simple code best code, the less opportunity you give people to shoot themselves in the foot the better

I'm not sure of a great solution and it's way outside my knowledge/expertise but ignoring the issue and basically just saying "should have got a STEM degree idiot" isn't good for society

"Kids" have been making this decision for decades. Kids also chose to serve in each of the World Wars at younger ages. Kids at a younger age can also get married in most states.

45-55% of the (albeit distant by social class) peers of college freshman are NOT going to college, but working jobs that don't require degrees. Not going to higher ed is as much of an adult decision as taking a loan.

I've known very smart people who, as late teens, were told all sorts of lies by colleges, about employability in the fields in which they ultimately got degrees.

It could've been wishful thinking on the part of the department (e.g., "Every industry needs Philosophy majors!"), and it could've been professors out of touch (e.g., "Hey, I got degrees in literature, and I got a professorship, coincidentally at the same university where my mom was head of a department, so anyone can do it! And my friends who didn't get professorships all got jobs at the hedge funds run by friends of their dads!").

And everyone was telling these teens that they need a degree, and everyone they knew was doing it.

Not everyone can magically be smart enough to truly understand what they are getting into, and what ramifications it will have on their later economic life. What is your advice for the people who aren't doing more research ahead of time? "just get smarter dummy" ?

I imagine upper class kids just get their education bank-rolled by their parents so who cares. And I didn't live the life of a lower class kid (my family was middle or lower middle) so I can't speak to their experience - but that middle class suburbanite definitely isn't going to get a check from their parents to cover their full schooling.

Bit of a chicken and an egg problem :)

By your logic if you can write perfect integration tests, can't you write perfect application code that doesn't need to be tested?

OP is arguing that a perfect codebase is not possible, therefore it's a bit unfair to complain that the status pages do not work perfectly. Hence the chicken and egg problem of "if I could write a perfect status page, I would have skills such that the status page would not be necessary".

1) A guy with a button. It's right, but it requires the guy to notice or get told - and remember to push the button.

2) Automation. But your automation has to somehow catch bugs that you can't even dream of. And not be triggered randomly. And somehow be able to be automated but not fixed at the source (as if you know how something will fail - why not just fix that over adding more status checks?)

It looks like they are just an aggregator for status pages. I want something that does its own testing to determine if a service is up or down.

    - Their products have weird names
    - Their web console has horrible UX
    - The lie about uptime and server status

I use the AWS APIs almost every day but probably log in once a week or so.

You know Zuck has experimented with making people’s feeds negative to see the impact on their usage?

I get Facebook works for you, but consider the company is run by a truly evil and insidious man. As an organizer consider helping people leave.

So you get a new platform, but if you only do one event every few months then there is no really no reason to check it, and then suddenly no one is doing events.

Like it or not, Facebook is the modern yellowpages and you need something everyone is on to replace it. I think that’s going to happen sooner or later.

It’s anecdotal of course, but very few people in my social circle use Facebook for anything but organising events, and you don’t need their app, messenger or even to log on more than once in a while to do that. If you couple that with the fact that everyone is tired of their bullshit, I think they seem ripe for disruption.

You don't have to accept someones view point to have empathy for people.

You also have to remember that life is messy and complex and there is rarely a single proximate cause for anything.

I tend to regard any sentence that starts "It's their fault because <single thing>" or "It simple, you just do <single thing>" with deep suspicion.

It would be nice if life actually had simple answers once in a while though.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the USA is a signatory, they do. Namely:

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

It's not saying the government owes you a job, but that the government can't stop you from working. There is protection against unemployment, but that does not imply the protection must be absolute because, of course, that's impossible.

It's a big difference.

"No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses."

This can only be interpreted as a description of what you believe the values of your society to be. Of course, some people have contracts that in fact entitle them to work. But that is not what you mean. You mean that, in the abstract, society does not owe you a job, or a way to provide for yourself, or help if you need it.

The Declaration of Human Rights is also a set of moral statements. It is not law, it is a description of a fundamental set of values that the signatories agree are their own too. It does not go in the direction of "just because you exist, you are not entitled to anything". It goes in the direction of: "the point of society is to give people opportunities to life fulfilling and meaningful lives and sometimes they need help".

Article 22

> in accordance with the organization and resources of each State

So basically each State decides how serious it is about this. Apparently the organization of this State permits shutdowns and furloughs, which is enough to satisfy Article 22.

