> I have never used nor worked at an organization that is built on top of Salesforce.
You probably do. Salesforce has all kinds of different products from Slack to Mulesoft and Tableau. Salesforce starts their pipeline by solving one problem, making that work well from a business ROI perspective, and then they pitch you on another and another and another with package pricing. This is basically the Oracle model and how Larry got his blood money.
I think a lot of these early companies have high ambitions in terms of serving various languages, then they find out how hard writing SDKs and tooling for each of them is.
> I wonder about their ego, or what went wrong in their management.
The article didn't insinuate that data is being used to objectively harm users. It's being used to generate "trust scores" for anti-fraud systems. The specific example given in their piece is allowing a user to attach a certain number for SMS verification.
Rather, the point here is that such data could be used to objectively harm users, so those users should have to provide consent. Second to that is that BICS doesn't appear to inform users requesting GDPR data that their data was shared.
I'm not sure I'd label that failures in ego, it smells like failures in process and compliance, which also need to be dealt with in lawsuits.
RMS did a really poor job of explaining why closed source firmware is problematic to free software, I agree, and I'll explain better below. I also have some critique of activist language.
First, activist language is pretty hard for any human to listen to. Anyone that's been tackling the "long fight" of what they view as oppression has this map in their head of things that add up to their main point in life and cannot help but continually extrapolate it for people. On some topics, people eat this kind of language up. On others, it's rather dull, especially if the person using the language can't quickly connect relatable points for people. RMS was good at long-form broad thinking that was dealing with the issues at the time. He was pretty fuck all when it came to really explaining them in a digestible, conversation style manner.
As for why proprietary headphone firmware hurts free software: take some Bose noise cancelling headphones and try to connect them to something like a mainstream Linux distribution like PopOS and use them on Zoom. They'll work, but only in a low quality mode, or the audio receiver will work but not the microphone. Now do the same with Airpods, or use Airpods on an Android phone. Airpods will work and you'll get high fidelity audio, but they're constantly exhibiting weird disconnection behaviors. On Linux you'll get incredibly low fidelity audio. Proprietary drivers are at the source of all of this.
RMS came from a day where the pioneers of Linux and alternative operating systems weren't building them for servers. They were building them for users because Windows was expensive and the machines to run it on were more expensive. Oppression to someone like him, and many others, were linked to this and many other circumstances at the time. The idea that the optimizations of computing were available only to a few was utterly disasterous.
To connect the two ideas, product x which is proprietary works best on product y which is also proprietary. It's a system that reinforces itself and excludes or marginalizes the rest, which eroded the original mission of building optimized software that is collectively free enough for anyone in the world to use.
Somewhat ironically, a lot of people in this thread are complaining about diversity when really that's what most of these initiatives were born in.
Reddit conversations are mostly memes at this point. I have two geographic subreddits for my city. One is owned by a dude in another city, I'm pretty sure Detroit, who just doesn't moderate anything. The other is owned by a group of people who will straight up ban people for even marginal dissent from their favored ideology. Most of the people active on those subreddits aren't even from Portland. They're conservatives, liberals, and leftists who view Portland as this gateway of cultural relevance. It's the internet equivalent of Ballmer and his wife buying political influence in Portland, a city they don't live in, much less the state.
The rot is root deep at this point if it's let things like this happen.
> I'm guessing that is more of a Californian thing?
I live in Portland, but yes, it is more of a Portland thing. The visible things that create opposition to our homelessness policies are:
- Store looting, which is mostly driven by a scheme developed by gangs. Gangs are often enlisting the homeless to carry out these stunts.
- Open air drug use, which requires drugs facilitated by gangs
- Property crime, which is either done by gangs or is incentivized by gang-related activity
"Organized crime" is probably a better term than "gang" here. Gangs are generally recruiting in places where opportunity is low and costs are averagely above peoples means. My point is that there's some overlap with homelessness and we'd benefit by looking at them equally empathetically.
> We really need to do both? The choices definitely need to be demonized, lest our kids think they are OK choices. My greatest fear would be my kid somehow makes these bad choices in the future because our schools taught him that these people were just victims of society rather than victims also of their choices.
What you've said here and what I've said are slightly different. Holding people accountable is important, yes. If they are unwilling to change their ways they should be held accountable. At the same time, when someone struggling with drugs or mental health says, "I want help" there's a short window of time where that help can be transformational. Once they've chosen to right their life, and demonstrated it, we need to provide them capacity to move on, which is where we fall short these days. If you've been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether you're homeless at the time or not, then it'll be difficult if not impossible for the person to gain and maintain meaningful employment that pays their bills in a capitalist society. This situation can put people right back into the cycle of drug use, homelessness, a mental health crisis, or all of the above. Mainly, what I'm saying is when someone has demonstrated reform we need to stop punishing them at some point.
