Among other things, this would require software engineers to feel some sort of connection to prior software engineers, which is generally frowned upon. No real engineer would consider “move fast and break things” a valid credo.

I don’t, because if they do, we do too.

It’s the whole unity ticket nonsense that comes out every four year. Although given how useless/powerless the vice-president (usually, not this term) is, choosing a VP from the opposite party wouldn’t be totally insane.

I have an 8 year old daughter. She’s desperate to say the n-word, but doesn’t know what it is. (Current theory: nipple).

No, I’m not. All I know is what they’ve said publicly, which is they want useless jobs to exist in perpetuity. Protect the people currently working those jobs. Not the jobs themselves.

We’re not talking about UBI. We’re talking a union negotiation. Instead of asking for these jobs to exist in perpetuity, why not ask for a pension for any eliminated job? Should a person just entering the workforce take a job that doesn’t need to exist?

Except those jobs shouldn’t exist. I’m not saying the people whose jobs are impacted should learn to code. Pay them annuity that guarantees them a good standard of living. But someone doesn’t need to be doing those jobs in perpetuity, just because someone did that job in the past.

Somehow I had two Netflix subscriptions for a time.

Also, there was a note saulying that the costs were scaling up along with the user base, so there appears to be no benefits of scale that you usually get with SaaS. That’s generally not what VCs want to see.

I wonder how many of the people with a subscription remember they have a subscription.