cdbajorin

Read through other people's code and criticize their decision-making. Answer questions on SO related to whatever you're currently doing. If you can't explain it, you don't really know it.

> you were complaining about an actual, very valid argument that I endorsed

Here's a list of people that were morally justified in breaking the law:

Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Eric Rudolph, Mohamed Atta

Some you may agree with, hopefully some you don't. But it's YOUR morality, so I'm sure it's OK.

Out of curiosity, what actual(valid?) argument did I actually produce?

The fact that you are somehow extracting an opinion from my statement is fascinating. No where have I stated my beliefs, no where have I implied my beliefs. Your statement is a simple display of black and white thinking: "If you criticize my comment, you disagree with everything I believe". The fact that "people like me" exist in the context of this commentary is probably a good thing.

Let me reiterate: My opinions were never stated anywhere in this entire thread. I criticized your train of thought and your straw man argument. Nothing more.

I don't really understand how you read that from my comment. I didn't imply he was lying. I was demonstrating how easy it is to straw man. It's clearly very easy to dismiss opinions you may disagree with by twisting them into something else. "You're stupid because I can mock you" doesn't give any validity to your arguments.

Similarly: "I've never seen a plausible argument supporting what Snowden did that boiled down to more than [my morality is more important than your laws]. At most, you get a side order of [George Orwell] mumble mumble [he wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything if he tried to do it differently] mumble mumble [The government was so evil towards him that he fled to RUSSIA!]". These aren't arguments that people actually make. If they ARE making either claim, you're choosing some poor conversational partners.

I don't know anything about chemists. However, I struggle to believe an industry with a career path starting freshman year has more variance in ability than a technical field pulling poli-sci majors off the curb to fill seats.

Supply/demand of a chair takes a distance second to the value of the product of that chair. Medicine/law/finance are all oversupplied with high salaries. Try showing up to a teaching position interview and convincing them to pay you more because of econ 101.

When the supply of programmers catch up, the weak go to slaughter. 2 people digging a hole for $5 an hour are more effective than 1 person digging for $10 an hour, almost completely irrelevant to digging ability. 2 dummies don't make 1 smartie in programming. Unions exist in fields where replaceability is high. That happens much less in educated professions. The main other reason they exist is for professions with a high risk of injuries. Carpal tunnels only takes so many programmers every year.

Gift cards purchased with cash.