> We've found this to be problematic because cases will be misdiagnosed as mental health problems when they are really severe substance abuse problems (or the patient will say they don't have a substance abuse problem given the stigma associated with it), to predictable ineffectiveness.
I wouldn't call it problematic, I'd call it frustrating, because typically it's both. Again, addressing one problem ends up persisting both problems. I blame this, again, on policy that doesn't understand the systems it's up against.
> You can ask my question about any city though: for every 1000 broken car windows, how many convictions (or even arrests) are there? I know that number is extremely low in Seattle as well.
There's two reasons this type of crime occurs: gang activity and homelessness. People turning to gangs represents a crisis in opportunity. Things like hate groups, gangs, etc do not generally occur in places where peoples needs are met and when opportunity to change your circumstances if desired are bountiful.
> That’s been the cornerstone of policy in cities like Seattle for years and that’s why those cities have the biggest problem.
The problem is actually both. Progressive policies fail because progressives are allergic to enforcement, conservative policies fail because conservatives are allergic to addressing underlying causes. It's a tale as old as time.
If you want to improve things you need to address underlying causes like the housing and opportunity crisis. Enforcement can be used in a way that changes their circumstances rather than putting them in a box. You need both.
I don't normally comment on articles that I don't like, but this is just awful. It diverges so far away from ethics that it's practically someones moral musings. For instance:
> So, for in-house batch jobs, they are started and stopped by operations personnel. Someone also has to explicitly schedule them to run at a frequency. Those people are the ones that ‘operate’ the software and provide it as a service for the users. They are on the hook for it, so they need to be able to control it.
I used to be one of these folks. I now write operational software that operates other software, but I was the guy pushing the button. For one, if you're the button pusher you probably know very little about what the code actually does. You're often more familiar with how it behaves on a system, some high level KTLO metrics, and some basic runbooks. To shove all of the responsibility for software outcomes on them is problematic to say the least. Historically, Ops folks are also some of the least paid people in tech, aside from analysts and the position is largely outsourced these days.
People like this should not write or participate in ethical codes. Ethical codes are high level frameworks that involve processes for reporting violations, not some rigid structure on how "everything needs to be done this way". They'll provide criteria to abide by that helps readers ensure they are following the system.
I work in a lot of highly regulated industries that involve governments; the code for how to treat government workers and adjacency is just that and necessarily that. The reason is that corruption is not black and white, you can't just name off familial relationships and hope you've covered everything. Instead you have to refer to things like undue influence. You also can't just name off "gifts"; for instance, if the company comps something due to a bad experience is that a "gift"? Of course not, but a sufficiently rigorous ethical code would make a world where refunds were controversial. All of these things also come with a responsibility to document your tracks and operate in the clear. The minute you stop operating in the clear you might not be charged with a crime, depending on what a reviewing committee can uncover, but you'll certainly be out of a job.
For this, I think something like the IEEE should be building a code of ethics for software. They have the acumen and are industry-aware enough to sort through various contexts and make sure the code is verbose yet light enough to stand the test of time without incurring prohibition style statements like, "let's bring back operators".
Of course I have, because arm chair psychology is actively harmful and unethical. Sociopathy and narcissism require a detailed review of a person's history, intentions, etc by a qualified medical professional in order to make a diagnosis. I'm also of the generation where, mostly women, influencers started wantonly using these labels on their enemies so I have a particular distaste for armchair psychology. I leave that bit between a patient and their psychologist, because largely it doesn't matter. The outcome is still what it is. It coming up in popular conversation is just an extension of using mental health as a boogey man and the old "people can't change" narrative.
I don't think this is a great representation of what's going on.
There are many legitimate problems in Portland. If you go on any online discussion you'll see residents showcasing them. Those threads get barraged by liberals and conservatives that don't live here either defending or attacking the issue at hand. None of this is helpful.
I wish you could hear the frustration in my voice. Frustration at the Progressive Party for picking ideology over the health of the city, frustration at the right for turning our local issues into national showcases, frustration with the people in the comments who think commenting on the goings on of a city they don't live in is anything but a bad faith take.
