try_the_bass

> Signed, the Silent Majority

I hate this phrase. It's simultaneously self-aggrandizing and dishonest.

If you're silent, you're literally indistinguishable from any silent fringe minority. You have no assurance you even hold a majority opinion!

And besides, if you were a majority, the solution is easy: stop being silent.

I agree with you that we should privatize the losses; I'm just not going to make (and dishonestly push) the idea that what I believe is somehow a majority opinion.

The Ship of Thesus is a powerful metaphor

> IDK, a sufficiently complex consumer or enterprise app winds up having big performance problems if people don't know what they're doing w.r.t. the code they write and how they connect systems together with that code.

I don't think you're really disagreeing with the original sentiment? However, I think you're taking a much broader view of "code" than is intended by the original statement.

In your framing, you're kind of confounding code with architecture. Code is really just the act of making a computer do a thing you want it to do, for some definition of "thing you want it to do". Architecture is more about understanding which things you want the computer to do, and in which ways.

There are a million ways to code a task. That's the "code" the original statement is talking about. Understanding which of those ways is an appropriate way is a separate skill, whether you call it architecture, or something else.

> So... we're just gonna forget that governments exist?

... No?

I'm not sure anything I said implied otherwise. I mean, I literally mentioned government in my second paragraph...

That wasn't what I said at all, and you know this. Please don't deliberately misrepresent me

> That isn't what it is being used for.

I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about? Flock cameras have definitely involved in detecting people who come into SF in stolen cars or with stolen plates, who proceed to go on sprees of breaking into cars and stealing things.

I really dislike Flock as a company, but their cameras absolutely do get used in the way they're publicly pitched.

Flock doing bad things does not justify coming into this thread and stating as fact things that are patently false.

> Why is the primary tech people impulse to disrupt, destroy and harm other industries? Maybe that is why we dont produce useful tech anymore. The primary impulse is always hostile, rarely something like "lets create and sell a useful thing for them".

I think you misunderstand what disruption means in this context? Disruption means pursuing the same market as some incumbents, with the express goal of serving that market better/faster/more efficiently.

The impulse is hostile to the incumbents, but (in principle) good for the market: the market is getting competition, and competition is one way to make things cheaper/better/etc.

Obviously what this looks like varies by market, but the principle is very different from how you're presenting it

I mean, that is the essence of how to fix the problems in a capitalist society?

One of the core tenets of capitalism is that one person's profits are another person's opportunity. If the latter can do the work/obtain the capital to break into the industry, they can capture some of those profits by offering competition at a lower price point.

I don't think the person you're bagging on is saying it's easy to do; but they are saying that if people feel strongly about changing something, perhaps they should try doing it themselves, instead of just complaining about it and wishing someone else (i.e. government) will fix it for them

Similarly, you know that "moved some magazines" doesn't accurately portray what this person was sentenced for. It was evidence tampering, and intentionally trying to frame it as "just moved some magazines" is disingenuous. You don't even have the plausible excuse of "missing the point".

You know what they say about glass houses and stones, right?

I've definitely heard a similar joke about economists. It probably applies to most sciences, tbh

> From above: "Conservatives have been basically purged from academia over the last 30 years"

Yet, when you are handed evidence that this is objectively true, you move the goalposts.

You're clearly not arguing in good faith. As such, I'm done with this conversation

No, I called them out on something I thought they were wrong about because they were being super obnoxious in the way they were stating it.

Turns out they were right, but instead of losing the attitude, they doubled down on the toxicity. When I admitted they were right, they doubled down again.

So yeah, pretty obnoxious, all told.

But so you have a baseline to compare this against?

You don't know what you doing know, after all.