No, this is called exit and it assume that monetary reasons are the only important thing in an economy. That is false, workers should be allowed to exercise their voice about bad management and change bad management. If you want to leave that is fine but thinking that every worker wants the same thing as you is extremely foolish.
Congrats as a single individual doing something, LMK when it amounts to real material change like obtaining a pension, or securing more PTO, or getting better health insurance.
You can also exercise your voice by... talking. That might mean trying to convince leadership, it might mean trying to coordinate a bunch of people who agree with you but don't want to act on their own, or, who knows, it might mean something else. But there are quite a lot of things you can do that are short of threatening to quit or simply leaving.
(And sometimes just leaving really is the best step!)
I would argue that’s an asymmetric game. If your boss’s boss or higher already dislikes your boss, then convincing leadership would be easy. But bad bosses don’t become the big bad boss by winning over their subordinates. They spend more time with their own boss than you do, your boss is likely going to have a better relationship with their own boss than you do, simply by proximity. Assuming they aren’t just a flat asshole of course.
A vote would in turn provide a mechanism to prevent such abuse. The boss works for the people not for their boss. Likewise the boss is no longer bound to the whims of their own boss. Their boss is the people below them. A group they will inevitably rejoin with new found appreciation for the troubles of management.
Responding to "hey, we could make our workplaces better by making it possible to elect our bosses rather than having them imposed on us as absolute dictators within the workplace" with "but you can already choose your boss—all you have to do is abandon all your coworkers, your salary, your routine, and likely your home and geographical region to go pick a different unaccountable absolute dictator" just shows that you aren't even having the same conversation that shimman is having.
And the worst part is you don't even seem to recognize it.
You got yourself into an extremely lucky position one time, and now that's made you think that's a viable solution for everyone who has problems with their bosses—and that anyone who thinks otherwise is just "not bringing value".
The only possible way to make our workplaces systemically better is by collective action. Unions. Workplace democracy. Stronger labor protections.
Depends on the job market, sadly. No way in hell people are doing this unless they already have "fuck you money" or are truly the best in their field (which usually comes with "fuck you money"). Otherwise, people who can't t afford to take 6-12 months off a job can't really do that.
Dotenv is definitely something that should not exist.
Direnv is the right way to go if you want a tool for this. Otherwise dotenv's implementation in bash is essentially `set -a; source .env`. Look ma, no custom parser!
Seems really silly to have a library do what two lines of shell can reasonably accomplish.
Cold call job interviews are primarily for people early in their career to get established in the field. You don’t hire someone that way to lead the Golden Gate Bridge.
How do you think companies hire for key roles like CEOs?
It's not science, but also a lot of stuff that purports to be science is not. "Science" is subject to many of the same forces that politics is.
Using your personal experiences and the personal experiences of people you trust as an anchor is a good thing. It keeps you from falling for propaganda. Note that this DOES NOT mean studies conflicting with your personal experience are all wrong.
The tricky part here is understanding the limit of what your own experience can tell you.
> Moving quickly, even if you break things, has a clear advantage over being perfectionistic, waiting to get feedback, building things that are not needed.
The entire point of slowing down is so you don't do this. Understand the problem well first, so you don't waste time building something that was never viable in the first place.
The author isn't advocating for perfect. You have to understand the problem well enough to know what all of the critical assumptions are. Some assumptions will derail an entire project if you get them wrong. Others will be a minor inconvenience, at worst.
In software, having a solid handle on future architecture means you can speak to how unanticipated new features fit in. You know what parts you can skip for now, and have it not be a big deal.
I've started to wonder if many of the people obsessed with speed lack capability. If you can't build something well, you can try building something poor quickly. This certainly applies to my current employer.
There is no handwaving involved. The layman explanations of these phenomena are not that good. The quantitative derivations that leads to those results are totally fine, but hard to follow without deep knowledge of the subject.
Physics education sometimes aligns with historical evolution of the theories, mostly because that builds intuition and because the mathematical founsations of the improved theories need to be taught first. That leads to the "but in this case..." moments, but you need to realize that what you get taught as a "fix" is practically always a careful evolution that also reproduces all predictions from the less complete earlier theory.
I felt similarly. But I'm also usually the only person Tim Pope'ing my commits.
If you police atomic feature branch PRs instead of atomic feature branch commits, though, things actually work out OK.
(By the way, the even more compelling next step to your argument is: pull requests aren't artifacts! I've worked on projects that have emigrated from GitHub, and was left with just the commit log)
Interesting idea but this seems woefully inadequate for password management.
The first thing that came to mind for me: how do you change a single site's password? The article doesn't say. It only mentions that changing the master password would require changing all passwords. That also seems like a complete non-starter.
There is an array of useful functionality that modern password managers provide, too: password sharing, saving select file content securely, password history, storage of security questions and answers, storing username (when you use something atypical for anonymity).
I can't help but feel like this idea is a dud. It's neat in an academic sense but it can't seriously compete with what already exists.
> To update the passwords without changing
pwd, the user can set a ctr on the client and increment it to change
the associated rwd for a specific account.
The power of your vote is proportional to the value you bring.
A while back I threatened to quit because I had a team dynamic that was untenable. I made a management change mandatory.
I got a new boss. The old boss was later terminated.
reply