You cannot indefinitely ask employees to do more for less money. According to law and job contracts you can only do so much unpaid overtime. Usually 10h instead of 8h, and only when justifiable. Everything else is illegal. Paying 60% and working less is hoping for the environment or situation at the market to change, whether or not that is realistic.
Dolphin is a rare example for really smart development. Instead of it becoming ever bigger and also slower, it moved from using all 4 cores of an old machine of mine to run Metroid Prime, to using 25% of the cores, for the same game a few years later, just by being smarter (much smarter) about JIT and emulation. The efficiency improvement was an outstanding achievement. Whenever I read about emulators, I am reminded of this.
Well, you could still have a compound object in JSON, that is output by the Temporal API, and which given as input is guaranteed to result in an equal object it was created/serialized from. This compound object must contain all required infos about timezones and such stuff.
The issue with that is, that the longer you wait to upgrade dependencies, the more pronounced the problems upgrading it will become generally speaking, because more incompatibilities accumulate. If those 5-6 year old projects were updated every now and then, then the pain to get them updated would be far less. As you point out, security is an aspect too, so you can leave the project inactive, but then you might hit that problem.
Philosophically, I agree, but in reality there are so many leeches, who take take take, their whole life, and in the end they are often better off, materialistically than the people, who provided the actual value.
Ah but of course leeches are better off materialistically than the people who provide value! It's almost a tautology. But do you think they're happier?
For example geohot could be vastly richer than he is if he wanted to. He wisely chooses not to, and advises others to do the same.
If now only everyone who is talented at crafting software (or any other job that might be replaced), but who is out of a job could magically be as talented at something else, and enjoy doing that other work, then we would have no problem. But one issue is, that often significant time goes into becoming good at what one does. Switching has a very high personal cost in terms of time and having no income for a prolonged time.
Even worse, people are not the same as when they were younger. They may have less ability to learn. Almost certainly they have lower internal motivation and enthusiasm, since their career of choice was just taken from them. Job retraining programs are probably a big hint here. They have a poor track record.
I wish that argument was trivially true. Yet we see tons of disadvantaged people working the real tough jobs helping the elderly or sick and they are getting precious little in return.
And to a lesser degree, I have been doing nothing but providing value. All my projects are free/libre, yet returns have not come my way at all. In fact people who could make returns come my way, for example by offering me a job that I am clearly well suited for, refuse to take a look at these projects.
Perhaps the argument is also about non-financial returns, and things like friendships, but I don't feel especially well connected either, even though I try to help anyone I can help in the areas I am active in.
I don't think the argument matches reality, unfortunately.
The "real tough jobs" pay little because the marginal job of that kind does not really create that much value. That in turn happens because the most disadvantaged tend to crowd into these jobs, to the neglect of other, more value-creating activities - yet another issue that might be handily addressed by UBI.
Yet these were the "essential workers" during the pandemic. Not the VCs, not the hedge fund managers, not the industrialists or bankers or rich housewives.
And all they got for their efforts were applauds.
Reality is that without their work all our societies would have failed and fallen.
Almost any common folks agrees that for example nurses aren't paid enough.
The real issue is that our "valuation" scheme is controlled by the wealthy not by the people and the only metric is what makes the rich richer.
Phew, I am having a real hard time agreeing with you there. I mean, just imagine what would happen, if those social and tough jobs were not performed by people dedicated specifically to doing those jobs. Then we would all have to take care of our family's elderly and that can easily turn into a full time job itself. Let just one relative have Alzheimers or they for some reason cannot move any longer, or even less drastic conditions, that still require you to watch over them, and you will have all hands full taking care of them. This is the reason, why in many societies we decided to outsource this to people whose sole job it is to take care of other people.
Or take nurses for example. You really think they provide low value? Tell me more, when you are seeing a hospital from the inside at some point. Yet they are not paid much.
That's why I stated that the marginal job is what sets the reward. We actually have a lot more people wanting to do these jobs than we reasonably have a use for. Your mention of hospital nursing is actually a case in point: actual Registered Nurses are quite scarce, often do highly valuable, specialized work, and get paid a lot.
What on earth are you talking about? In the US (which seems to be the context in question), Actual Registered Nurses™ are not by any means "scarce" and in fact make up the clear majority of all nurses. Nor do they get "paid a lot" compared to the demands of their jobs, especially considering this is a country that throws the same salaries at people for the mighty skill of writing JavaScript for a SaaS.
reply