As someone who comes from a country where it's very hard to fire people, don't make that mistake.
Staying in a company where you're not wanted is a miserable experience. The company will do anything to make you leave. Plus, it weakens companies and makes for a poor general worker experience.
What should be done instead is mandate generous severance packages that increase with tenure. But give companies a clear path to fire people when they don't want to employ them anymore.
As someone who comes from a country where it’s very hard to fire people: fuck the companies.
This is the reason why we need the laws in the first place. Many people leave their countries, move their families, buy houses/flats, plan for stability just to be what? Laid off, because investors said so or tripping CEO woke up on the wrong side of the bed? We’re talking about people for fucks sake, workers aren’t Docker pods that are scaled up and down. If they are, they should be compensated for the constant risk they bear.
How? If you like playing Warhammer, go to Games Workshop. If you like climbing, go to a bouldering gym. I appreciate that there are probably some counter examples. But part of this, in my mind, needless demand for tech spaces to meet other hobbyists is catering to an over-reliance on technology. Yes, there are reasons you might want to screen people or groups - for instance, women looking for safety. But surely the existing tools for such a problem are good enough? Instagram and Facebook groups? Or Reddit or Hacker News? The problem is people become chronically attached to these services and convince themselves they need them to function socially. Which is complete myth.
Also, depending on your interests, you may not want to meet people IRL right away. Talking to anonymous strangers is often a good way to learn more about sensitive subjects without taking too much risk.
But yeah, I'm with you, we rely too much on these services at the moment.
This is completely untrue. Git is fully decentralized in the way it's designed. People use it in a centralized manner, but that has nothing to do with the tool itself.
If you familiarize yourself with the way people use it for Linux kernel development, you'll see that it doesn't have to be this way.
That's very short-sighted though. The money is forcing everyone (users and creators) to stay on YouTube, no matter how big of a cut they take or how much crap they throw at us as users.
almost all creators have some other way to get paid by viewers, and they'll take a good chunk more than 55%, why give google a dime. Not to mention its more direct support for the creators you actually care about, and an absurd higher amount than a subscription would ever benefit that individual.
Look at it the other way round, Google takes nearly half of their income, where they're putting a huge amount of time and energy into creating content while Google's contribution is hosting the data on a server. It also reinforces the YouTube hostage situation where content creators can't afford to leave the abusive relationship because they'll lose most of the income that Google isn't already taking off them.
This might be harder to do on linux because filesytems are different. If I'm not mistaken, NTFS has big tables that can be directly read without iterating through the filesystem tree. I don't think this is true of most popular linux filesystems.
reply