Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@qoto.org

@grimalkina That's true, the managers are mostly just making the best of a tough situation.
The shareholders/board/producers make up unreasonable timelines and outrageous projections then the dev-level management is left to figure out how to implement it with inadequate resources.

🤦‍♂️

@grimalkina In general, we have the opposite approach. "Bigger" is brute force. It's inelegant. We only do it when we have severe time constraints and can't create something smaller, more efficient.

The vast majority of us like to do things the right way, and that involves minimizing the amount of resources it takes, not only to develop, but for users to run at home.

Unfortunately, as with most things in life, it's the manager class that tends to put on time and financial pressure, pushing us to ignore these concerns and ship the product.

Elegant, efficient code is easier to work with and maintain. But it's more expensive to write, and it doesn't usually result in any increased profits.

(At least, that's been my experience so far)

@mekkaokereke

> Which month is it? Is it "DEI has gone too far! Cancel all DEI programs!" month? Or is it "Save us Black women! The stakes are so high!" month?

Were these ever the same group of people?

@lawfare This is also ridiculous.

Congress couldn't even enumerate or prove any national security concerns for the court to consider. It was passed on vibes.

But more importantly, it shouldn't be the court's job to second-guess Congress. It's their job to impartially uphold the constitution. If Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the court should strike it down. Period.

Finally, the idea that the court would ignore our constitution to kill a company just because it's foreign-owned would be a *far* worse precedent to set, as even a layperson could clearly see.

Just a completely absurd take overall.

My kingdom for a dictionary website that can run without #javascript 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♂️

@lawfare What? Ridiculous. Based on his argument, he just doesn't much care for free speech rights in general.

The law is blatant viewpoint discrimination. Anyone who believes in freedom of speech can see that.

@IrishStewPodcast @maddler I would argue that the vast majority of the public *does* want to be educated.

There will always bad actors who revel in malice. That's why we have murder laws on the books.

But we need to make sure we aren't punishing everyone for the actions of a few (which is what most social media content regulation boils down to). Educating the good actors on how to spot the bad ones and empowering them to report/block is the key to a healthier and more productive space.

Famous people, including politicians, have always had to deal with their fair share of nuts. That's just part of the human condition, though, and not a problem they can solve by regulating away technology.

@maddler @IrishStewPodcast Which is especially nuts when the simplest solution is almost always "educate the public".

@lowqualityfacts That is a low quality fact. It was actually 9 figures, and his name was David Zaslav.

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/29/discovery-ceo-zaslav-gets-a-big-fat-raise-despite-being-terrible-at-his-job/

@palin I wish I could donate, but my spam has just gotten down to a manageable level, and I do not want to make that mistake again.

@w7voa

@SecurityWriter Agreed. To that end, we also desperately need a lobbying group for gun owners that advocates for safety and responsible use, both at home and in the law.