On the one hand, there's the moral argument: we need janitors and plumbers and warehouse workers and retail workers and nurses and teachers and truck drivers for society to function. Why should their time be valued less than anyone elses?
On the other hand there's the economic argument: the supply of people who can stock shelves is greater than the supply of people who can "create value" at a tech company, so the latter deserve more pay.
Depending on how you look at the world, high salaries can seem insane.
I don’t even remotely understand what you’re saying is wrong. Median salaries are significantly higher in the US compared to any other region. Nominal and PPP adjusted AND accounting for taxes/social benefits. This is bad?
Those jobs you referenced do not have the same requirements nor the same wages…seems like your just clumping all of those together as “lower class” so you can be champion of the downtrodden
Everyone is a libertarian until it’s their commons experiencing the tragedy. Strange to think that having regulations around large scale electrical loads is a dictatorship. It’s okay for us to collectively say no, depending on the circumstances.
> Everyone is a libertarian until it’s their commons experiencing the tragedy.
Yeah sure and everyone is a socialist utopian until its their own money/liberty on the line.
If we cannot “collectively” reach a consensus what happens?
Im just pointing out that the original suggestion of “ban ML for environmental reasons” is extreme/ham-fisted. This is what dictatorships do in real life all over the globe “for the greater good”.
Should crypto be a government-approved use of energy? What about manufacturing semiconductors? Building data centers? Producing EVs, solar farms or batteries? Are flights for vacation allowed?
You aren’t thinking about the second order impact of having a government that has the ability to gatekeep energy production for specific use cases…
Economies are a naturally occurring phenomenon and also a prerequisite for a functioning society. No group makes a decision to “create” the economy (especially not the government).
I encourage you to read up on the history on unions. People on this site have this insane idea that $CORP=bad and $UNION=good. The truth is that neither party is inherent good/bad. Unions can and have done plenty of shady things. Union leadership can be primarily self-interested (just like any other individuals).
Employees with equity shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing!
Before Haskell I felt like I was cargo-culting advice - "use private fields with getters & setters", "everything should have an interface", "avoid static methods", "avoid 'new' and use factories instead". I figured eventually one of these days these things would click.
With Haskell came new principles which had immediately obvious value - "is your function well-defined over all possible inputs?" and "does it always produce the same output given the same input?".
I later 'got' that first set of principles, but I mostly disagree with them.
My day job has always involved looking at exceptions and logs, figuring out "how something went wrong", and then trying to fix it. Guess which set of principles helps me make software that typically "just works".
It takes an idea[0] and runs with it as far as it goes. The best part is that when they got to obstacles like handling of IO, they didn't take the easy route and compromise the vision in favor of a pragmatic solution. Instead they went into unexplored territory and came back with monads, which proved an extremely fertile ground for more than IO.
Obviously, Haskell being an academic language helps here, since novel ideas lead to papers and boring old ideas don't.
[0]: That is statically typed lazy functional programming.
pure functional. no mutations. (state and i/o handled with inscrutable magic).
basically every code base out there could use more functional effort - simple data structures and simple functions that operate on these to return a brand new structure.
Or I guess everyone can just double down on price controls and “good intentions” to save the day…
We’re about to see how poorly the FAIR plan managed their policy portfolio.