The CEO of a healthcare insurer is not involved in "withholding" funds. At best, he sets up policies that distribute a limited amount of funds among millions of claimants who are all in need of help to some degree, but he does that job poorly. If this juvenile logic is applied further, aren't you guilty of the same crime? There are people in need of life-saving drugs and treatments, yet you're just sitting behind your computer withholding funds.
This sounds like airlines saying they have a right to bump people who paid for a ticket because the airlines couldn't figure out a business model that earned them an acceptable amounts of money without doing it. UHC does that, except instead of denying you the seat you paid for, they deny you care you paid for, and you suffer and die.
The problem is the conclusion that we must allow this so that their business economics can be sound, so that they can continue to exist. We should instead conclude that being horrible to people is bad, and any business model that requires it should not exist.
Brian saw a company that he knew ahead of time was horrible to people, that he knew ahead of time decided that many of their customers must die, and indeed this was critical to the company's economics and business model, and thought, 'You know what? I want to be a part of that. I like that so much that I want to be the one in charge of it.'
Why that job, instead of the millions of others? Well, we can take a gue$$. He had to make his nut, no matter who he hurt along the way, right?
Meanwhile, as an arguably less-horrible person, I see a job posting for startups that use AI to scan terminal cancer patient records for timely funeral business leads in exchange for offering crypto credits that can be applied towards a coupon for palliative care AI chat or whatever, or makes drones and AI systems for tracking and identifying government critics for later persecution, and I have to click 'next' because my soul is worth more than the salary. What a fuckin' chump I am.
1/ There is no "distribute a limited amount of funds". There is even less a "distribute a limited amount of funds after shareholder profit and massive executive paychecks". Customers have bought coverage; if the company overissued policies, they make a loss, or they go bankrupt and their own insurers cover the existing claims. Anything else is privatised profit and socialised losses, which even a callous teenager just blown away by their first glimpse at Ayn Rand should find objectionable.
2/ I carefully said "entitled to" to avoid a debate about personal responsibility and limit the conversation to "paid for a life-saving service they did not receive", which everyone will agree is wrong.
3/ If you think the CEO did not issue orders to make it as difficult to claim as possible, and drag the process as much as possible, you are a fool.
Denying help to a human is one thing. Denying them help after they paid for the help so you can buy a yacht another thing entirely.
It wasn't a "normal person" it was a developer that put this into a README of his package
> But beyond the technical aspects, there's something more critical: trust and long-term maintenance. I have been active in open source for over a decade, and I'm committed to keeping Chalk maintained. Smaller packages might seem appealing now, but there's no guarantee they will be around for the long term, or that they won't become malicious over time.
I do it by reading domain name and comparing it to what I expect it to be. It's not hard and when in doubt I can easily check WHOIS info or search online for references.
This is also easily avaidable by using password manager which will not autofill credentials on a page with a wrong domain.
Edit: And yes, I do this for every link emailed to me that does anythig more high stakes than point me to a newsletter article.
It really isn't, and I've never seen anyone do that. In every project I've worked on in the past decade, dependencies were only occasionally bumped in the context of some maintenance task or migration.
For autocompletion I suggest giving Zed's own offering another try. It's guesses somewhat correctly at least half the time and is very convenient when it get's what you're trying to do durin a refactor and suggest valid multiline changes. It's still rather annoying when it replaces regular autocompletion for import paths with it's plausible sounding guesses. Before that I was using Cody, but I don't think that they have free tier any more.
> immediately consumed the entire free tier's worth of credits in just a few minutes of normal coding
Happened to me too when I've tried to do a single edit with connected gemini pro. It somehow ran out of free quota even before finishing it.
> if the foreigner was so good as the American engineer why wouldn’t they be getting paid the same as the American
You should also ask whether you're paying American so much because they are so good, or are you paying them so much because rents in SF are so high?
> Covid hits and everyone goes remote, but the salaries only go up. They always go up.
Once again, did it go up because COVID infections somehow made american workers even better or because lockdowns caused mini tech boom while money printing tanked the dollar's value?
Do you really think companies are paying high tech salaries out of the goodness of their hearts? Like “oh this individual lives in a HCOL area, let’s pay them an appropriate amount” or “let’s share the spoils of this tech boom with our workers! $1.5million dollar bonus for everyone!”
Americans are truly exceptional people. Or, at least, that's what I learned in American-made training on cultural differences. The funniest part is that the training touched on nationalism. You see, nationalism is a negative quality exhibited by people in other countries. Americans have a positive version of that: patriotism.
> And I rarely see non-americans say something like "I think our customers would like it if we added X to the product, can I work on that?".
The most crucial difference in this context is that Americans are employed directly by the company, while foreign workers are behind several layers of management belonging to several companies. While you can walk around and deliver elevator pitches to higher-ups, foreign workers must track their time spent on tasks down to the minute in Jira. Then, they must find a manager who would like to pitch a feature to a manager who would pitch a feature to a manager in the U.S.
Exactly. I used to work in such a situation for a few years (consulting company hiring EE devs). I tried suggesting things, building PoC’s, pitching it to the manager, all was met with just “we’re on a limited budget, so stick with what we’ve arranged.”
Had I built the things anyway it wouldn’t be met with praise, but looked down upon for bypassing the manager (or I just wouldn’t get paid for those hours).
Many big corporations tend to be similar even when you’re employed directly.
You can’t truly be creative when you’re stuck 7 layers of mgmt deep. You also have to understand that for those who’ve only worked in such situations, “risking” their position at a foreign company just to appear smart doesn’t seem like a good idea, so they don’t do it.
Getting high level ideas "X but Y with Z" is easy. What's hard is actually understanding what makes X work and how to adapt it to properly incorporate Y. I've played a bunch of games that had Vampire Survivors, FTL or Factorio as their starting point, but failed to deliver a good game loop.
reply