zeroname
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
189
Submissions
480
Member since
Sep 7
Recent submissions
Comment · 7 years ago
Do you have a source for that?
Comment · 7 years ago
Just dump all the sorted garbage in sorted landfills. Recycling may become economical again at some point. In any event, future technology will deal with it better.
Comment · 7 years ago
Put the technologies you used next to the projects you worked on. Just listing "Python" or "SQL" without context isn't meaningful.
Similarly, it's not clear what you actually did in the projects. Write it more like: "Implemented X for Y using Z" and add in some benchmarks such as "reduced overhead by 12%" or "scaled to 100,000 clients", if possible.
Comment · 7 years ago
If the US had mandatory six to eight weeks paid leave, that would come out of the employee's paycheck.
I don't see what's good or civilized about being forced to take a vacation. A lot of people are underemployed as-is, because of all the regulations that make it less attractive to hire people fulltime.
Comment · 7 years ago
> Occassion and modus operandi are two entirely different precepts but you know this, yeah, and your trying ever-so hard to be pedantic.
It is you who is being pedantic. My point is that working from home, as a developer, because of some special case is generally possible, just like in your case.
Now what about all the other professions in your country? Do they all get their little "stay at home" days? No? Then what's your point?
> How can you rub in that which you assume to be true but have no evidence for or against? The arrogance is astounding, to say the least.
Why, I thought it was common knowledge.
Finland, as compared to the US:
Higher cost of living with less disposable income:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Finland/Un...
Developer salaries half as high:
https://www.daxx.com/blog/development-trends/it-salaries-sof...
Unemployment rate 50% higher:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemploym...
And obviously, the weather in Northern Europe sucks. Priceless!
> I'm assuming you're speaking of purely fiscal wealth, which is a pretty myopic perspective to have.
No, I'm talking about the standard of living. Of course somebody with a lower standard of living will have to find some other reason to make themselves look superior.
> Do you not do this with the current Social Security system?
You can look up the difference yourself.
> The irony is palpable... Do you have anything of consequence to proffer or is it going to continually be this mundane level of effort, deriving from your bravado? If the latter of the two, then, you're bringing a knife to a gun show and it wouldn't be fair to keep being you with your own phantom limbs, so I'm dipping out.
I don't know about your native language, but if you write like this in English, it makes you sound like a clown.
Comment · 7 years ago
Believe it or not, an American parent can take a vacation day as well. The difference is, you're not forced to have vacation days and suffer lower pay for it.
In any event, why have only five days? If five days is good, why aren't two weeks even better? How could five days be enough to care for your family? Why not a whole month, that's even better than two weeks! I'll tell you why: Because it's not a free lunch. These laws are made so that politicians can sell them to clueless voters, not because they make sense.
Comment · 7 years ago
> Just because I'm "out of touch" with ordinary, less privileged workers doesn't equate to my experience and observations in the sector as being invalidated, yeah?
It means your experience doesn't scale to broader society, but you were making a point about broader society. If the ordinary secretary or the shift worker or the policeman don't get their "work from home days" there's essentially no difference in your example to what's going on in the US.
> That might be true for you but is it true for developers in the overall society?
Working from home on occasion certainly isn't unusual.
> Let's take this to an extreme example: A coworker missed over two months, last year, for 'x' medical reasons. What would've surely driven him to the poor house in the states was paid through those taxes you later commented on and there was no threat to his job because of it.
"Surely" you have no idea about the US system. Paid sick days is something your insurance may or may not cover. You get the choice of whether you want to pay for that or not. States laws also may protect workers from getting fired during longer illness.
> What does that have to do with anything related to kids...
Nothing, just rubbing it in. If you're successful in Finland (or some other little Euro country), you're going to be far less wealthy than in the US. You'll be paying for everyone else to live. If that makes you happy, go for it. Pat yourself on the back.
Comment · 7 years ago
The cost isn't paid elsewhere. It's essentially going straight out of their own paycheck. Not immediately and in equal measure, but over time and on the average. It's effectively vacation days.
Remember, everyone gets those five days. Big earners, small earners. It evens out to nothing. Everyone can't live at the expense of everyone else.
Comment · 7 years ago
> (specifically speaking of the technology sector, as that's what I have first-hand experience with)
In other words, you're out of touch with ordinary, less privileged workers.
> It really is a different world, over here. The antithesis to the apathetical, if I may be so bold...
Oh, come on. If you're a developer you can have a "work from home" day in the US as well. Plus, you can earn far more and you pay less in taxes.
Comment · 7 years ago
Who is paying for those five extra days? Is it the health insurance? Your cost of health care will go up or service will get worse.
Is it taxes? Your taxes will go up or money will be missing in the budget (or you will need to get more debt).
Is it the employer? Wage suppression.
You haven't gained or won anything really. There's no free lunch.
I will make an exception though: If you make people stay home when they are sick, you may reduce sickness overall. However, if people spend their entire "Family Care Leave" on rugby matches and then illness strikes, it's not going to work.
Comment · 7 years ago
Your own source:
"Researchers from the Harvard Kennedy School who followed 122 men and women who had been released from the state prison in Massachusetts found that six months to a year after their release, just over half of the group had found a job."
That means he's actually right by a narrow margin. Most ("just over half") former inmates did find a job.
This source reports an unemployment rate of only 25%:
http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2018/07/16/report-finds-on...
> I appreciate the author making such clear and well-stated points, that makes it easy to use to simple facts to refute his/her argument.
You didn't refute anything. Of course a conviction is career poison and one can write long-winded articles on the injustice of it. Still, the statistics say: Most ex-convicts can find a job.
Comment · 7 years ago
> Does this bet mean anything if the only employment you can get is 10 hours a week at minimum wage?
Yes, because it's about relative rates. Unless you believe the EU is more "honest" about reporting unemployment numbers, the US numbers are just as meaningful.
Comment · 7 years ago
"And psychology aside, remember that the welfare state forces active workers to support the idle. So when regulation forces wages up, even the lucky workers who keep their jobs ultimately forfeit much of what they gain."
Even a doubling in unemployment claims would be drop in the bucket compared to pension liabilities.
Comment · 7 years ago
> I've come to recognize you're conflating multiple related 'responsibility' concepts, swapping into the different modes when it's convenient. It's very similar to how you treated the term 'fair' earlier on.
Can you accept that words don't all have one meaning? Maybe you willfully misunderstand what people are saying so that you can win a debate that you started, on your terms? I don't care about "winning" a debate with you. Nobody else is reading this, it's just you and me.
> Your statements regarding legal responsibility...
See, I never made a statement about legal responsibility. You want to talk about legality and law and power and justice and morality. I'm talking about fair market prices.
Of course "fair market prices" aren't going to be "fair" at every possible level of analysis, under every moral framework, in every single instance in the history of mankind.
For you, it's all power games and injustice and exploitation. For me, it's people cooperating voluntarily without centralized control. In my eyes, it all works pretty well. In your eyes, it doesn't and it all needs regulation and intervention. We're not convincing each other otherwise.