1888franklin

You are extending a lot of good will towards the "ask my female employees for sex on the first day" boss in this situation. "a desperate person having a very bad day"? I encourage you to reflect on your investment in extending to this person such an excuse. Why should that person not endure whatever scrutiny would follow from an HR inquiry into that behavior? Why is your instinct to shield that person, by suggesting that it might be the author's responsibility to brush it off?

"sex is handled extremely differently than the rest ... [is there] reason for that[?]" I mean US internet culture is the place where this baleful notion of the "friend zone" exists: men who complain bitterly that being nice to women does not secure for them a sexual relationship. Denigration or retaliation following sexual rejection is a well-documented practice. From what history do you think sexual harassment laws spring? Women fought for them because they survived regular abuse, manipulation and retaliation from men (especially superiors). Have you read any of this history? for example: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/1114/The-evolution...

As the asker, I will say I'm opposed to the registry, and I disagree a bit with your notion on strategy. I see what you're saying. But I think it's important to establish a norm in our communities now (perhaps like http://neveragain.tech/), rather than being silent and hoping that we will have "sleepers" in the right positions that can stop it later on.

You state this as simple fact, but is it so? Delivering enterprise software is very hard. Matt suggests that USDS was necessary to rescue healthcare.gov, for example. The labor pool of skilled coders is smaller vs. demand than for many other professions. If the top 500 coders declined to participate in a project that savagely violates human rights - and encouraged this as a norm in our communities - isn't it plausible that doing so could either prevent, derail, or meaningfully weaken such a project?

I concede that we cannot prevent some software from being created. But there is a great qualitative difference between any software and effective software. And if there isn't, and our creativity/labor doesn't matter in creating such a difference, then what is all this talk on HN about?

besides...

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Howdy Matt - will you build a Muslim registry if Trump orders it or Congress passes it?

LOL at that line. The answer is no, no they are not. Always lovely to handwave at another "magic" technology when trying to explain a completely different one.

yeah, why not? nbd.

smh. "freezing eggs" is not a trivial solution.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/21/women-...

I think they were binging some Croneneberg

lol nothing like that

Found a small agency that is oriented towards remote and flexible work. Offered to join w/ the expectation of 15/week. Started as a contractor for them, then switched to hourly employee once it was clear we were a good fit.

At my prior job, I was offered full time. I responded by proposing 35/wk, with a proportional salary reduction. At the next compensation/review meeting, I successfully asked to reduce to 32/wk (same pay).

The "dark side" described here is programmers not using our labor power for the right things, not really a downside to having labor power. Instead of being seduced by fancy campuses, we can insist on better working conditions. I work 15 hours/week, mostly on my own schedule, with low pressure. My free time is more important to me than a six figure salary, living in the valley, or free lunch.

Generally speaking, programmers in the US have the labor power to shape how we work. But many of us buy into a certain idea of what success means and how to get there. Really no one to blame but ourselves on that count.

This is pretty shallow critique.

"With UBI, ever citizen will rely, at least in part, on his or her income being handed out by the state. Rather than there existing pockets of state dependency, all of us will become (albeit to differing degrees) dependent."

Who is enforcing intellectual property law? Who builds roads and subsidizes factories and offices? You get paid by a corporation, and that corporation is profoundly dependent on the exercise of state power. It spends a lot of money to lobby and influence that power. This author supposes that, right now, most of us are independent actors vis-a-vis the state. That's silly.

The UBI question isn't, "should the state be expanded," because the state is already expansive. The question is what nature of relationship is the least worst. As the author acknowledges, right now we intrusively monitor and examine the poor, ask them to fill out a ton of paperwork, and punish them with arbitrary cutoffs. The nature of that relationship is horrible. UBI could improve it.

But hey, if you're well-off and/or feel that the corporate-state fusion is furthering your interests already, then yeah you might feel "free" at present and fear any changes.