jh0486

I understand this is a jaded take, but it's not wrong.

Open source entered a bubble because companies started requiring active open source contributions to staff+ engineering requirements. The model was never sustainable. A select few contribute to open source out of sheer passion, but the majority are/were using it as a career advancement mechanism or network effect.

The result is that major companies were able to advance their technology and profits rapidly off of people's free work. The result is better products, services, and tooling for everyone, but let's not kid ourselves about who benefits most from open source: large companies.

Great reply from someone else around generational shifts. That essentially answered this for me.

To give a troll response:

In the current context, I guess it means someone who doesn't live on the internet complaining about issues they do nothing about as if it does something tangible to change the real world.

Agreed. If someone has a deep enough understanding of engineering fundamentals, moving bits is moving bits. It doesn't matter what use case is sitting on top of it.

Also - Let's not act like Twitter is absurdly complex. Handling that amount of traffic was hard in 2008, yes. It's not hard in 2022. The app itself is what? CRUD with stream processing? Some complexity with scaling that, but it's not self-driving... that's for damn sure. Even if they haven't reached L5 yet, L4 AV is an infinitely harder problem than storing arbitrary text/images and serving ads.

We always seem to forget that the majority of US citizens identify as conservative or moderate. Personally, I'm middle-left and found the endless hordes of far-left mobsters to be as equally unappealing.

It appears the country is finally trending back to moderate after the dumpster fire that was the last 7 years. Will companies continue to be hyper focused on political stances now that they're missing earnings? I think companies will leave the virtue signaling to the internet and get back thinking about how to maximize revenue. If people use the platform, and companies get click-through, I think they will advertise on it.

              Conservative Moderate Liberal

U.S. adults 36 37 25

If common interests aren't found during the unstructured conversation, the manager should be probing for commonalities during 1:1s and using them to spark the conversation. Once the conversations start happening, they will snowball from there. Like anything, sometimes it needs an icebreaker.

The pandemic has made it more challenging. I've worked remotely for over eight years and managed teams for 4 of those years. Engagement feedback has dramatically shifted, with people feeling disconnected and needing more social interaction. Before the pandemic, people leveraged their local social networks and didn't need work to be their source of community.

One of the rituals on my team that has stuck for years is an hour block every two weeks for the team to simply talk. No plan, no forced games or activities, only conversation. It gives us a chance to learn about each other freely. No discussion (within reason) is off the table; we talk about anything from food to astrophysics.

Unstructured conversation has been the only thing that consistently keeps people excited that it's on the calendar. It's a chance for everyone to see the authentic side of their teammates and learn who they are.

Social media consumption really falls into the same category as addiction. Some people can manage doing addictive things better than others. If social media is having a negative impact on your life, stop using it. If you can moderate it and it has a positive impact on your life, use it.

As a side note, we have to stop blaming platforms for human problems. What social media has done to the world isn't new, it simply used to be contained.

This.

I can't say that I agree with this. There are the productivity "influencers" who say a lot of things but don't actually live it. There is a high correlation between being a productivity based person and being successful. Most of the leaders you admire are highly productive people and employ practices to increase their productivity, they're just too busy to soapbox about it.

I've only actually worked for one company (1/5) that emphasized productivity and graded people on it. My default answer would be most of them. I would say the majority of tech companies are work/life oriented, especially compared to other industries.

Software Engineers and Data Engineers have one of the best leverage positions in the work force. If you don't like your current employer's practices, find another one.

It's easy to have the wrong mindset around productivity. If an individual thinks that doing more always leads to better results, they're going to have a bad time. I use productivity as a tool to have __more__ personal time and reduce stress. I really think about what I'm doing and what impact it has on my day.

From what I've seen, working in large corporate environments, is that people make their own productivity prisons doing things that no one asked for or working late hours on something no one is waiting for. Individuals create the stress for themselves by trying to standout or impress others.

If someone doesn't care about career progression, which I'm assuming is most of the anti-productivity crowd, they can get along just fine at almost any company doing only the minimum requirements of a role, have a fair work/life balance, and live a normal life.

If someone takes a mid six figure comp package from a major tech company, they should expect to work hard going into that role. Those jobs aren't for everyone. There are plenty of less stressful work environments in technology that will pay someone a decent salary and will be much less demanding.

Putting the fate of our airline safety to the collective bravery of humanity seems like a bad idea to me. If I'm getting on a plane, I have no problems taking my shoes off and being scanned to have a better chance of a bad scenario not happening.

This has been the story for the last 8 years at minimum. There's nothing new here. They have still found a way to survive and grow during this time.

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, etc.. are user-generated content publishers. They have the right to refuse whatever content they feel like.

This is the same as a newspaper refusing to publish an op-ed they don't agree with.