Please, lets end this lie about the "international order". It's always been a lawless world where rich and powerful nations did whatever they wanted. Now they've just stopped bothering to hide it.
The maintainer has said that they've been given permission to maintain it in their free time. All it takes is a bad quarter and the CEO decides they don't want to be supporting a competitor and that goes away. It's possible that a community continuation could happen but I wouldn't rely on something so uncertain for something as important as credentials.
It’s a bad strategy. I am capable so I host an instance of vaultwarden for myself and spouse (only available via our vpn)
But when friends and family ask for my recommendation I send them to Bitwarden and they pay for the service.
If it wasn’t for vaultwarden and the clients being open source I would not be using it nor recommending it.
I’d probably still be using keepass with manual sync and when friends and family ask for suggestions I’d probably shrug and say I don’t trust any of them.
I would agree with you, I see people like Jeff Bezos who's unfathomably wealthy but also treats his workers so terribly that they have to pee in bottles and I wonder why? What compels someone to so obssesively seek wealth that they must treat people like that. I can only see it as some sort of mental illness. When someone compulsively hoards trinkets to the detriment of all around them, we call that a disease and I don't see why we should treat it differently when it's dollars they're collecting.
> When someone compulsively hoards trinkets to the detriment of all around them, we call that a disease and I don't see why we should treat it differently when it's dollars they're collecting
He doesn’t hold dollars, he mostly holds equity. Also it doesn’t seem like he’s directly involved in the day to day tasks assigned to delivery drivers so it’s weird to assign blame to him for that as well.
One could argue that if drivers were unhappy with the work, they could just quit. Another would argue that that’s a callous way to view the problem as a new job may not be easy to get.
I’d link these 2 issues and say my view is that if Bezos were to sell his stock to give to charity, Amazon’s own stock would plummet which would indirectly force the decision to leave Amazon onto their drivers. A depreciating stock price means their corporate RSU grants look less attractive, which I speculate would make working at Amazon less attractive, leading to worse talent and declining company performance. If a decline was to happen in this way there would probably be more demands on drivers, potentially decreasing demand for the job as the whole, and leaving the drivers who stay behind in worse conditions.
> He doesn’t hold dollars, he mostly holds equity.
A distinction without a difference.
> Also it doesn’t seem like he’s directly involved in the day to day tasks assigned to delivery drivers so it’s weird to assign blame to him for that as well.
It’s weird to assign blame to the CEO for a long-standing practice of his company? You’ve got to be kidding? I don’t want to go full Godwin’s law here but Jesus…
> One could argue that if drivers were unhappy with the work, they could just quit. Another would argue that that’s a callous way to view the problem as a new job may not be easy to get.
Yes, “Another” would. Anyone who has existed in the world could tell you that. “Just get another job” is so incredibly tone deaf. It’s up there with “just sue your employer if they are stealing from you/harassing you/etc”.
> I’d link these 2 issues and say my view is that if Bezos were to sell his stock to give to charity, Amazon’s own stock would plummet
Literally a made up outcome with zero basis in reality. And a rather disgusting defense of his practices “no, no, you don’t understand, he has to be horrible or Amazon will falter and fail and then those people will lose their jobs!”.
> It’s weird to assign blame to the CEO for a long-standing practice of his company? You’ve got to be kidding? I don’t want to go full Godwin’s law here but Jesus…
Yes, especially since it would be considered a business minutiae in the grand scheme of things.
> Literally a made up outcome with zero basis in reality. And a rather disgusting defense of his practices “no, no, you don’t understand, he has to be horrible or Amazon will falter and fail and then those people will lose their jobs!”.
I'm curious as to what you think would happen? If schedules were loosened and drivers were paid more, what do you think would be the long-term impact? Tell me how the way you would change things would improve the world.
To get to where Jeff Bezos is, it's almost mandatory to have sociopathic traits and to be genuinely incapable of regarding other people as anything but means to an end. It's a simple selection effect.
To be fair, I don't think jeff has proclaimed that their drivers need to pee in bottles. That's all mid level managers trying to show gains to their up-line reports.
