But how'd they get there in the first place? Contact with a D12 is terminal? What set our hypothetical failure apart from a 20-something guy that drinks, does drugs, plays games, is in a relationship and leads a rewarding life? Allow me to blast some copypasta about for an idea I can't quite articulate myself:
>Everything is systemic until it's people you don't like, and then suddenly they're personally morally culpable for their shit ass attitude. A whole generation of men simultaneously said "nah fuck it having a life is for fags"? When you see this many people with the same problem, the word "systemic" should come to mind immediately. They need to wipe their own ass obviously but I'm in no rush to blame a whole generation of teenagers for burning out the exact same way; I wanna know who sold them the video games, weed and tendies.
>the amount of men don't cry, men don't show emotion
>I'm actually sad that most men don't feel like they can talk about their vulnerabilities and emotions.
Do they not talk about it, or have they not talked about it _to you_?
I used to believe the narrative that men don't talk about emotional issues, assuming my lifetime of experiences talking to other men about our perspectives, fears, limitations and feelings was some sort of aberration. It finally fell apart when I made some friends in the trades. If _they_ didn't even follow the mold, and were willing to confide in me whenever something was on their mind, then why is this assumed to be a widely-pervasive male trait?
As far as I can tell, men are more than willing to talk about personal topics they keep guarded. It just has to be with someone that they care to have a real conversation with.
>After living on the google tech island for a while, it's surprising how much of this people have tried to "solve"
You're missing the point of the article. Most people and organizations have written libraries and services that make common development tasks much easier when developing within their own software ecosystems. Google is just one of many.
The question this article is getting towards is solving those problems in a pattern that transcends individual implementations and the conceptual model becomes as ubiquitous as the filesystem hierarchy.
Dumping a "this works for $DAYJOB" solution onto the public by publishing a standard isn't the answer. If that worked, those problems would be solved and this article wouldn't exist.
You're assuming this was a "didn't know" failure mode, not a "didn't care" failure mode.
I'd wager it was a "didn't care". They knew about the limitations, figured the product would work often enough to make some money and labeled everyone pointing out the problem as haters or technophobes.
Someone probably even pitched a keypad password based redundancy and got drown out in valley buzzwords about MVPs and shipping fast until they gave up.
>If you feel attacks on toxic masculinity are attacks on you fathers/husbands/sons maybe there should be some thought about what about their behavior overlaps the above, and whether you think that's ok?
My favorite part of social commentary these days is how it's layered in "I'm not poorly conveying a point, you're hearing me wrong and/or you're the problem."
So my personal email account just got $490/year more expensive? Or $24990/year if we count non-english dictionaries?
And I ought not to have it because I'm not hosting an online store or marketing materials for a megacorp? Fuck me for trying to have something nice without commercializing it, right?
>They help teams manage complex interdependencies by creating strong ownership boundaries, strong product definition, loose coupling, and allow teams to work at their own velocities and deployment cadences.
You just described library boundaries. You did not describe why the interface has to be a socket.
>the average engineer doesn't need to know about the eventually consistent data model of your active-active session system
People can create unnecessarily connections between microservices too. It's only slightly harder than punching an extra hole through the public interface of an in-process API. Is that what we're spending so much time and money on.
>Mostly what we have are jigs. [...] Of course, it's not a shitty jig like in the bad old days of shell scripts[.] Instead of making it out of scrap wood, we now make it out of scrap steel with a MIG welder. We're advanced now.
>I'm pretty clearly undermining the idea that there exists an authority that can identify the social ill of "purity spirals".
You can't undermine a point nobody is really making. Maybe someone is making it somewhere, but tracking back up this comment chain I can't find it. 8 levels up probably_wrong explicitly says "No one" is such an authority. And further asserts that the type of claims suggest that the question is of a type where such an authority can not exist.
If I had to guess, what you actually want to do is tell people off for making and sharing personal assessments of social situations to the best of their own abilities and doing it at a lower evidentiary standard than you're comfortable with. If so, have the courage of your convictions to admit you think that either (A) nobody should do that at all, or (B) you're so much more better at it than them that they shouldn't do it. Or maybe (C) tell them to stop because you disagree but don't want to wade into such imprecise debate.
From the outside, you're not articulating your point well enough to avoid looking like epistemological flailing.
Automate deployment? Fine but boring. That's the prevailing dogma today. I don't remember where the devops hype train was in 2012. Package management had already been a solved problem for years even though it was (and continues to) be regarded as involving too much "icky reading" and a repository system using plain directories on vanilla webservers; all way too unoptimized for resume padding.
Learn how to identify and manage risk like an engineer? Understand how business process and software can implement risk controls and mitigations?
>Thing is, the only way they can succeed is if people take it seriously and keep the spiral going.
Why would that stop anything? I spent half an hour over Christmas explaining to an aunt why the circle game [0] wasn't a white supremacist thing. All because the media chose to fall for the most inept trap ever planned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_gesture#White_power_symbol
I've only recently gotten any good at seeing the metagame strategies evolve. I used to get worked up when new words came into favor overnight to be abused in various ways.
Your line of conversation was spiraling towards the philosophical underpinning of knowledge. The parent poster cheekily pushed you off the cliff and ran away.
Appealing to the authority of Jacobin and Chomsky won't get you back. Doubly so when the question that started this whole thing is (I hope you don't find this uncharitable paraphrasing): when do claims of foo rise to the level of "genuine foobar"?
Because everyone in TV knows that TV isn't about the truth, honesty, information, or any of that hogwash. It's about selling ads. Cable TV "news" is outright corrosive to our civic institutions, and Jon Stewart would be the among the first to tell you that.
The public shaming of Cramer was never going to change anything, and it wasn't meant to. It's purpose was to show the audience a public shaming and hope they stick around to watch Comedy Central's ads.
Jon Stewart's Daily Show was the media naval gazing at how fucked up it was. A form of impotent penance for those working in media. More fun than going to church to atone; and it covered it's own costs by delivering chuckles to the rubes outside of media.
This isn't happening under the DMCA, it's Google's own brand of copyright process more tailored to appeasing the giant media companies.