The biggest number for total global fiscal support I found was $14 trillion, but that was only from before mid-2020.
Most countries created a whole lot of new money and even if yours didn't, unless you're very economically isolated from the rest of the world the inflation hits you just the same.
The discussion is missing the point of the original snarky comment
So you don't trust the computer vision algorithm...
But you do trust the meatbags?
Reminds me of the whole discussion around self driving cars. About how people wanted perfection, both in executing how cars move and ethics. While they drove around humans every day just fine
somehow it seems not as magic as setting the mathematically verifiable acceptance criteria that fails 99% of the time. (percentage chosen to show absurdity of claiming that mathematically verifiable acceptance criteria is inherently superior)
no I don't think humans are trustworthy, I think the procedures discussed are more secure than the alternative on offer which an expert in that technology described as being untrustworthy, implying that it was less trustworthy than the processes it was offered as an alternative to, and then gave technical reasons why which basically boiled down to the reasons why I expected that alternative would be untrustworthy
It also has to assume the average, or even uneducated, person couldn't whip up a reasonably good batch of the stuff over a week's time on their own, given ordinary supplies and equipment found in their own home already. But that isn't true of this particular drug.
If the developer had time to do it, with him. Otherwise with the company
I'm sure there's some abysmal shit that's extremely hard to properly abstract. Usually the dev just sucks or they didn't have time to make the code not suck
>the number of unnecessary deaths that I'm okay with in order to alleviate the suffering of a few is zero.
"A few" is doing some serious heavy lifting here
Most deaths aren't pleasant nor peaceful. And modern medicine can keep your body alive for a long, long while as you survive in pain even when there's no chance of things ever getting better
Have you considered that perhaps if the idea of integration itself is considered abhorrent by a culture then that culture will very rarely be accepted anywhere?
Or to put it another way: if everywhere one goes smells like feces, maybe one should check their own boots
They want the benefits of being part of the community without being part of the community
I am making the point - and I'm not the first to make it - that the lack of acceptance is the driver. From the outside of an ostracized community, it might make sense that people would choose to quit that community to avoid ostracization. Some few do. But the majority will cling more tightly together as a result of the external pressure.
For an example, take a look at the history of the Cagots in France, who were (are) ethnically identical to other French but due to their psychological treatment and ostracizatìon were forced into tight communities for survival.
This can happen to any arbitrary group of people sufficiently singled out for any reason. A similar case exists in Japan. Then if that group remains together for fear of the abuse they receive, the broader population says "they want to be separate".
Also, your shit on boots metaphor is highly offensive, but I'm answering you as if you aren't a bigot. Sometimes the reason people end up as bigots is that no one treated them with respect and gave them complete answers.
Cagots didn't really have an option of assimilating besides moving to a different region, that's what was special about them. Jews on the other hand ussually would do reasonably fine after converting. Of course it varied a lot by location/period and belonging to a group or a specific community was very important in premodern societies. You'd lose your entire support network and while you might be lucky enough to live in a place were other Christians wouldn't be throwing rocks at you you'll probably never be fully accepted (your grandchildren etc. might).
Depends on where you live I suppose, but you can get by even on unemployment benefits in most of the EU from my experience. That's a good safety factor.
And I don't think anyone here said to only do things you want to do at all costs. I doubt _anyone_ gets away with that. But I'd argue you can generally use the skills related to your passion to make good money.
Being realistic: If you're doing things you reasonably enjoy 80% of the time, that's pretty much a dream job.
Don't be so sure that all, or even most, junior employees know any such thing. I've seen junior employees fired for doing silly things in prod before[1]
[1] Of course whatever more senior bozo granted the junior the rights to blow up the thing(s) they did should have been fired instead. That's not the way things work in the corporate world.
Them knowing that it is bad isn't much of a consolation for the dead production
The magic that happen in someone's mind that leads to their actions matters very little for everyone else. Their actions and the consequences of their actions are what everyone else actually cares about
I would hope that your experience has at least decreased the time between "first hearing about wierdness" and "realizing you accidnetally dropped prod". It's why pay generally increases with experience :D.
Seems like it'll always be the case that people will chuck the responsibility for X towards people with the lowest capacity to actually be responsible for X
People feel fine with correcting managers when managers reward being corrected instead of punishing it. That's got nothing to do with seniority levels
Home still got ass-busting inflation