obligated to do that though. It's that simple.
You're not ethical for consuming while also automatically bypassing even the possibility of an ad impression. It's the impression that pays for the content. No impressions. No content.
Guess the content just isn't gonna be paid for then. Not my responsibility to make their silly business model work. My attention belongs to me. I decide what I pay attention to. They aren't entitled to it. Sending me free stuff doesn't entitle them to literally anything.
Our family started taking Vitamin D at the start of the pandemic. We've all gotten sick a lot less than we used to, despite one of us working at a drugstore constantly exposed to sick people.
Of course I don't know for sure that the Vitamin D is causal here, but it's my best guess. I suspect a lot of people are D deficient and just don't know it.
It's pretty dated at this point (and I don't know of anything recent like it), but playing M.U.L.E. is a little education in microeconomics all by itself.
That was a great couch competitive game. Trying to goad a player into bidding more than necessary for something they needed before they turned around and stuck you with it was good fun.
A degree can be a valuable signal to employers and also be a terrible waste of time and resources. It can be both at once.
It would be better if we found ways to let young people get into white collar and middle class professions without spending $100K and four years of their lives. This used to be possible. I'm quite sure it could be done again, but collectively we're not going to go there. Yet, anyway.
> A degree can be a valuable signal to employers and also be a terrible waste of time and resources. It can be both at once.
Sure, but it answers the question of why a degree is “needed”, and that is given the supply and demand curves for labor, the suppliers of labor need it to compete with each other.
> It would be better if we found ways to let young people get into white collar and middle class professions without spending $100K and four years of their lives.
Really simple, remove all taxpayer funded (including guaranteed) education loans, and any special bankruptcy protection they might have.
I wonder if there's any mileage in an extension of something like uBlock Origin's lists of ad networks to block but instead it's a list of known content mills and SEO spam factories to remove from search results?
It's quite possible this ends in a global depression that's worse than what we had in 2008, maybe even worse than what we had in the 1930s.
There are a lot of states that are not very solvent: states collapsing financially is also a possibility. Very bad for the people who live there, and sometimes their neighbors.
Most companies don't really invest in trying to do good interviews. Rarely is there anyone motivated (or permitted) to think about the process and make it a lot better or different. Doing what they've always done, or what everyone else seems to be doing, is good enough.