force @ force @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

458

Joined

2 yr. ago

Around COVID tech gained a lot of popularity and especially stuff like AI/ML became the new trend, so tech companies starting hiring insane amounts of people. In the past year though companies have started realizing "oh shit, we hired way too many people" and started laying off employees (usually the most expensive/highest paid, or the most "useless" i.e. non-tech positions).

It's not really all that bad for juniors especially because now they get a big boost in their opportunities for work, especially ones that worked at the big companies that overhired a ton like Meta, because they can say "I worked for Facebook/Google/JP Morgan" or whatever the hell on there resume, which will make you EXTREMELY attractive to employers and have your application stand out almost anywhere.

At least for software development, you're kind of expected to be hopping jobs a lot because that's the only way you're really going to get more benefits and higher pay (unless you get really lucky and find a company that actually cares about retaining current employees! or you become self-employed which is probably even harder). There's practically an infinite number of jobs, many good ones, in the sphere because of how valuable tech is in the modern world, so you don't have to worry about not being able to find a position when you get some experience. That's why many companies will hire people who barely can even program, so long as they can write "hello world" in JS...

Of course there are other reasons, like outsourcing work, or the company just wanting more profit short-term, or feeling like they don't "need" as many employees since the tools for the job and the number&quality of applicants have gotten better...

Wow, that's so much! That's like if I got fined $0.20 for that, since this is like 1/23,000 of their net worth...

high level or low level?

Bragging about being equivalent to Kroger pay is... sheesh...

BASED

best reference i've ever witnessed

That's your morality. You can be Thanos all you want but it doesn't make it objectively moral.

Simplest moral dilemma – trolley problem. Is it immoral to doom 1 person in order to save 4 people? Is it immoral to sacrifice any number of people, animals, etc. for some "greater good"? That's something a lot of people would argue about. And do you do something immoral if you don't take action at all on it?

You can try to pick an answer and call it morally objective, but anyone who tries to do that is a joke.

Ok but one can use "harm" to mean whatever they want. It's not as simple as saying "harm = bad". Someone has to decide if something counts as harm, which would be completely subjective and arbitrarily decided.

Ok but that requires some sort of objective way to sort out what's harmful and what isn't. And to what extent "harm" counts. And have an objective way to say who exactly was the one that caused the harm, who's the agent and who's not an agent. And to what exactly can justify harm. And what can even be harmed. That's just an impossible thing to do.

It's definitions all the way down – you can't make anything like that "objective". All the words you use are subjective, all words have loose meanings that differ from person to person. "Doing harm" has no objective meaning.

It's like trying to find objective beauty. There is no objective beauty, there is nothing that applies to everyone that says how beautiful they are. It's majority based on understandings gathered from culture and life experiences, which differ greatly from person to person. Morality is the same.

What you described isn't "objective morality", it's the NAP. That's just a discount conservative philosophy.

Anyone that says that has no idea what they're talking about lol, the F-35 is completely unmatched in terms of multirole aircraft (along with the F-22 for a more fighter-focused role) and likely will only be surpassed with gen 6 aircraft.

The SU-57 and practically any "modern" Russian aircraft are complete jokes that will fall apart with 2 seconds of airtime, and the J-20 and a majority of Chinese aircraft are cheap imitations of western (mainly American) technology which although much more capable than Russian aircraft, still fall behind a lot due to the corruption/authoritarianism in the Chinese military & government absolutely crumpling any hope of having actually competitive engineering & building.

European aircraft aren't even worth considering as competition either (although are far superior to the previous 2 nations' mentioned, in most cases). Eurofighters are just another one of the projects European nations had that was plagued by issues from the fact that it was multiple parties with differing requirements/interests/goals trying to develop something. Gripens are less effective budget alternatives to American gen 4 fighters. Etc. Etc.

