Imagine someone went to Gab (or whatever the right wing mob platform du jour is) and denounced a colleague and published their contact info on it. There's no explicit call to contact or harass the person.
I’m not too familiar with Gab, but are you implying that Twitter is exclusively a platform for left wing mobs? If so, you are mistaken, and this coarse impression of what Twitter is should not be projected onto every single tweet.
Twitter is a platform for mobs of every sort, and if you have a mob of followers and you attack a colleague, publishing his contact info, you are de facto encouraging the mob to attack him, even if you play dumb after the fact.
There was no attack on a colleague (a public disagreement is not an attack). The person who was fired has less than a third the followers of the other person (and probably very significant overlap between the follower groups). There certainly was no publishing of contact info, unless you consider all public mentions on Twitter to be publishing contact info (which is preposterous). Your impression of what happened is mistaken.
You’re performing impressive mental gymnastics to say this person’s behavior did not harm psychological safety.
Instead of trying to prove there was no harm, and that being a maintainer of an open source project should make it okay if people do this to you.. think about the intent of what this person did.
Did they intend to create a safe environment? Or did they intend to bully someone into seeing their view, and doxed them on Twitter. A view that the original tweeter identified as political!
No, you contact the website admin and discuss the suggestion in the communication medium of their preference. After all, you are making the request to them. Not the other way around.
By that logic so can google with gmail: of course they can, but that’s why we have to put some level of basic trust in our email providers. If you don’t want an MITM, you’re basically stuck with PGP or hosting your own email service.
Lavabit used to not be able to do that, and Protonmail can't either still... (To be fair, Lavabit _could have_ made changes so they could do that, but the owner refused when law enforcement asked him to do that fpr Snowden's email, and risked very real threats of jail instead. I don't think Protonmail have been tested lie that yet, but they have at least incorporated outside of US jurisdiction,which changes their risk in some important ways...)
To answer your last question; let’s say I have some shared state that multiple micro-services rely on and all need to fetch that state synchronously. My example is that you’re a loans company and almost everything is driven from the loan book. Reporting services need to know the active loan counts this month, invoicing services need to fetch the loan book to generate transaction lines, borrower services need to know whether the current user has any active loans.
The standard wheel-and-spokes model would probably have a loan book service where all others call into it via HTTP requests, but you’ll have to build a query language on top of that REST API, or share DB access I suppose.
Or in this model you would stream the loan book updates through Kafka and every consumer that needs a copy of the loan book can keep their own, query it against their own chosen materialised store in its native query language (some might just append to Mongo, or kSQL, some might always use event sourcing per-request). “select * from loans where user.id = current_user” becomes possible here rather than stitching the HTTP responses.
Now I’m not saying one is right or wrong outright as you’re only trading a more native query interface with data consistency concerns, but this for me still feels like a valid architectural pattern and one I’d consider.
If you have a bunch of services reaching into the same data store though, you've effectively built a distributed monolith. Which if that works for you, more power to you, but you lose most of the Conway's law advantages of services with that approach imo.
We're building an ethical financial services company in the Philippines, working hard to transform the lives of working people without stable access to financial services. We'll be advancing our suite of products to allow people to save for their first home, or understand the key elements of a financially healthy situation.
We, of course, need good people. For what it's worth I truly do think we're trying to do the right thing here and it takes honest, kind, patient people to do it. Having technical skills at the Senior/Lead level is important but we want mature and deliberate thinkers. In return we'll do everything to give you space to think, design, and develop your best work with a laser focus on transparency and honesty. Developer happiness is a topic close to my heart and this isn't just lip service.
For what it's worth we work on React, are keen on introducing Typescript for the front-end. We use Java microservices on the back-end and are keen to experiment a little bit on that side. Come and help us make the right choices.
I'm the new Head of Engineering so we'll be working closely together, please do get in touch: jack.turnbull@uploan.ph
I wouldn't have an issue committing to those benefits you've listed. Agreed, app is a gimmick although I'm not too sure the other two are quite as far into the gimmick category.
It seems like you've taken it as either/or rather than 'and'. I want to offer all of the above things AND offer any specific benefits that also offer sleep enhancement.
Point taken - this is as valuable an opinion as any other. I'd love for an empoloyer to care about it enough to 'put their money where their mouth' is when it comes to making sure I'm looking out for myself sleep wise, but I wholeheartedly accept this stance.
I know that taxes ultimately don’t result in lost schools and hospitals, as it’s never that 1:1, but do you ever think you could have cost your country a hospital, a new road, or a new warhead or whatever?
It's odd how the people that think this are generally the same ones most likely to argue that “positive rights” that impose a cost on others are an incoherent concept, and positive entitlement can at most be a limited privilege granted by others based on available resources and expected utility of the grant. But they fail to recognize that the “right” to wall off goods from the commons and exclude others by force—i.e., property—is very much a positive right that has a cost for others.
Property is not a positive right. Property ownership is derived from the self-ownership of the person who created the property by combining their own labor with unowned land. The exclusive right to decide how the property is consumed is a negative right; others have no obligation to provide anything to the property owner, only to leave the owner (including their property) alone. Homesteading imposes no cost on others for the simple reason that these others have no claim to the unowned land being homesteaded.
Your error is starting from the assumption that land is owned in common by everyone, rather than unowned. If land were actually owned in common then you would need to obtain permission from every single person on the planet before using any of it. You would starve to death long before you obtained even a small fraction of the necessary consent. And no, the government cannot grant that consent on behalf of others who never deliberately and voluntarily agreed to permit the government to represent them. You would need the consent of each and every individual.
