• 1 Post
  • 206 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 12th, 2023

help-circle



  • When developing code for first release, we had a dedicated HIP Sprint (Hardening, Innovation, Planning) and we had the most productive team in the company. Other teams were struggling cause they were just using the HIP as another Sprint. So what did we do? Got rid of the HIP, naturally. You see, some teams weren’t using it and it’s unfair to those teams that we’re not doing work when they are. Now everyone’s suffering!

    Also had legitimate agile practices (budgets are for HR, work on what you need to work on and let someone else worry about paying for it) and we were the most productive team in the company. So, naturally, they need to get a bunch of C-suite guys to come over and run things cause it would be really embarrassing for them if they weren’t involved in the new hotness. Naturally, though, we gotta go back to funding buckets, cause those c-suite guys don’t understand why they got to talk to the developers when they want something fixed instead of handing things down from on high. Oh no! Suddenly all these issues are popping up in the workflow, guess we gotta force in ai to fix the problems.















  • chuckleslord@lemmy.worldtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlThese subpoenas...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Dude, I told you I don’t understand how what you’ve written is different from what I’ve said, so maybe start there? I can see the literal words you wrote, thanks. I’m trying to get to the meaning you’re attempting to convey, dude.

    Like are you saying “people shouldn’t have given their data to these companies”, then my entire argument until now applies. It’s not really an opt-out situation, unless you refuse to play ball with these companies.

    Are you saying “companies shouldn’t have this data”? Like, fair, but I’m not certain how what you’re saying conveys this point.

    What are attempting to say because I clearly don’t understand it with those words in that order. Give more context to what you mean, please. I genuinely want to understand but I can’t parse what you’re trying to say beyond what I parroted back at you. And it’s not some failure on your part, I am a certifiable idiot sometimes when it comes to this shit.


  • chuckleslord@lemmy.worldtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlThese subpoenas...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Which is why I don’t give anyone my phone number.

    Happy for you, chief. I’m sure that makes it real useful to have, then, since no one knows it to call you.

    Once again, that never happened, you just made it up, and I don’t appreciate it.

    Cool, how am I supposed to read this, then?

    I mean it’s a legit concern but, maybe don’t give them your data in the first place?

    Does that not read “if they have your data, you’re the one who gave it to them”? Explain it to me, because I’m clearly not understanding


  • Taxes in the US are overwhelmingly used for the military and to enrich rich fucks, not to help the poor. Don’t be disingenuous. Rich fucks sitting on assets aren’t “not hurting anyone”. Their assets have real world value, that’s why they’re valued like that. By letting someone sit on them to “allow them to appreciate” is letting someone doing nothing accumulate the wealth gains of society that we all work for. Because those assets appreciate faster than inflation, they create inflation pressure as more asseted people have income to burn that doesn’t reflect actual economic movement. Decreasing the value of money that other people need to use to buy things to live.

    No one lives in a vacuum and letting people hoard assets has a negative impact on everyone else. So yes, wealth redistribution is a net positive not because “it punishes rich people” but because it allows our money to better reflect who actually produces the value in society. The workers who do the labor of running everything, rather than rich fucks who normally reap all the monetary benefit of that with almost no actual contribution to the effort it required.

    If everyone became a laborer with proper compensation, society would thrive. If everyone became an asset hoarder, society would break apart as there would be no one to operate the machinery of society. Increased wealth inequality pushes us towards the second scenario(asset ownership is rewarded over value producing behaviors, pushing individuals towards more asset accumulation in order to not be left behind, increasing the price of those assets, devaluing other ways of earning money, creating more pressure to own assets), reducing wealth inequality pushes us towards the first.