> of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality

Subjective to the point of meaninglessness, but there is plentiful evidence to support the notion that one's dignity and personal development can survive in the absence of a government job. Or any job, for that matter.

Article 23

> Everyone has the right to work

No one is being told they aren't allowed to work. The right to work does not guarantee gainful employment in your preferred field or with any specific employer.

> to free choice of employment

Neither is anyone being told they must perform any particular job; everyone is free to choose from among the positions available in the open job market. At this time that simply doesn't happen to include any government jobs, at least not if you want to get paid. There are plenty of private positions available, though.

> to just and favourable conditions of work

Subjective. Unless you're being coerced, your choice to remain is sufficient evidence for me that you consider the conditions "just and favorable" compared to your next-best alternative, which is all that anyone can reasonably expect.

> and to protection against unemployment.

Here's the first part that might actually be considered a statement of entitlement to income and/or having others pay your expenses. It would be unreasonable to expect this protection to last forever, though. It comes with the expectation that one is actively seeking new employment. "Protection against unemployment" is not UBI.

> (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Non-discrimination does not guarantee income, a job, or paid expenses, so long as these are doled out (or not) equitably, so this part not applicable.

> (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration

There's that subjective "just and favorable" language again. No one reasonable is going to guarantee a livable income for yourself and your family merely on the basis of effort without regard for whether the work is actually productive. If you and your employer come to a voluntary agreement on the terms of your employment, that proves the resulting terms "just and favorable" enough to suit you—and no one else's opinion matters.

> and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

The conditions to make this "necessary" are not defined, so we can just say it's never necessary and ignore this clause altogether. There is always another option.

They're just required to work [without being paid immediately] if they want to keep the job, with the promise that they'll be paid later.

Edit: Except for the Coast Guard, for whom the current situation really sucks.

I'm not really required to breathe, but if I don't, I'll stop living.

So...yeah...that's what's known as a requirement.

That is an assertion, not a statement of fact. Christian values actually teach the exact opposite, and that's why Jesus said that one cannot serve God and Mammon at the same time.

Christianity always only talks about what you need to give, and never says anything about what you need to get, including anything you get from God, which is always undeserved and only happens through His mercy and generosity.

This is even acknowledged obliquely when Christ states that we will always have the poor. By saying that we can't serve God and Mammon, He's saying that we cannot make money for money's sake, but must use it justly in the service of God.

Somewhere the Jewish Sages made that argument because someone considered the weakness in the Golden Rule: what if someone treats everyone with meanness and expects the same in return? It would make an awful society.

We are still talking about the responsibilities of people to treat others in this way. I think it's much more important in some circumstances to think less of rights and to think more of responsibilities.

It would be equivalent to say you have the right to be treated with dignity by other human beings, but again this is saying other human beings have a responsibility to treat you with dignity. If other human beings didn't exist, then you couldn't be treated with dignity by them, hence it's a responsibility of them, and not something inherent to your own being.

The "inalienable rights" to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, don't require other people to do anything for you to retain those rights. It only prohibits them from doing certain things to you. It's a restriction on them, rather than a responsibility, and therefore, your right isn't contingent on them existing in the first place.

I don't think you and I are in disagreement.

Pfft, according to you? Calling it an assertion suggests the statement lacks some form of support from reality. As opposed to the very clear fact that humans in the world are not entitled to income, a job, or having other pay for their expense.

Christian values having nothing to do with this and bringing religion into the mix won't help the discussion.

So no life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for these folks? Got it.

You don't have a right to a job, but I also don't have a right to try to prevent you from getting a job.

This is obvious in the phrase "pursuit of happiness". There's no right to happiness. You can't be restricted from pursuing happiness, but there can be no guarantee you'll get it.

Similarly, you can't be restricted from trying to get a job, but there can be no guarantee you'll get it.

So, no, no one is _entitled_ to income, a job or having others pay for their expenses. If there are no jobs, or no income, or no others to pay, how can you be entitled? That's the logical contradiction.

A right isn't something that forces someone else to do something. That's the definition of slavery. If you have the right to receive something from someone, then that someone is, at least in part, your slave.

But if you have the right to pursue your own ends, no one has a right to try to stop you. These rights are restrictions on what people can do to you, not things they are forced to do for you.

They can't just walk up and kill you for no reason. They can't just lock you up, or enslave you, for no reason. They can't stop you from doing what you want to do, for no reason.

And again, the only reason is if you, in turn, are infringing on the rights of others, and even then only in way that is governed by the rule of law.

See how that works?