janxgeist

We had a similiar problem with a label printer.

On some days, exclusively in the morning hours, the printer would fail to detect the start of a new label, printing over several labels.

After connecting remotely and checking the usual (queue, network connection, drivers etc), I asked my colleague to call me, as soon as it happened again.

When I went there, I saw that a ray of sunlight hit the printer. The windows had shutters, but there was a gap.

Label printers detect the gap between labels using a laser. And for some reason, the printer's case had a clear window at the top.

I printed an empty label and stuck it on the little window.

For me, it's an example of a company messing up the technical side.

I was a happy customer in the beginning. Until I didn't have an important note that I had prepared for a meeting, because it didn't sync to my phone. A few weeks later, it happened again. I lost trust in the app.

Then the Android App got worse and worse. It sometimes didn't sync at all. Notes would conflict all the time, and I'd lose work.

For some reason, Evernote (both android app and windows client) just seemed to get worse every year.

I actually did set up replication to another database, several years ago. But at the time, for some reason the databases would de-sync to easily (often when changing the db scheme).

I'm not so much looking for efficiency, but for simplicity. This contraption of scripts that get called by cronjobs, that then access some account on DigitalOcean etc. just seems to complex to me.

If I want to check if everything works, I have to check several places. My own documentation of this backup process is several pages long.

Considering how many people need to backup databases on linux, I was hoping there'd be a better, simpler practice.

Bait and switch seems to be widely used by mangers in situations like this.

In your inital negotiation, you informally agree on some conditions.

Then slowly,over the course of weeks or months, most points change to what your manager wanted.

These 9 bullet points are far from "not difficult to implement" though.

I agree with your reversed statement. The company needs to be loyal to it's employees too.

But in my opinion, some principles should not depend on how the other side acts:

"If my company is not loyal to me, it's my right to deceive them as well."

-> No, I will stick to my principles. I might bring it up to management. I might quit. But I won't act destructively because the other side does.

Otherwise it's a downwards spiral: you will meet many toxic people in your life. If you lower your standards everytime you do, at some point you will be one of them.

It's not slavery: you are free to quit your job and work for another company, or start your own business. But if you DECIDE to work for a company and take the thousand(s) of dollars each month so that you can live a comfortable life, then you owe them your loyality.

So far (10 years) these rules have always worked out for me in the long run:

1) Your loyalty belongs to your company. Always do what is best for your company.

2) Always share your knowledge freely.

3) Never strategize in order to "secure your job".

4) Always pick the project or job where you will learn the most (grow the most as a person).

I would guess 90% of people I have met ignore this and start strategizing at some point. They seem to always lose in the long run.

"The company treated me wrong, so why should I work as efficient as I can?"

"I can't teach him EVERYTHING or my job won't be as important/secure any more."

"I will pick this project, because I have done something similiar already, so it will be easy work."

When sticking to 1-4, relevant people will notice eventually and your trajectory will go up.

When ignoring points 1-4, relevant people will lose respect for you. And even worse, you will lose respect for yourself.

This is just my opinion or my experience so far.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that animal experiments would be ethical if they removed all suffering for humans?

I think this is a weak argument, because you could just as well use it to argue for conducting these experiments on humans:

Humans suffer horrible lives naturally too, and on a much more massive scale. If you're really against human suffering and dying then a far bigger problem is the existence of humans with peak populations, unreliable food supplies, murderers, fights and disease. Stopping research on humans is like trying to stop global warming by driving slower. Feels like you're making a difference but you're not.