Jeff (and the board) wonders if deliveries could be more efficient, and wants to find efficiencies to report to the board and the shareholders. However it's fucking dave, 6+ layers below jeff that is firing drivers for missing unreasonably tight delivery schedules because they had to stop to take a leak. So that dave can tell suan who can tell susan who can tell .... and finally jeff that deliveries are now 2.3% faster.
I do think that enough money and therefore a higher degree of control of your own life experiences does warp your perceptions of the world, however. I fail to understand why anyone with a billion fucking dollars in the bank just doesn't retire to a beach stocked with sex workers and cocaine and instead decides to continue torturing people through layers of unthinking bureaucracy though.
>Jeff (and the board) wonders if deliveries could be more efficient
And does not even care how or want to know how, just attain the goal at any cost. Of course, when word gets out that people are forced to pee in bottles, he suddenly wants to change things, not because he cares about the conditions that led to it, but because it damages his image.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If you're in control of a company, and that company is an "orphan crushing machine", it's your responsibility because ultimately someone must be responsible. You could argue the board shares responsibility, and certainly every high level manager endorses it.
You have to say "Deliveries should be as efficient as is consistent with basic decency, anyone delivering Amazon packages will have breaks and schedules that are reasonable and achievable", in the same way that he mandated APIs[1]
If it was only a small cluster of employees bottle pissing then this would make sense. When it's endemic across the company, that suggests it comes from incentives set at the top, and the low level managers can't individually do much about it.
It's funny, because you're essentially doing the exact same thing you're accusing the person you're talking about of doing: declaring the person an idiot incapable of recognising other people have different priorities.
Sorry, but sometimes people really do just vote against there own interests because they've been convinced of things that are wrong, or they misunderstand something. I expect you could even think of some examples if you tried.
And your whole post is just wildly making assumptions about someone you don't know:
- "thinks of others as robots..."
- "Everyone in the world must, as some precondition of the universe, be interested in all the same things"
- "He cannot imagine that people external to himself have any real interests at all"
- "this person tends to think of those others as malfunctioning"
- "...it could be some sort of existential crisis as far as he's concerned"
- "How could two competing interests even exist in a sane or fair universe"
-
Perhaps you could have some faith? I doubt you've never voted for something you came to regret.
>It's funny, because you're essentially doing the exact same thing you're accusing the person you're talking about of doing: declaring the person an idiot incapable of recognising other people have different priorities.
Incorrect. I do recognize their differences of preference. They do not want the same thing as me. The reverse isn't true. I do not think they're idiots because they want different things than me... you've mischaracterized what I've said. They are idiots because, they (and you) can't recognize that I want something different than what they (and you) want.
And, in your convoluted way of thinking, you can't even get the argument right. You stoop to accusing me of misunderstanding.
>And your whole post is just wildly making assumptions
What exactly is wild about it? You didn't hear me screaming this, mouth frothing, as 6 cops try to drag me to the ground from where I'd perched up on some platform with a bullhorn. No violence occurred. Nothing uncivilized, just carefully chosen words. My "assumptions" if they can even be called that at all, required decades to form. Nothing wild about that. Really, they were boring words, maybe even timid. I'd be wrong and I would know it if you hadn't even chosen to respond. But it itches in the back of your mind somehow, doesn't it? Just couldn't let it go?
>Perhaps you could have some faith? I
I would like that. I would want to have faith so very much. It's all I've ever wanted, even before I knew to articulate it as that. Why does everyone make that so impossible though?
"What exactly is wild about it? You didn't hear me screaming this, mouth frothing, as 6 cops try to drag me to the ground from where I'd perched up on some platform with a bullhorn. No violence occurred. Nothing uncivilized, just carefully chosen words"
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
"But it itches in the back of your mind somehow, doesn't it? Just couldn't let it go?"
You think you're so damn clever don't you?
Every time I comment on any form of social media, I remember why I usually don't. Good day.
"We do not trust because we have to or because we have a guarantee, we trust because we choose to, knowing the alternatives might be safer but would rule out things we long for: connection, community, vulnerability, and magic."