The combined capabilities in technology, resources/wealth, and pool of experienced/intelligent engineers that the US has at its disposal makes it extremely hard to even dream of touching their capabilities when it comes to aircraft. Even with ground vehicles, the only real competition is Germany... but German armed forces are kind of in a state of disrepair right now, they've really neglected their military. It's really only the defense companies like Rheinmetall and KNDS which can be pointed to as successful currently.

Europe has a long way to go to compete with American military aircraft. Right now the US just has so much more experience and knowledge when it comes to fighter jets & more modern technologies present in said jets. It'd require a lot more investment in aerospace engineering and technology as a whole really, not just when it comes to aerospace. And Europe is currently even more desperate for tech workers than the US atm afaik.

And "proper cause" is objective?

Generally if you're outside of a city, the (often only) way to meet new people is things which are "necessary" for you like work/school, or having neighbours, since there isn't really a "third place" in most of the US. If you can find a group/club/etc. for a hobby you have (e.g. drones, model trains, whatever) then that's usually your best shot outside of that.

your bio: age 14 years, she/they, bisexual, #stopputin, white american (i know, i'm sorry), slava ukraina!

genuinely if you think harassing a random indian online will help any problems india has you probably don't belong on the internet. there are 1.4 billion indians

"Well regulated" in the context of the constitution clearly meant well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable. This is clear if you look at it from an unbiased linguistic standpoint, and look at the usage of the phrase around the time. Words don't constantly have the same exact meaning that we're primarily used to, they're a spectrum of different definitions that form, morph, and wane over time.

Plus the first/second clause in the sentence is clearly just a justification for the other 2 clauses, it's not a directive or even the subject. That alone would make the "well regulated" part meaningless for anything other than explaining why the constitution is in place in the first place. It doesn't give orders to "regulate" militias, or even that militias are the only things which should have access to guns in the first place.

The point of arguing against current treatment of guns isn't to argue what the syntax or basic meaning of the amendment was, no that's clear if you actually know what you're talking about (and you can find plenty of actual linguists breaking it down for you), it's to argue to what extent the amendment's directive (disallowing infringement on the people's right to bear arms) applies, or especially if the amendment is even beneficial or if it's harmful to a modern America and should be amended.

Yea the one reason I'm against flat out legalization of every drug (only wanting decriminalization) is because people who shouldn't have access to the drug would have significantly easier access to the drug (just having someone buy it for them). Primarily kids, since they practically constantly do that with cigarettes and alcohol and have started especially doing it recently with vapes and weed as weed has become less and less banned. I'm pretty confident a majority of high schoolers vape and that's because they're very easy to legally get and therefore they usually have someone buy them for them, and also a lot just get sold vapes by the vendors anyways and neither the vendor nor the buyer really stand a chance of getting caught just because of how little you can do to actually control that (without relying on a bunch of kids just going and telling cops "this place sold us vapes")

Kids obviously aren't immune to doing crack or heroin now but if it were just legalized it'd make sense that the amount of them abusing it illegally would become wayyyy higher. And that really IS a (big) problem, unlike shit like books that don't follow a certain agenda or drag queen story hour. It could screw up a large portion of the population for their young life. Best you could do to prevent such effects is teach how to be safe with drugs and how to prevent/reduce certain bad things from happening (already good idea anyways), and to implement draconian (and expensive & time/resource consuming) measures that would make monitoring all the children & drug stores extremely closely at almost all times a possibility so you could nip the bud of any absurdities like adults giving/selling drugs to students early on.

I see just decriminalization as not much of a risk because you aren't basically enabling businesses everywhere to (legally) sell these drugs, which would generally make it more accessible to kids, you're just making it so doing drugs won't get you fucked by the authorities and destroy your life in an unnecessary way through prison "rehabilitation" (slavery aimed not to rehabilitate but just to make money off the prisoners with little regard for their rehabilitation or their life), or just getting shot/falsely arrested by cops, or maybe stopping false searches too.

It's not nearly as bad as Miami or most of the rest of Florida lol

guess it ain't called the london times for a reason

Louisiana and Mississippi, no doubt. Florida is just shit, it has no redeeming qualities and everything is expensive, so that's pretty bad too