You're using some words that I do not know if I understand them correctly, but let me just say that I personally think of rights as something that is either given to you by someone or taken by force and the only rights you truly have are the ones you can personally defend with your own force, since the other ones can be taken from you at any time. If you think you should have rights that you cannot take with your own force, that is the definition of entitlement.
Taxes are dues for being part of a club. You're free to move to somewhere else if you don't want to be part of that club but you don't get to freeload.
If it were just a "club" (as opposed to a protection racket) then joining would involve consent and you wouldn't have to move to quit. Also, it's not as if there's anywhere you could move to that hasn't been infested with its own "club".
Merely wanting to be left in peace in the place where you were born without being compelled to pay for things you never asked for is not "freeloading".
this is sort of like the "wage slavery is consensual because both sides agreed" argument. what realistic alternative does someone who doesn't consent to taxation have? renouncing US citizenship triggers a large tax on the total value of your assets if you are wealthy. even if you're not wealthy, the US charges a flat fee of about $2000 for the process. you might literally be unable to afford renouncing your citizenship.
even after that, the IRS can come back and harass you at any time if they suspect you of tax fraud, and most foreign countries will cooperate with them.
If you're looking to leave the country over taxes, why the hell would them trying to tax your assets bother you? You're leaving. You are welcome to leave, no one is forcing you. It's the same argument with bringing jobs to dead small towns. No one ever promised everyone could get any job anywhere, sometimes you have to move. No one ever promised you could live in any country without help paying for the upkeep.
pragmatically, I don't object to the idea of taxation. the government provides some useful services and it needs a way of funding them. I'm also not actually interested in renouncing my citizenship, as I personally find US citizenship to be worth the tax obligations.
what I do object to is the common "social contract" argument for why taxes are legitimate. in particular, I strongly object to the idea that I "consent" to taxation merely by having been born here. I haven't consented to anything; I submit because an overwhelmingly powerful entity compels me.
"I submit because an overwhelmingly powerful entity compels me."
This is also the "I don't want to be told what to do" argument, which PERSONALLY I find immature. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not calling you a name, we're having a reasonable discussion, I'm just saying that no one likes being given orders, but it's a part of life. You DO have the option of leaving and going somewhere without taxes. You're submitting because you have to in order to be where you want to be.
Yes, you are submitting because you have to, hence nobody is losing sleep over dealing with it in an appropriate way. You wouldn't submit if you didn't have to.
Your parents consented on your behalf, as guardians are legally capable of doing for those in their care, when you were born. You affirmed that by remaining here, enjoying the privileges of citizenship, when you reached the age of majority.
There is no written contract when you sit down to eat in a restaurant, and yet you are obliged to pay after your meal.
Having spoken to enough Uber drivers in West Yorkshire (you don’t have a choice, they will talk to you) you start to get a feeling for the reasons.
Flexibility of working hours is a big thing. People like to be able to drop shifts and pick them up as and when they need. If they need more money in the run up to Christmas they can put more time in.
The other is that the firms aren’t exactly bastions of fairness either. I hear time and again that the operators give the jobs to their favourite staff, or as described; whoever is fucking the operator. The concept of working for a boss and having to deal with some fundamental injustice seems to ring true. For better or worse Uber is seen as ‘fair’ to the drivers, at least on the whole. The rules are at least laid out, keep your rating clean and we’ll give you jobs just like anyone else.
Consumers are the ones likely to complain about surge pricing.
Drivers are the ones who (in the example given) do want fairness from the dispatcher, which they sometimes don’t get with traditional taxi companies and human dispatchers, but presumably do from Uber’s algorithm.
This is what I was trying to convey. From the taxi drivers perspective, the ‘algorithm’ is seen as being more equal than the dispatcher. The ‘algorithm’ in this instance doesn’t discriminate on skin colour, handsomeness, or the side of the bed it woke up on.
They still find plenty of unfairness in Uber from the individual to Uber relationship, such as the fees for one, but there seems to be less injustice between fellow drivers compared to traditional firms.
> The ‘algorithm’ in this instance doesn’t discriminate on skin colour, handsomeness, or the side of the bed it woke up on.
But the drivers do, which is a source of complaints in places where taxi service is considered to be an extension of public transport. Uber-like companies (it's not just Uber, MyTaxi/FreeNow suffers from this as well) are notoriously unreliable if you live in or want to go to places further away from the city center or otherwise inconvenient for the drivers, or if your start or destination suggests you might be inconvenient to handle. For instance, I've had trouble getting a ride to a maternity hospital in the city center, and only got one after I switched the destination to a nearby beauty salon. I confirmed this when talking later with the drivers over other rides - they see the requests to/from hospitals, they just skip them.
In this way, an algorithm is fairer than dispatcher for the drivers, but the dispatcher is fairer for the passenger.
> In this way, an algorithm is fairer than dispatcher for the drivers, but the dispatcher is fairer for the passenger
The algorithm is the dispatcher, and theoretically, would weed out drivers that discriminate after a certain number of incidents. I don’t see why a human dispatcher has less reason to discriminate than a driver. Presumably, discrimination is to maximum use revenue, which is in both the driver and dispatcher’s interest.
In the places I've ordered taxis via a call, human dispatchers don't usually know who the passenger is and where they want to go, so they don't get to discriminate on those.
I imagine if a taxi driver refused to give someone a ride, who was already told they would get a ride from a dispatcher, because it would lower their revenue, the dispatcher would not penalize them in any way.
