I've read their comparison and it really feels like word salad.
Having gone decently down the Cue rabbit hole, I feel that Cue is remarkable in being able to do everything I need it to do without looking significantly different than JSON. The validations and boiler plate reduction are fantastic. And even without inheritance, I'm confident it can represent anything I need to without having to duplicate the same thing over and over.
Extending the example, “if a company A (eg. Marlboro) pays you a salary X to do your fucking job Y ( make cigarettes more addictive) and if you use that money and time on activities Z(whistleblowing, protesting, etc), especially if it negatively affects company A's image / revenues, why shouldn't the company be allowed to fire
I think people feel strongly about certain issues. That doesn’t imply that what they are doing is inherently wrong if driven by those core sentiments. How about we empathize- We can respect both Google’s and the employees’ action without choosing sides.
I mean, if you have moral objections, quit. It's not like Google engineers, of all people, are otherwise unemployable.
What I don't understand is to complain about or refuse to do things you morally object to and at the same time insist in keeping collecting a nice paycheck. You can't have both.
>What I don't understand is to complain about or refuse to do things you morally object to and at the same time insist in keeping collecting a nice paycheck. You can't have both.
Yes, of course you can have both. Companies can and have been improved in their behaviour by employee protests, strikes, union bargaining, and other such measures.
Historically hasn't this activism always been about improving working conditions?
I was empathetic with the initial walkout since it was addressing working conditions directly (covering up sexual harassment and forced arbitration).
Then the organizers of that action started agitating to change company direction regarding military contracts, censored search engines, and conservative people being on certain boards. While in general I have reservations about all those things, and think people should speak up about them, I don't think that organizing against general company direction should be protected in the same way labor organizing is.
By all means, try to change things from within, but keep it within. The moment you start leaking internal stuff, betraying the trust of your employer and your peers, you turn it into an us-vs-them situation, and I don't find it surprising that you end up suffering us-vs-them consequences.
At the same time, if your moral objections are strong enough, you should quit immediately. E.g. if your company says good news, everyone! We're opening concentration camps tomorrow!, I suppose the only reasonable action is to quit in disgust (as I said before, it's not like Google engineers are otherwise unemployable). If you stick around you're implicitly saying that your moral objections aren't that strong (at least not as strong as your desire to get a fat juicy paycheck), and sure, try to change from within, but keep it private and keep it civil, without biting the hand that is feeding you.
Everyone has to pick their battles. Sometimes they believe that it's not possible or practical to affect any meaningful amount of change. I can imagine trying to change an entire country as an individual can certainly feel that way. But sometimes people derive a great deal of meaning by fighting for things they believe in. And sometimes they win. I wouldn't be so quick to discount this impulse in people.
Nope. I got tired of trying to cope with the situation or try to influence it, realized that meaningful change would take decades if not longer than my lifespan, and thought "fuck it, I'll move to a place that works like I want now, not in three generations if I'm lucky".
The reason the place you've landed works like you want "now", is that people didn't do the same when it needed to change -- and generations by generation helped improve it.
If they just wanted to come, milk it, and leave on the first sign of trouble, it would be just like your country of origin.
Humans have specialized enough over time AND powers have become very entrenched. This agency you're talking about to improve the current system has reduced/disappeared over time because of that IMO.
For example, Try as I might, I would suck at say building roads - just not strong enough. I will get done over 4x the time what an expert will need. I think this analogy applies to residence as well: I just don't feel I have the power to change a whole country or community. There is also a huge amount of force required to reverse a flywheel compared to adding to the current direction. Given a choice, people find the flywheel that's turning in their direction.
I also would like to work on what my specialization is and build up on it rather than trying to learn to lay roads. It is clearly better to do that in a place supportive of the same rather than trying to change my 3rd world country to adopt it, build it etc. Some probably have that skill to build from ground up in a hostile place - it is a rare skill.
You can also try and extend your argument to the millions of refugees / immigrants that flow away from poor spots and see if it holds: Why don't they stay and make their place better? Because more often than not, they just want to make a living and don't believe they can effect measurable change.
And believe me, this doesn't come as easy as you think. A ton of legal / ably employed / tax paying immigrants with completely clear records live 10s of years in the USA for example without any permanence or citizenship. IOW I wish it was as simple as you make it sound to up and leave :)
The problem with that approach is much as I think the politicians in the countries I have lived in are incompetent and corrupt, it is still significantly less corrupt that most of the countries in the world.
only it is economic power, contrary to the power of governments to apply any physical force necessary to make you comply with any rules it imposes on you.
But this sophistry of comparing Marlbro to Google is tiring. While at it, why not just compare things to 1943 Germany?
I say this as an ardent critic of Google: An individual finding irreconcilable differences with a bona fide good employer like Google is unlikely to find any other company fault-free. Tsk tsk: The issue is likely not with the companies.
I am going through this course- and it is fabulous. Covers tests, and even though the topic names might seem easy or trivial(I mean there is only so many ways you can write loops or define arrays), they include a lot of "extras" that make it fun- for example one of the topics might include details about how to write doctests and docs, another one might introduce table driven tests and provide advice on when to use them. Overall it is great.
I'd be very interested in seeing this approach applied to other language courses.
If you like TDD, checkout rustlings https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings/. I'd recommend https://exercism.io/, but there's such a shortage of mentors for the Rust track that you can get blocked very easily waiting for feedback. One of my solutions went un-mentored for over a month - and it was only after I asked someone directly to mentor my solution that it passed. If that weren't a problem, I would highly recommend exercism.io
Unfortunately, the code examples in the Rust book still feels like toy projects / toy code.
What I like about the Go book is that it feels production-ready, even though it is simple. This is because it is following industry best practices. There's no "code in isolation", if that makes sense.
I don't think OP wants a project to accept anything "less-good". It's just a post asking to be respectful to the contributor. Attack the idea(in a civilized manner) - not the person.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34144566 [2]: https://kcl-lang.io/docs/user_docs/getting-started/intro/#vs...