Furthermore, leftism needs to have these banning-systems because modern leftism cannot survive in a free speech environment.
This is why all leftists started leaving twitter when Musk took over and promised free speech (not freedom of reach), they knew instantly that the gig was up.
uh-uh-uh-uh, wait a minute, please contain your prejudice. First off, you're talking of a very narrow and US-centric definition of "leftist". Second, it's tiresome to hear this constant whining about "leftists" that cannot tolerate (or in your version, survive free speech) different views. It's simply not true, what doesn't rub well is constant complaints about being disrepsected for maintaining some frankly disrespectable opinions. That simple...
All freespeech platforms, from 4chan to twitter, are pre-dominantly right wing.
All censorship-based platforms, such as reddit or mastodon that has _mods_, are left wing.
Secondly, the woke left is the same in the US as it is in Europe. The west is one global entity these days. JK Rowling is hated by swedish leftists and california leftists.
Third, "it's simply not true" is not a convincing argument in the face of millions of examples. Why do you think all the biggest comedians in the US avoid colleges?
> All freespeech platforms, from 4chan to twitter, are pre-dominantly right wing.
> All censorship-based platforms, such as reddit or mastodon that has _mods_, are left wing.
This seems to be relying on popular belief rather than facts, and making a lot of assumptions in regards to why particular groups would prefer particular forums. If we're drawing spurious correlations 4chan also seems to enjoy a lot more violent and illegal pornography than say reddit - can we draw conclusions from that regarding the right as well?
> Secondly, the woke left is the same in the US as it is in Europe.
You're now defining a sub group of the left. What separates the "woke" left from the regular left. or are they all one and the same in your eyes? And if so, do you think that actually aligns with everyone who calls identifies as left?
> The west is one global entity these days.
Are you American? As a Canadian I say it definitely is not, we're now at an impasse I guess?
> Why do you think all the biggest comedians in the US avoid colleges?
Who are the biggest comedians? And if they are the biggest why would they go to a college when they can fill a stadium.
Twitter is a free speech platform? Did I just imagine Elon banning unlabeled parody accounts? Did Elonjet’s account get restored? What about Chad Loder, the activist Elon banned at Andy Ngo’s behest?
"I don't think so. Please provide concrete examples."
You would get fired in Sweden if you spoke against mass immigration just 15 years ago. The social democrats still ban people who have romantic relationships with an individual of the nationalist party.
Working corporate in the west is about having the correct progressive opinions, dissent means you are an evil conspiracy theorist. Just 2 years ago it was evil and racist conspiracy theorist to say that Covid came from a lab leak.
It's evil to say the the truth until the emperor becomes absolutely naked, such as the case with mass immigration in Sweden. When you suddenly have more murders than the UK (a 7x larger country) and bombings every day it's kinda hard to deny that immigration has a link to crime.
Where are you getting these facts? Sweden and the UK have the same per-capita murder rate, so Sweden being 1/7 the size of UK means 1/7 the total murders.
I don't think firing middle management, documenters and designers with no trackable productiveness and forcing people to work in their free time is the same thing ?
Do you have evidence of this claim that it was only unproductive people?(Though I find your definition of who those people are is also suspect) I've read news of large parts of teams being fired, including gutting important groups like curation.
Statistically, by firing entire teams, you're bound to catch a few unproductive people. The acutally productive ones that you fired can be filed under "side-effects of making the company lean".
> Small cities put children in a disadvantage and should not exist
This is the kind of radical bat shit craziness, from posters who are so intelligent they can rationalize anything, craziness that I love to find on HN.
I went to high school in a specialized class in Sweden anyway and I didnt have any internship because if you study all your waking hours to get max grades you don't have time for interning.
Who said internships can't be fun? What I do as a software develop building CRUD apps is basically what I did as a teen, except working in a team is way more fun and there's senior people to help you if you have issues instead of spending 3 days trying out stackoverflow suggestions.
Ironic you blame the Tories, since all those industries primarily died of during the 70s, after the collapse of Bretton-woods; when unionist Labour ruled the country by marxist-economist principles.
France and Germany are industrial powerhouses that are ruled by unions. Much more of their GDP comes from manufacturing than the USA, and dramatically more than the UK. It's absolutely possible to build a harmonious and productive system.
