So managers were running Powerpoints on Apple while engineers were running Python, aws-cli on Windows. Perfectly reasonable according to them. I could only estimate the amount of productivity lost on this. Of course WSL was not allowed because corporate security classified it insecure.

I only saw good machines in companies where only software was their business(mostly web shops) so management there knew the value of providing good laptops and monitors.

Even Jira is not too far off these days unfortunately despite being a relatively simple tool (but they needed to justify hiring tons of JavaScript developers).

There is no way most company issue laptops can run two programs that resource heavy at once, without Windows 10 randomly closing other applications or flashing a black screen at you.

I opened up the api recently to discover that every story I edited had close to 100 custom fields on them, most duplicative (presumably) and hidden.

if you want teams to go through a proxy, they basically say "open all ports tcp and udp to microsoft.com + even more" I think it might be like 52.0.0.0/8 or something

My biggest Zoom gripe is being unable to control how much bandwidth it uses. 360p is fine for the others and I on the call when we’re not sharing screens.

If it weren’t for that, I could télé-work from the cabin a lot more... stupid Canadian mobile providers...

Still, that's yet another version of the beancounters perspective.

The only time I see MacBook are when we get the consultants visiting us. They are always decked out in the latest Apple gear.

Switching everyone to laptops is the biggest productivity loss in engineering departments.

I only had to deal with one situation like this in my life, and the person responsible is now no longer welcome in my county, so we sorted it out.

Another Bauer story; prior to the investment: he had fear of flying, and was an asshole to the people that he perceived as lower on the social ladder than himself. So when he was nasty to the stewardess on a very small airplane (10 seater, twin prop) flying from Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo and the pilots caught on to his fear they got their revenge on him by doing all kinds of borderline legal aerobatics with the plane.

Bauer and I were the only passengers, I had a great time but made sure to sit where it was safe. He was as white as a sheet when we landed, and made a great point of being polite to the stewardess on the way back.

One asshole deflated, props to those pilots (pun intended) for standing up for their colleague.

so, someone was socially rude, so some pilots decided to risk the lives of everybody on board to teach a lesson.

Aerobatics , even if 'borderline-legal', are still more stressful on the plane and components.

Stress still causes early failure, even if the stress was produced with legal maneuvers.

Hopping curbs in a passenger car is not usually illegal, it'll just destroy the car prematurely.

Spontaneous aerobatics still risk injury from gravity-flung objects in the cabin.

So, i'm glad the person you dislike had a lesson taught. I'm less glad that the crew acted unprofessionally.

I'm very glad that no incidents occurred as a result. The sky isn't the place for revenge and vengeance, especially on passenger flights.

I really hope that the crew has matured since then. There are plenty of ways companies and professionals can refuse service without risking collateral damage like that.

GGP made an assumption and then reacted to that assumption as though it was a fact. We weren't doing loopings or Immelmans, just a couple of nice steep banks and a pretty steep ascent/descent. If the plane would have not been able to handle that it shouldn't have been flying in the first place. I've been through lots worse in single engine GA planes in rural Canada.

Not legally, morally.

I tend to think so, given that creating a thrill-ride is outside the scope and purview of being a private pilot.

A professional, acting outside the scope of his profession, who seems to be acting with malice or disregard creates a situation that could quite literally kill a person who has certain conditions (even unknowingly).

>Noone's life was at risk.

I can't do the mental acrobatics that are necessary to see that as a zero risk situation.

It's not just the airframe that the pilot is tasked with worrying about, the safety of the occupants comes first.

This goes beyond your comment: but sometimes it feels like there is a growing tendency to value safety - or perceived safety - over the rest of our humanity.

Does that second paragraph make sense?

The result? Just look at how effective militant French protests have been in keeping neoliberal attacks on worker rights at bay, and how unsuccessful German protests have been.

It is sad that there are cultures where that's different.

Sometimes actions don't need to be acceptable, they just need to be impactful.

- Carl von Clausewitz

- Asimov

Sometimes it's better to punch someone in the nose Monday to avoid a shootout on Friday.

When it comes to clear cut cases of survival, do whatever you have to do.

The problem is when the scenarios are not nearly so clear cut - even if they may seem to be to the people in the scenario at the time.

The state, perhaps through the police or military, can exercise violence often without consequence. You can legally be violent in self-defence, to varying extents.

Some states will even let you carry firearms around in case you need to apply violence in self defense.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe

But also, US gun laws insofar as they pertain to the use of guns for self-defense aren't as anomalous as many people think they are. There are a few other countries in which it's possible for a regular citizen to get a permit to carry a handgun openly or concealed - Czechia, for example.

It's useful to have additional conversational tools to engage positively, such as:

'oh yes, that is an improvement on what I said', or

'I appreciate what you said but I was trying to make a different point, which is:', or

'That's a useful way of capturing what I was trying to say', or even

'Yes, I see that what I said was not quite right, thank you'.

Don't know if this makes me an asshole or a human.

I assume the GP was just abbreviating a more complex phrase that it's easy to guess, isn't it?

I never punched anyone, but people who ruin your life as described by the commenter deserve it, maybe they’ll become better people.

That seems like the logic of a supervillain or sociopath. "When they did something bad, it's because they're a bad person that I'm allowed to hurt, but when I'm violent it's because I'm making the world a better place."

There may be times when that works, or it's the least bad option, but my instinct tells me that the sort of person that most deserves a punch is also the sort of person who is most likely to respond to that violence by doubling down and hurting more people (their victims often being those who can't defend themselves).

I've no doubt violence begets violence in most cases, but it can also improve the situation for both sides in others.

Why are they making other people’s lives miserable? It’s not fair and the law doesn’t protect you.

This won’t change their opinion, but it might very well stop them from acting out again.

IMHO. I have no psychology background.

It's funny to see how in many Western governments the (legitimate!) protest of the people in Hongkong is cheered upon, but BLM, Yellow Vests other domestic protests are discarded...

Saying "violence is unacceptable" is something one can only say as a member of the privileged majority. For minorities, for marginalized people, for poor people though... the lines are way more blurry than blanket black-and-white statements.

And for the record: I'm not a friend of pointless militant acts but I will not dare to judge over anyone not as privileged as I am to come to a different opinion.

P.S.: You have no idea about my gender, skin color, sexual orientation or social class. Please don't just assume things.

The powers that be use the state to inflect violence on people that don't have rights and power and no one thinks that's illegitimate.

To transfer several trillion dollars of US wealth into the military and oil industries?

None of this is in any way a defense of the monstrous collateral damage of the U.S occupation or of the U.S government's reasons for that war, but now that it's happened, the country is better off than it was under Saddam himself.

I mean, they weren't versed enough to fool many Wirecard shorts or financial journalists, who had a lot less authority and power to investigate the inner workings of the company. Maybe in the absence of these warnings they could be excused for missing it. But when you get it handed to you on a silver platter?