alo45

Seriously, though, what the fuck is a “standard unskilled worker?” Did that sound like anything but a reductive take on people less privileged than you in your head? At the least it’s a further elimination of empathy and human factors from your point. I didn’t think there was much left to discard, but here we are, with the lower social strata in an Excel column.

Luckily for us, I’m not debating you and need not concern myself with whatever you’d like to call the argument. I’m simply appealing to whatever sliver of empathy you have to consider that just maybe firing someone with a batch job is a good place to think about an ethical line. I didn’t even advocate to draw one, just introduced nuance to think about as a counterweight to your extraordinarily simplistic view of labor and its role in society.

If you can’t meet me even there and instead take an opportunity to call people who just might starve to death on the other end of such an experience “irresponsible,” based on ostensibly a distant understanding of finance and employment for lower social classes, we are not going to agree on anything. The ad hominem would be noting that from your views it reads like you have next to no experience with the financial circumstances you’re discussing, which given the topic seems an interesting but unnecessarily personal observation.

If these comments are in bad faith in this forum then I have absolutely no interest in baptizing my views.

Honestly, I’d be curious how your interview at Dominos would go. I’m not being snide. You should take a break from this line of work and go after the so many unfilled jobs you’re talking about for a while, because I think it would refine your viewpoint on this (speaking from personal experience). You know how one can interview for a cybersec gig and disclose that they were fired once for some bullshit and everyone shares a good laugh about the story while cutting an offer letter? That doesn’t happen at Dominos.

That’s a lot like saying it was the patient’s underlying cancer that ultimately killed her, not the pillow held over her face by an overly ambitious family member eyeing the lucrative estate she would leave behind.

Amazon accelerated what you describe in every quantifiable way and it was undoubtedly baked into the overall strategy. Yes, the situation was already terminal thanks to the Internet and poor online shopping execution by the incumbents, including Walmart, but overlooking Amazon’s involvement (going so far as to call it not their fault) and pointing at Walmart as the disease itself is a tiny bit of revisionism.

Am I the only one old enough to remember discussions in older forums like these about how brilliant Bezos was to identify and exploit such a now-obvious opportunity? It was obvious then to the point of being damned near Amazon’s entire thesis.

Because you’re talking about people who don’t have extensive cybersec experience and multiple retirement accounts, who see a job as the thing, you know, feeding their kids for the next two weeks while we pontificate on their purpose as a class on HN? This comment is extremely tone deaf and betrays why this industry is fundamentally flawed when it comes to human factors. Engineers and product leads building these systems have simply never experienced the other end of the table, and then reduce the equation to a “business relationship” just like you’re doing here.

I realize it’s easy to forget you’re discussing human beings when computers make much more sense. I don’t know, call me crazy, European, idealistic, whatever, but putting a human in the loop to say “eh, that’s a bad call” isn’t a lot to ask nor the demise of capitalism. If a human being double checking and delivering bad news is the only thing holding the economy back from grand designs of glorious, automated scale, I’d prefer another economy that pays more attention to its purpose - which is the sustenance of humans, not the concentration of wealth based on flagrant disregard for the welfare of people it serves.

I like the way Sorkin put it: “we used to wage war on poverty, not poor people,” and I think your initial question about empathy illuminates much of that sentiment.