Or, alternatively, they feel like they finally cracked the code and think they can do it better. That's when Apple finally enters a market.
Consider how much money they put in to building a car to cancel it when they decided they couldn't, in fact, do it better. I'm sure there are hundreds - maybe thousands - of failed prototypes along the way.
It's the concern for the community who pays in higher prices, and the employees in their job stability.
Has everyone forgotten the social contract? We do not exist as communities to make a small number of people richer. If the trade doesn't work for all involved, we change the rules.
One thing that this misses is that in many fields, career retirement chooses you before you choose it. This is often true in development as ageism catches up with you. At some point, you keep doing interviews and nobody says "yes."
Then, even though you have enough money for retirement (or even if you don't), you are answering these questions simultaneously with handling rejection.
I'm so glad YouTube and other podcast players have moved to support 3.0 speed. As I get comfortable with one, I move it up some. For things like sports and "did you know" content, I can go 2.5 if I'm not multitasking. For technical content, sometimes I'm stuck at 1.0.
You can get browser extensions to do it for all media controls on any site. YouTube's "Premium" for 3x is laughable when it's an internal browser function.
For people who did not grow up with hershey's, the butyric acid is what makes it taste off.
This is not a question of safety - it is a question of results. They stayed with old technologies and have optimized for cost, not flavor. (And yes, that processing was necessary in the days before a reliable milk source.)
You’re confusing two different things. The “sour taste” objection to Hershey’s chocolate has nothing to do with “cost optimization.” You’re thinking about the 2006 recipe changes, which never applied to Hershey’s solid chocolate bars (and flagship products like peanut butter cups). That sour taste is in Hershey’s original recipe. If you got rid of it, it wouldn’t be Hershey’s chocolate anymore.
If you grew up with European chocolate the unfamiliarity maybe makes it taste off. But characterizing it as tasting like “vomit” and the result of over “processing” is spin. Butyric acid arises from processing milk products, which is why the compound is in Hershey’s chocolate and also in parmesan cheese. The opposite marketing spin: “Hershey’s chocolate bars use traditional techniques that result in a hint of parmesan with the sweet” would be equally correct.
> But characterizing it as tasting like “vomit” … is spin.
It really isn’t spin- It’s a common perception for people who aren’t accustomed to it. Search for “Hersheys chocolate tastes like vomit” and as a control, search for some other brand of chocolate tastes like vomit (I did lindt but you could use anything I’m sure). All the hits I got on the lindt search were references to hersheys tasting like vomit. On the hersheys search I got (for example)
A reddit thread “Does Hershey's taste like vomit, or are all Europeans snobs?” (Which, why not both?)
…etc etc lots of similar hits all for the same sort of thing.
Now for calibration I didn’t grow up with fancy European chocolate. I grew up in Africa with bloody horrible chocolate but even so I was genuinely shocked and disgusted the first time I tasted Hersheys. I had expected something, well… something that didn’t taste like vomit.
Versus the first time I had, say Lindt or Godiva or Leonidas or Guylian chocolate I was surprised and delighted by how much better it tasted than the chocolate that I had grown up with.
I get this is 100% a question of cultural norms and acquired taste, but to say it’s spin is definitely not true.
First, no matter what you do, if a human has write access to the production database, the database can be deleted.
Second, there is a legitimate reason to destroy a database in development and automation. The biggest problem I see is often treating your development data like pets not cattle. You absolutely need to have safeguards that this cannot be run in production, but if a human has access to the credentials to run in production, the agent has access.
So, then, what do we do? In a larger organization, we can depend on the dev/ops split to maintain this. For a solo developer, or a small team, it takes a lot more discipline. Even before AI, junior and even mid-level developers didn't have the knowledge to segment. And senior devs often got complacent because they thought they knew enough.
But at that point you're past vibe coding. And from what I can tell, the successful vibe coders are quickly learning that they need to go past it pretty quickly with all these horror stories.
You don't need the same permissions in prod and dev.
And in both cases, the humans don't need direct access to the raw CSP API. Use a local proxy that adds more safety checks. In dev, sure, delete away.
In prod, check a bunch of things first (like, has it been used recently?). Humans do not need direct access to delete production resources (you can have a break-glass setup for exceptional emergencies).
Most IAM policies start as "whatever made the deploy pass." Need rds:CreateDBInstance? Fine, rds:* it is. Ship it. Months later that same role can wipe the cluster and nobody remembers why it ever had that permission.
Separate accounts help, but only if someone actually goes back and cleans it up, which… yeah, doesn't really happen.
A corporation is not a person. If your organization cannot handle the load, then you need to adjust your practices. The organization needs to prioritize their paying users. The organization needs to shift people from new features to keeping the lights on. And maybe the organization needs to find another strategy to manage its azure transition.
A corporation is made of people. GitHub cannot exist but for the people who continue to work for it. And they’ve already said, multiple times, that restoring availability is their top priority.
A corporation is made of people, but its ethos is the product of decision-making. If a corporation is consistently, say, unethical, is it because they hire only unethical individuals? Or because unethical people somewhere along the chain of command make unethical decisions?
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with this question. It seems to still conflate corporate-level decisions with boots-on-the-ground work.
Are you suggesting that whatever decisions their upper-level management makes that you consider unethical irreversibly and irrevocably taints all the difficult and honorable work that their engineers and operations people are performing?
I’m saying their lower-level employees are probably honest, hard-working people like everyone else. But the detachment that comes from a large corporate structure makes the higher-ups decide things that aren’t as honourable.
“Corporations are made up of people” is a strange way to excuse the reality that the ‘bad’ things that corporations do are often decided by top management.
Ah. I didn’t intend to excuse the decisions of upper management when I said that. My intent was to counter the notion that a corporation and its workers can’t be analyzed independently.
A corporation is just a business formation, and businesses are made of individual people working for it. Those people’s motivations and efforts can, and often should, be evaluated separately from the decisions of management.
reply