I am tired. I want Progressives and Republicans gone, and from what I can see I'm part of a growing group in this city. We'll solve our own problems in due time, extremists can get lost.
I guess I was surprised that they commented on political language reinvention at all. I've seen it happen a lot over the last decade and there seems to be an automatic adoption of the redefinition of words to fit political aims. Personally, I associate grooming with sexual predators and adolescents. If you're an adult, we say you were manipulated, deceived, or that you're dumb. That said, it was close enough that I could infer what she was talking about.
> He accused Twitter of being politically biased to the left and suppressing tweets, so he bought it to "allow free speech", except in his mind free speech apparently equates to being able to promote right wing propaganda.
I'm not a fan of Elon at all at this point. That said, this is more an indictment of the tech industry than Twitter alone. Most employees are some form of left, many of those employees sit on committees, have outsized wealth compared to the average citizen, donate accordingly, the executives among them have power, etc and tech plays an outsized roll on our lives now. This was made a lot more evident when Twitters head of trust and safety was interviewed and she was unable to identify, or had let situations go on, that were offensive to people you'd commonly call right where anything that was offensively to what people would commonly call left was getting combed over and at times over enforced. I'd also say that my perception of her was more that she had large gaps rather than outright hate. The biggest one that comes to mind is "#learntocode" which a bunch of journalists not only wrote articles but also used that hash tag on people working blue collar jobs, such as coal mining, that were under threat at the time. It's an isolated example, but that hash tag stayed promoted for quite a while.
This isn't to say that right-leaning oppression and left-leaninf oppression at categorically the same or have the same categorical effects. It does point to that we have larger class issues at play.
Both are privileges, but claiming that a remote worker can "just move close to a tech campus and get the same things" is a pitch from left field that requires at least four relays. That was the purpose in calling out that privilege, not to say that no one deserves privilege or that all privileges are the same.
Not so much smug, but annoyed at your meltdown, and I agree it wasn't helpful.
I do get that hearing about privilege, especially if you're exposed to those conversations a lot (or more than others) can be pretty annoying. I've found myself in that seat before and I've felt how, I think, you're feeling.
That said, I've also gotten used to realizing that not everyone hears that point of view every day or even often enough. The hybrid work conversations have been a glass house of just that. Nobody wants to hear how good they have it compared to new entrants, they just want to be getting what they've been getting and in order to do that everyone else needs to fall in line.
The other annoyance that I had was some of your invented strawmen about how I don't empathize for people that make less than I do. I certainly do, and members of my family are among those folks. Like others, I've had to make hard decisions on how to best support them, even if it means at times giving up things that this life could afford me. That's why I do my best to argue for a world where all or most people can succeed; the point of pointing out privilege isn't to say, "You shouldn't have that". It's to say, "Other people should be afforded what you have too, especially if the difference is just geography".
You really tripped off a cliff in interpreting what I wrote.
The person I replied to said, "I got what you got working remotely by living close to where I work". Do you understand now why there's such a far degree of separation between those two things? Far more people can afford to work remotely than those that can afford to live near a tech campus.
Having privilege isn't shameful. Often privilege is gained along side accomplishments that were earned. Hybrid work is a relevant topic, and a lot of people readily eschew remote workers experience by saying, "You can have all that by living close to campus! Oh it's too expensive to buy? Just rent! Oh, rent is expensive and not nearly comparable to my 10 year old mortgage? Get room mates!" It gets old, and they're not proper analogs.
Anyway, sorry you raged hearing about why this wasn't an analog, have a better day.
> But, it did take optimizing house location/commute, etc
To spell the quiet part out loud here, what you're describing is an extreme privilege in a world where homes near tech campuses often go for $1M+. New fathers aren't going to have a down payment for even $600k+. Tech at this point starts as a rich persons game which is why so many tech workers intermarry with other wealthy people. It takes two or a trust fund to do what you're talking about early on, unless you want to rent in a place where rents are highly inflated. At that point, you're choosing between a family and any shade of financial freedom.
Same. I'm a veteran that's donated to (and votes, other than Libertarian) Democrat causes and organizations for a while. Some of us join a given thing to change it. The GOP also can't ignore Peter Theil's acumen, power, or money and frankly if he were to run on a left-Libertarian platform I doubt Democrats would treat him very well.
You probably do. Salesforce has all kinds of different products from Slack to Mulesoft and Tableau. Salesforce starts their pipeline by solving one problem, making that work well from a business ROI perspective, and then they pitch you on another and another and another with package pricing. This is basically the Oracle model and how Larry got his blood money.