Which is a fair expectation IMO. There are plenty of places where it's not appropriate to record that they might encounter in the course of a normal day.
> Your team's screwdriver usage is only 30% of the company's target. 80% of other teams at Taylor Manufacturing Co. are leveraging Screw Driving tools more often as a regular part of their daily work. If your team doesn't improve, we'll need to come up with a retraining plan.
> But we're the accounting team?
> Doesn't matter. This is a SD-Native company now. We believe everyone can be more productive with an SD-based workflow.
Anyone can be a "political activist". An activist is just an ordinary person who has had enough. Unless you believe the only valid way to influence political discourse is with money.
Sure, anyone can be an activist but it is clear that academia has been turned into an activist training centre. It is also remarkable how these supposedly intelligent people go astray when it comes to the causes they support, from supporting Hamas to defending those who'd throw them off high buildings or putting them against the wall if they got their chance.
Training would imply that it made effective activists, but activism from these quarters tends to alienate outsiders. It's more purity spiral than activism.
Well, no, I don't think training necessarily would make them effective given the context of academic activism. If the whole world would look like a college campus it might but there is such a big disconnect between the real world and academia that even the best trained academic activist ends up doing just what you describe. In some parts of society it has worked though, viz. the rise of the 'DEI' phenomenon driven in part by the infusion of academics into organisations who used their positions to bring in more academics of similar mindset while shunning those who did not subscribe to the desired narrative. Where it used to be said that it did no harm to let those silly students larp revolutionaries because they'd drop all that when they re-entered 'the real world' the truth turned out to be reversed in that they took all that ideological baggage with them into society.
> I fear we’ll be stuck in a permanent state of using Tailwind and React and all the LLM-favored libraries as they were frozen in time at the beginning of 2025.
Would it be such a bad thing if the "right way" to build a JavaScript frontend didn't change so much every year?
let me take the comment you replied to and follow through a bit.
would it be such a bad thing if we moved away from JavaScript entirely?
If we commit to AI, that seems exceedingly unlikely to happen.
I mean do we really think that JavaScript is the best way to do this? I don't. I've been in IT and software development for 30 years. I thought I would see things progress, but I have not. Same operating systems, same browsers more or less still running JavaScript, same network stack, same everything. an immense amount of work to slowly evolve things that weren't designed to evolve for 30 years.
Thirty Years.
We all know that things around us are flawed and that there are better ways, but we do nothing about it. How many people are looking at new paradigms, new ways to do something? Three? Four? I bet it's within that order of magnitude. Come on.
I'm disappointed in everyone in this industry, including myself.
Look at Plan 9. It was different. It was flawed, but it tried to fix things, at least. It tried to do some sharp corners in Unix differently, and for the time I think it was good. At least they made an attempt. Linux took a few lessons from it, but I don't think anyone else did. Not really.
I'm mad. We have let ourselves down, we have let ourselves stagnate and simply spin wheels because using what's here is easier than designing something new and sharing it. Influential people don't look at new things often enough. People new to the field and young people don't understand what my complaint is about really, because this is all brand new, to them. They didn't witness the stagnation. I did. I am disappointed and I don't really know what to do about it.
As someone who is interested in computer history and those roads not travelled, I can understand the sentiment. Another way to think of it is that innovation is happening at higher levels of the stack, and I'm not sure whether that's a bad thing. We also haven't tried much beyond UDP and TCP in those decades, other attempts at QoS networking and the like have failed. But UDP and TCP are still working out more or less and the ability to have a standard lets us focus on other things.
There was SCTP and a couple others but in practice anything not TCP or UDP is blocked by middle boxes and also NAT traversal is a problem. QUIC has been successful but that rides on top of UDP. Specialized networks (eg telecom backhauls) still see use of specialized protocols and those are large deployments.
The big thing that's been an ongoing experiment in networking with mixed results is IPv6 which is at a lower level of the stack.
I don't understand what they think it is they're teaching? Will we teach kids to "read" by taking a photo of their bedtime story and hitting a button next?
One of the teaching methods is "look at the context, like pictures, and guess what the word is". One example I remember was thinking "pony" is "horse" due to association without being able to sound it out.
However you choose to look at it, military service is still widely respected as a duty to the nation and a place were patriotic sentiments exist.
I’m not debating the right or wrong of it, but it just is so. I’m pretty sure the entire history of militaries have been full of people enlisting to die and kill on behalf of some random politician they don’t necessarily agree with. There’s nothing particularly notable happening differently.
But Trump being the clown he is, this is laughable.
reply