Subscribe to and watch destroy all software by Gary Bernhardt. It will teach you skills that are applicable to any stack and more importantly, watching him program will show you what us possible in terms of craftsmanship.
Of course it's the new technology that causes this and not economists running monetary experiments, that keeps wages stagnant. (who would expect the purchasing power of money to drop when increasing the money supply!?)
For the past thousands of years we've seen incredible productivity gains thanks to technology (the wheel, the loom, the steam engine!), and purchasing power always kept increasing across the population.
On the other hand, we've been running this kind of monetary intervention for a very short while, at an accelerating pace, but no way this is causing an increasing pay disparity.
I think globalisation (as in outsourcing to cheaper countries) had a major role. It put out of a job low skilled workers in the US, and made (part) of the cost of living much cheaper to those with a job (all the stuff imported from China).
Money printing and the over accumulation of debt I think had less of an effect. It had inflationary effects on upper middle class activities (housing in big cities, college tuitions, etc), but I believe the bulk of the effects is yet to come: a period of high inflation that can have severe effects on our way of life.
AI's doom day scenario needs to take a ticket and wait in the queue...
This is why you test from the outside in: You first write an acceptance test where you just specify what goes in and what should come out. The error/failure messages you get when running this test drive your design and tell you which components you should write next.
The RSpec book is a pretty good introduction to this topic.
You couldn't by the NYT as a whole for its market cap. Companies are almost always bought at a premium, as the sellers receive some of the value that is generated by the transaction itself (actually, there is some evidence that the sellers receive all the value generated by the transaction).
This seems like a pretty poor strategy for the involved companies.
1) It makes other companies (not involved in the agreement) more attractive, as their salaries will be closer to the salaries offered by the companies involved in the cartel.
2) This means that the pool of potential employees is reduced due the agreement, which means that the companies involved in the cartel will have to bear higher recruiting costs.
3) These recruiting costs make a mistake in hiring more costly. It gets harder to "test" employees and let them go when they are a bad fit, because expenditures from your HR budget are shifted to the front (on the promise of savings down the line).
4) Further, when the cartel breaks (as it will, each company has an incentive to cheat on the other members) the payoff of this inflated recruiting "investment" disappears.
Yes the free market can work - if the employee knows to discount an offer from one of the cartel companies because they will not be able to move to another cartel member.
A hiring cartel basically acts like super-duper large company doesn't it? So by that logic we would discount offers from large companies compared to ones from smaller companies. Oh wait, we do, as large company pay > startup pay. ;) But is it for this reason?!
Don't be torn: there's a place for both. The affordable mass-produced stuff is great for obvious reasons, while the wasteful, pretentious hippster-alternative is cool for whomever happens to get off on this stuff. The latter is such a small niche, it hardly makes a difference economically, but people still value this stuff.
Not liking it doesn't make you a Marxist but just somebody who happens not to like this kind of stuff.
> Facebook has bases, and operates, in Europe. Thus they MUST abide by our data laws.
Why? One might argue that European laws MUST be changed. Pointing to laws is hardly a moral argument, there are tons of terrible laws and facebook might as well be a victim of one of them.
It's not about morals, it's about the law as it is right now. And the truth is that Facebook is breaking our laws and need to be prosecuted for such.
As for your argument, why is that a terrible law? Why is it bad that users have a right to know what companies have on them? To be honest, I think it's a pretty bloody great law.
Facebook is a victim of itself. If it didn't track users in the first place, it wouldn't be in hot water.
> It's not about morals, it's about the law as it is right now.
Depends on the discussion. I doubt anybody claims that the laws don't obligate facebook to make the data available, because they do. What people argue is that said laws are bad.
> And the truth is that Facebook is breaking our laws and need to be prosecuted for such.
That's what we are having an argument about. I agree that they are breaking our laws, but I don't think that they should be prosecuted. I think the laws should be changed instead, because they are bad.
> Why is it bad that users have a right to know what companies have on them?
Because it isn't the state's business what customers and companies agree with each other. If facebook states in its contracts with their customers that they will make this data available then they should be prosecuted for breach of contract if they don't.
I'm against the state (or the EU or whoever) making laws that deal with private matters because lawmakers are notoriously bad at thinking things through. This leads to a bunch of unintended consequences and ultimately is bad for both customers and companies and anybody else. E.g.: copyright laws, patent laws, immigration laws, drug laws etc...
> Facebook is a victim of itself. If it didn't track users in the first place, it wouldn't be in hot water.
I don't want to defend facebook. Maybe what they do is bad, I'm sure that's an interesting discussion, I really don't know. What I'm saying is: Even if what they are doing IS bad, then the state still shouldn't intervene if they don't breach the contracts with their customers. Facebook doesn't force you to use their services, and if you do so voluntarily then it's on facebook's terms, though luck.
> Facebook doesn't force you to use their services, and if you do so voluntarily then it's on facebook's terms, though luck.
WRONG! Think about all the sites that have Like buttons. Facebook never showed me a form or a checkbox to use that, did they? Yet they're gathering information on the sites I go to and setting up "shadow profiles" (as europe-v-facebook put them).
You're right, Facebook doesn't make me use Facebook -- they're trying to force me to.
And sure, I can just use hosts to block the Facebook site, but I shouldn't have to do that just to stop them from tracking me.
Why would a country change their laws to suit a company? (not even from Europe)? When Europeans go to america do they not have to follow the laws of that land?
As a European I feel that I should have access to any information a company holds on me.....both MORALLY and legally...
As a European I don't feel this way. Unless you have a contract with a company that states you such rights, that is...
If you give up information voluntarily (even if you aren't aware of it) why should it obligate anybody who collects it to spend resources on informing you what they know about you? Morally, why does gathering information imply obligation to provide certain information? This is a total non-sequitur.
The reason this should be done as it is the law, pure and simple. I, by law, have the right to know what information/data a company holds on me. If they wish to collect data in the first place, and are a reputable company, they should be well aware of the "obligations" they have before then even start collecting it.......Why do they want my information? What do they plan on doing with it? Could it then end up in the hands of anyone who could do with it as they please?
Much the same way i wouldnt want to be contacted/emailed/telephoned/written to by companies i have in no way solicited to contact me....
