Verdex_3

Yeah, some of the explanation of benefits I've received are insane. Insurance is apparently able to negotiate ~50% bill reductions for multi 10K bills.

I think pregnancy and labor is what's going to finally break the camel's back.

Having children is a pretty basic part of being human. And the costs are such that even millionaires are going to feel it. When basically nobody can afford to participate in reproduction, something is going to go sideways.

With my "good" insurance, I still ended up with a multi-thousand dollar deductible. Which I thought was problematic until I started hearing about people who have high deductible plans that only make you pay 20% after hitting your deductible.

For a 100K bill, 20% is still absurd and especially after you've already paid $2-10K out of pocket.

I was wondering the same thing. I feel my time playing various role playing games has helped the issues that I've had with social anxiety.

I remember trying to sleep in between classes. Like, I would close my eyes and touch the wall in the hallway so that I could "sleep" while I was walking to my next class.

Well, I don't know about that. For example, back when I was at university, my graphics professor mentioned that there were hundreds of algorithms for mapping a texture to a sphere going back hundreds of years because map makers had been coming up with them so that they could place maps on globes.

There are old books, but you have to be a bit more creative to find them.

Not utilitarian calculus. It's closer to spider-man's Great power comes great responsibility.

For example, if I figured out the secret to creating strong AI with respect to writing software such that I could replace the entire software engineering industry with one large computer (note: this isn't something I believe will be possible for centuries if it is ever possible), then I would feel compelled to use the billions of dollars this would undoubtedly get me to help retrain all of the software engineers I just permanently put out of a job.

It's also stated as 'if it is within your power to do good, then you should do it'. My contention is that a powerful company should hire more people to cover additional work instead of finding creative ways to get additional work out of currently employed people for the same amount of money because hiring more people is a good that they are able to do and getting more work for less money isn't.

I'm fine with us not agreeing. But I'm also fine with me being right, which is why I'm still typing.

Bad things can work out for your own personal good. Or even the good of the whole of society. However, that doesn't make them not bad.

I'm glad that your situation worked out for your own personal good. Nice things happening to people make me happy. Things working out for people make me happy. However, the situation you describe is the latter not the former. That your bad situation, which ultimately worked out for you, did not personally bother you enough to be problematic (for you personally) doesn't make it a good situation. I'm glad that it didn't bother you. However, it may have bothered someone else.

Your situation was objectively bad not because it bothered or didn't bother you or another person. Your situation was bad because it was the result of a powerful entity externalizing their failures onto weak entities.

A manufacturing plant that has the ability to setup logistics to keep a plant running 24/7 is a powerful entity. A manufacturing plant that is able to support jobs for at least three different engineering disciplines (chemical, mechanical, electrical) is a powerful entity.

A powerful entity is able to hire additional staff to handle non-working-hour emergencies. That they didn't hire this staff was their failure.

But that's okay, they don't have to pay for this failure because they can force their employees to pick up their failure by working extra hours. The employees are weak entities because they do not have the ability to decline an encroachment of their working lives into their personal lives.

They could be sleeping, or eating, or spending time with their families, or spending time on hobbies, or spending time innovating with their discipline. All things which help society and the economy. But instead that time has been stolen to make money for something that already has plenty.

They should be free to live their life. If it turns out that the company doesn't actually have enough money to hire enough people to perform all of the duties that it needs to continue to exist, then that company should cease to exist. Which is desirable over the alternative of having rich company owners externalize their failure to run their company adequately by stealing the lives of employees who don't have the ability to say no to an unethical violation of their right to live their life.

If the interview makes sure that potential employees are okay with being on call, then there are no problems.

However, my employer has moral agency above me only insofar as I'm not committing a crime against them (ie fraud or embezzling company funds, etc). This does not include me not performing duties I'm paid for. If I don't do my work, then they don't pay me. This is a civil matter. This certainly doesn't include the reason why I'm deciding not to do optional work. My employer doesn't get to decide that I'm somehow a bad person because they don't agree with why I'm not doing extra non-required work.

Eventually, I'm going to be a corpse in the ground. I'm not missing out on my other life goals because you weren't satisfied with my priorities and it turns out that the money you were offering didn't help me accomplish what I want to accomplish.

You are right. It isn't cool. But I assert that the not cool party is the employer who sprung an on call job requirement without any warning.

Additionally, if this job duty was actually important, then the employer would actually react with some criticism when they discovered that an employee was not performing this duty adequately. The fact that the employer isn't upset about having the on call employee ignoring messages means that it isn't important. Making employees being on call when the employer doesn't actually care about anyone being on call is also not cool.

Division of labor is a thing. I'm good at transforming customer interactions into requirements and then transforming requirements into working code.

I'm not good with dealing with issues with a deployed product while I should be busy living my life.

Hear hear. Give me actual autonomy and I'll happily be responsible for my code. Make me implement a crappy design and then deploy before it's functional and I'll happily send out resumes while other people work nights and weekends trying to fix garbage that was never going to work in the first place.

Like, I can appreciate that things can always be worse. But the other perspective is that what you're describing is objectively bad. And less of a bad thing is still bad.

If I have to option to not do a bad thing (even if it is only minimally bad), then why shouldn't I pursue that option?

If you don't mind doing the bad thing, then you should definitely take advantage of that. But probably shouldn't try to convince other people that the bad thing isn't bad. 1) It reduces your own advantage of willing to do the bad thing which you are hopefully converting into money. And 2) its end game is making people do something they don't enjoy without reason or compensation, which seems bad.

This isn't quite what I was going to say, but it's close enough.

I think parts of an OS can and should be written in something rust like, however the whole thing should probably not be written in rust.

My personal thought is that C and C++ 98 era are bad, but they were what we needed at the time. Part of this badness was that you could do anything but exact facilities for specialized tasks had to be rolled from scratch. Libraries are possible, but not ideal (no namespaces for C and crazy header + recompile issues for both).

In order to replace C and C++ we need more than just one language, we need an entire family of languages that all have the specific features implemented to support their domain. Rust can probably be used in game programming, but Zig (or in theory eventually Jai) is being specifically made with that goal in mind so they will probably be better. Rust itself will be much more useful for applications that cant stomach managed languages (ie web browsers, etc) because that's what they are specifically building it to do. It's got high level features in a form factor that you would expect from C#/Java with low runtime and no GC.

We can probably write OSes in Rust or Zig, but ideally someone who really likes thinking about OSes will create a language specifically geared towards writing OSes that will be able to replace C.