charred_patina

I think that my work is honestly the most important factor in my happiness. I spend 8 hours a day (probably for the rest of my life) at work so it's going to be the thing that impacts me the most psychologically in my life.

After realizing that, I decided I'd try as hard as I possibly could to never have to work at a job that I didn't like. I already didn't want kids so that part is easy. The other part of the equation is saving lots of money. I'm not an ascetic by any means, but I live well below my means on a SWE salary which means I can save quite a bit of money each year.

I also recognize that not wanting to go corporate severely limits my options down the line. But capitalism is all about making money for other people. If I can make someone a lot of money, they're not going to care about if I have the chops to stand up a Kubernetes cluster or write a Next.js app or whatever (I hope).

I don't think I'm super smart, I'd say I'm pretty average for this line of work. But I reckon that most SWEs are focused on learning new technologies to get to their next job, or are overly concerned with technical problems. I like to think that I am pragmatic enough about only doing things that are going to deliver business value to make up for being average in smarts.

Anyways, there's not really a point to this rant. These are just some thoughts I have had about optimizing my career for my own happiness, and how I hope I can stay a hot commodity even though I hate working in the cloud and my software skills aren't bleeding edge.

How many people if I may ask? And how many TPS for your services? I am hoping I can get away with a simple monolith for a very long time.

That I'd be comfortable with.

> Denying the world access to clean, affordable fuels like gas, oil, and coal is a real problem.

This is literally the second sentence of that article.

Class interests supersede national interests.

I don't want to be negative, but this post reads like a list of things that I want to avoid in my career. I did a brief stint in cloud stuff at a FAANG and I don't care to go back to it.

Right now I'm engineer No. 1 at a current startup just doing DDD with a Django monolith. I'm still pretty Jr. and I'm wondering if there's a way to scale without needing to get into all of the things the author of this article mentions. Is it possible to get to a $100M valuation without needing all of this extra stuff? I realize it varies from business to business, but if anyone has examples of successes where people just used simple architecture's I'd appreciate it.

I mean, you could come back as a contractor and have them pay your rate to show them how to get the authentication script authenticating again. Obviously this isn't ethical.

> Don't put in 80 hours a week for months unless you have good reason to think it's going to be worth it and do it with the full knowledge that you might be gambling on the company's generosity.

I agree. I'm also not 100% convinced the original story is even true.

Sorry, replace "is it legal?" with "how likely are you to get caught and face penalties?".

It sounds like they were never given written confirmation for the bonuses. How likely are you to face penalties if you put a "time bomb" in a codebase like this? Something with plausible deniability like let's say like an authentication script that you have to run every 30 days or the program stops working for "security reasons". Also you're the only one who knows where the script is and how to run it.

Is there anywhere to read about what CI/CD looks like for a Mars rover? Curious what a pipeline for something like that looks like and how they account for bugs, what kinds of conventions they must use to keep errors from occurring.

> Are you sure you can see this genocide?

Yes, I make sure that I have verified that what I am seeing is real. I immediately do a fact check. I read Haaretz because if Israeli media is confirming it then it is undoubtedly real.

So many people ask "how could people have just let this happen" with respect to the Holocaust. This is how. They didn't want to believe it. Or they justified it. Or they were more worried about other things.

Maybe you should re-examine your biases.

> Can you name a single state in the world with a majority muslim population that hasn't adopted any laws based on religion or passed any laws that discriminate against non-muslims?

I don't know that Turkey has zero discriminatory laws against non-muslims, but they managed to operate as a secular state for almost 100 years before Erdogan.

> Do you think it's realistic that if Israel is replaced by a new state tomorrow that has a majority arab muslim population it won't quickly become somewhat theocratic and enforce some degree of religious law against people of other religions?

I have no way of knowing this.

> I think this outside view of a one state solution pretends the entire population of Israel believes in some sort of Western Democratic values and will provide a strong foundation of individual rights. I just don't see good evidence for that.

Noam Chomsky and Norm Finkelstein both agree with you on this point, and I tend to agree with them. My argument was not that a one-state solution was viable, but I was trying to get the OP to say if their idea of Zionism was exclusionary or not.

Personally I do not think that a one-state solution would be possible unless mass de-radicalization took place, because Israeli ethno-nationalists see coexistence as genocide. I think the most viable option is a two-state solution, where a competent Palestinian standing army could hopefully force some sort of detente.

> All of this would end in an instant if Hamas would give up hostages and surrender.

No, it would not. There would still be 400,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Palestinians in the West Bank would still live under occupation. Do you think that situation will not also reach a boiling point and end in ethnic cleansing as fascist rhetoric in Israel increases?