It doesn't seem to work the same in the anglosphere though. Unions in Germany at least seem more like guilds, they engage in collective bargaining but also do a lot to ensure high quality work from their members. Less need to focus on the owner/management and more need to focus on the public/customer side of things.
Anglo culture is probably more atomized, with different effects of collective bargaining as a result.
France has smaller manufacturing than the UK [1], neither France or Germany has never been "ruled by unions" the same way that the UK was in the 70s [2]:
> _The most egregious example of waste was the coal industry, hence the strikes. The tax payer was subsidizing coal to the tune of £1.3 billion a year which was real money back then, just under 1% of total national GDP, not including the increased costs to power and steel industries that were prevented from using cheaper alternatives. When the mining union leader Arthur Scargill appeared before a Parliamentary committee and was asked at what level of loss it was acceptable to close a pit he answered “As far as I can see, the loss is without limits.”_
You are just straight up lying at this point. Even in France, unionist lawmaking is one of the reasons _why_ France has so little investment and manufacturing, and Macron was elected on a platform of trying to break it up.
I don't work at Meta, but if its anything like where I currently work, the ones who become "managers" have no correlation to coding performance, or perfomance at all for that matter.
Which is a good thing. You should be become a manager because you think you would enjoy being a manager more than being a coder, and are passionate about being really good at managing. Being good at coding doesn't mean you'll automatically be good at (or enjoy) dealing with admin, budgeting, resource planning and personnel issues.
I've been managed by truly brilliant coders who just wished they could go back to sitting in their office and code. No one was happy with that situation.
I didn't write it out, but our managers have no idea of the code at all. They have never been programmers. Hence the programmers sit around all day, like posting on HN, and not much gets done at all. But hey they are surely really passionate about managing.
Depends on the location. I'm an Engineering Manager at $FAANG (MANGA?) and I moved into management after senior engineering roles. At the same time, I'm still programming a lot in my "free time". Your experience doesn't apply everywhere.
As for motivation (I know no one asked): I genuinely enjoy the human aspect of the job and thinking further out into the future with product and engineering leaders. Plus I learned that I really enjoy programming when it's a hobby without the corporate overhead, and that it's less fun (to me) in a company.
Not to discredit your experience - but it's not a universal truth.
At Meta and pretty much all other tech companies Engineering Managers have to have been decent programmers first, so I'm not sure what you're describing applies there.
Cases where managers are appointed to oversee dev teams without having any engineering experience at all are more common in non-tech companies. Those situations can still work, but rarely work well.
It's not about will, but the managers capability to oversee what is going on. Since they dont know anything about programming, they cant even really know if someone is slacking, or working really hard.
Which is a discussion of what they are supposed to be shipping. Usually a description of a program, in text. A discussion that very often ends in court over disagreements. Have you ever worked on a commercial software?
It's my first gig, so my options are limited. Things might still shake up when people start asking where all the money is going. But I've also come to realize that my situation is not unique, there's a lot of non-work going on in modern tech.
We do, they named the least productive yet most experienced gentleman to "teach lead" to lead the scrums because they started getting a notion that not much was getting done. This is the guy who love writing documentation (One A4 per week of 40h hour, about). The end result was nothing changed: "I am working on X", "OK, good good" and nothing really gets done. Then the customer started changing the demands 9 months into the project which justified the inproductivity even more. It's all around just a shit show.
For most FAANG companies, it's IC -> TL -> TLM -> EM, unless you explicitly insist on remaining IC/TL (and then you're on the chopping block, because promotion trajectory for ICs becomes very, very slow beyond a certain point).
Me too. I wish I could work at a company where I dont have a "project manager" making more than I do for sending a few emails and holding a weekly project meeting. I've decided to practice leetcode if that's what it takes.
So they amicably saved all depositors in SVB, but not investors, because using taxpayers money to protect bad investment would be very unfair - unless its too big to fail, then it's "necessary". Otherwise we could get a depression, and depression is very bad and should never have to happen.
The problem being that now no investor would ever want to invest in a small, not-too-big-to-fail bank, especially in volatile times such as these. So all investors are pulling their money out of small banks, even at massive losses.
We might be seeing the start of an investor-bank-run, instead of a depositor bank run. Also just called a _crash_ I guess.
