overscore

> I would argue that you have a moral and ethical responsibility to say no when your manager asks you to do something illegal, even if it does cost you your job.

When your access to food, housing, heating and healthcare for your family are dependent on your income, you may find yourself facing very difficult decisions. Most parents will risk whatever legal ramifications to care for their kids and that's inherent moral and ethical, even if the downstream outcome is not. That is because it is the socioeconomic system rather than the individual who is acting immorally.

> The law is the law, and there is no excuse for breaking it.

This is an infantile view. The law is a framework and there are lots of circumstances where breaking it is not only excusable, it's the only moral action.

Yes, it is, and 37 years later, it is no longer acceptable to use such terms.

The colloquial meaning carries all of that baggage. You just weren't aware.

It's definitely not forgotten? What makes you think that? Commonly used in Ireland, the UK, Australia, Canada, parts of the US.

> they're probably due for some self-reflection on what offends their sensibilities.

Or maybe what they're willing to accept?

> Almost anything can be a slur in some context.

Eh, this is a very particular and long-standing racist term, and the meaning used by the authors is derived from the slur, so it's not incidental.

How so?

> Wow. I put myself in your shoes for a second and felt fear.

It is actually the only thing that keeps me up at night. I am crew on a lifeboat and need to live within a certain distance from the boathouse, otherwise I would move tomorrow. The RNLI is too important a part of my life to leave behind otherwise. I may be able to afford some land higher up (60m+ in the future).

> I always wanted to do the same (be self-sufficient in such ways).

I am definitely not self-sufficient (especially not socially)! I could maybe take care of my family for one calendar year (one growing season and one winter), but it's a maybe. If we're talking about a situation where people are physically (violently) competing for resources, then I'd be in the same boat as everyone else (by design, I'd add - I have no desire to be the lone survivor behind a fence or whatever while other families starve).

> I probably will never be living like that (unless homelessness count, bleh), but good for you, I envy you. :)

Thanks! It actually happened because I gave up on living in a city. Certainly, there's a lot of people I knew in SF/Bay Area, London, and Dublin who could do what I did overnight (probably even as a side project), but don't, so I don't think funding is the limiting factor for most.

I hope things work out for you. I know it's trite to say online, but if you decide to do it, it's certainly a path you can take. It will involve sacrificing other paths not taken, though - the bill for opportunity cost escapes no-one.

I was an infantry soldier and learnt very fast how fragile the logistics of necessities can be in the modern world.

I don't believe that world civilisation will collapse (at least not in any way that can be prepared for), but I have moved out of the city, begun to farm organically, and have a plan to cook and live without mains power or fuel for months on end. I know people think I'm a nutjob, but I've also seen first-hand whole cities who thought that progress was a one-way street end up in terrible circumstances.

That said, I'm not an alarmist. I am a founder, put a sizeable amount of my wealth into the global stock market, drive cars, fly (outside of COVID-19) to various places, and - most riskily of all, IMO - live only 1.6m above the high water mark/strand line of the sea.

> If you've got integration tests that include state, now you've got to either run your tests serially or set up and tear down multiple copies of the state to prevent tests from clobbering each other.

That is a very normal setup.

> Worse, they'll start to become unreliable due to the number of operations being performed. So you'll end up with a test suite that takes potentially multiple hours to run, and may periodically fail just because.

This is called flakiness and is generally a symptom not to be ignored, as it is almost always indicative of bigger issues. It's rare that flakiness is limited to test environments. Instead it's much more likely that whatever your smoke tests are experiencing is a something end-users are also intermittently hitting.

> The feedback loop becomes so slow that it's not helpful during actual coding.

Devs can write their own unit tests when working on their assigned tasks. Smoke tests are designed to run when you're trying to integrate those changes into the existing codebase. At that point, you have the calculus all wrong. Smoke tests slow down devs enough that they don't merge broken code into production. That is a useful release gate unto itself.

If unit tests pass but smoke tests fail, then often (the vast majority of the time in my experience) the issue is that either the dev didn't understand the task or, more often, didn't understand the system they were integrating into.

In some jurisdictions. Certainly not all.

> Google’s core business is now ads, not search.

It has been for over 20 years now, since October 2000.

General Aviation - the category that encompasses private plane ownership.

GA in the EU is definitely the preserve of the rich.