I'm european (what a vague term...) and I disagree completely. I have never seen this attitude you apparently have. I've seen lots of celebration of innovation and entrepreneurship, I've seen less appreciation for the american style "anything goes as long as the stock price goes up" business environment.
It must be rememebered that this is the forum of an American investment company. There are far too many here who would love to be the corprate boot crushing us underfood.
"you use that word to draw connection to identitarian slurs which are inherently wrong"
you are reading into this too much, slur is often used as a word for a general insult.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to respond to 'I don't want to deal with their bureaucrats' with 'You do realize that's an insult, right?'. Yeah, he realizes, he is clearly trying to be insulting. It's only an insult because of that intent, in fact. A lot more sensible if the intent is to suggest that the word ought not be used because it is an insult beyond what is acceptable in polite society, which is the much more common usage of 'slur'.
Not to say it's impossible you're right that it's being brought up irrelevantly, but I do think the odds are on my side and I further think it would be worth writing a sentence calling that out even if they weren't.
His point, I assume, was that many people insulting beurocrats think that those are somehow seperate from the people they elected i.e. it's not some unidentifiable blob responsible for these things but the person /you/ voted for. At least that's my charitable interpretation.
your revealed preference would tell a bit more about this than any book. keep me updated on whether you would like to live in a tribal society's culture or a modern one.
I think the tribal society would be better for mental health. It is how humans evolved to live. You have to be raised in it from birth to collect the skills you need for it though. Not something one can switch to very easily.
Modern society is so far removed from how we adapted as a species. It is no surprise so many struggle with it to varying degrees large and small. Depression and obesity are some examples I'd say of modern life ills. We live in this society where we are sedentary all day and constantly in fight or flight response due to work pressures. We were built to forage and hunt over some 8 miles a day. It is no wonder many of us are still fat and sad in this modern world of supposed abundance.
There are some opinions out there of agriculture being this sort of "wrong turn" of our species (1). Yes we could sustain great numbers, but with agriculture we introduced zoonotic disease vectors. Widespread environmental damage replacing native species with crops, and the ecological disturbance that would result from having such an unbalanced amount of resources at that stage of the food chain, leading to plague numbers of pests, also sources for disease. Our numbers also exploded too but are liable to all sorts of famine and other issues from overshooting these resources when a crop failure might occur, and still having all these mouths to feed. Agriculture enabled fielding large armies and violence on a scale never seen before.
"Today, around 75% of infectious diseases suffered by humans are zoonoses, ones obtained from or more often shared with domestic animals. Some common examples include influenza, the common cold, various parasites like tapeworms and highly infectious diseases that decimated millions of people in the past such as bubonic plague, tuberculosis, typhoid and measles.
In response, natural selection dramatically sculpted the genome of these early farmers. The genes for immunity are over-represented in terms of the evidence for natural selection and most of the changes can be timed to the adoption of farming.
And geneticists have estimated that 85% of the disease-causing gene variants in contemporary human populations arose during the last 5,000 to 10,000 years, or alongside the rise and spread of agriculture."
"Another surprising change seen in the skeletons of early farmers is a smaller skull especially the bones of the face. Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers had larger skulls due to their more mobile and active lifestyle including a diet which required much more chewing.
Smaller faces affected oral health because human teeth didn’t reduce proportionately to the smaller jaw, so dental crowding ensued. This led to increased dental disease along with extra cavities from a starchy diet.
These changes dramatically shaped our attitudes to material goods and wealth. Prestige items became highly sought after as hallmarks of power. And with larger populations came growing social and economic complexity and inequality and, naturally, increasing warfare.
Inequalities of wealth and status cemented the rise of hierarchical societies — first chiefdoms then hereditary lineages which ruled over the rapidly growing human settlements.
Eventually they expanded to form large cities, and then empires, with vast areas of land taken by force with armies under the control of emperors or kings and queens.
This inherited power was the foundation of the "great" civilisations that developed across the ancient world and into the modern era with its colonial legacies that are still very much with us today."
