- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
No you are wrong. people do not have access to cheaply available good food because they are time poor. Your attempt at a an automotive analogy is rubbish Given that bullshit I'm on their side when it comes to substance abuse, because what's the point? Are you interested in making this shit better?
Admin
I don't know where you live, maybe you're in Luxembourg or Geneva. In USA, most areas have an economy grocery which has cheap meats and vegetables.
Regarding "time poor" - what I think you're trying to say is that people don't have the time to cook healthy food. I have 2 huge objections to this notion. First, in the beginning of their adult lives, or for some time right after immigration, some people do end up working long hours at multiple jobs. But, this only happens for a period of time. Inevitably, with time, people get better paying jobs, start working fewer hours, start integrating into the professional network. While one should eat healthy food at any age, the typical young person can handle a poor diet much better than later in life. Yes, some damage can be done for the 1-2-3 years while that young adult is "growing" in the professional sense, but that's not nearly enough to justify the obesity rates we are seeing.
Second, even while extremely long hours, nobody is stopping people from eating the healthier options out of what's available. I sometimes eat at fast food places and I order a burger only (no coke&fries), without bread; I pay $7 and get essentially 2 beef patties and some salad. This order takes them the same 1 minute to prepare, while being vastly healthier than the "standard" burger combo with the bun included (leaving aside the slightly lower quality of meat compared to expensive organic options). All it takes is a few words to switch from getting sick to not doing so: "sandwich only, no bun, extra vegetables, please" - done. There is no excuse not to say these words.
That is, if the person cares about their well being. Which they often don't, because... somebody else is responsible for fixing their mistakes.
And instead of just saying my auto analogy is rubbish, care to elaborate?
Admin
So this company has had a list of funny customer names for years. “Funny” defined by what Bart Simpson or the average racist white male would consider funny. Something that the customers would find very unfunny if they found out. Stopping that list is common sense, decent human behaviour, and it’s considered “politics” by the company founders.
That’s what this is about. A company pretending to be one thing, but being something else, and you better keep your mouth shut.
Admin
Yeah the "time poor" thing is finding that place and travelling to it. We are talking about the people working several jobs who are only able to spend a few dollars buying something to eat for the next day or two on the way back from work. They don't have the means to travel across town and buy something reasonable quality, fresh, in bulk. They don't inevitably get better paying jobs because there is no subsidy for them, they are ill a lot, tired, poorly dressed, insufficiently educated and left behind. And if they aren't from privileged backgrounds they are probably not very good at selling themselves to their employer as a promising prospect, maybe because they aren't (without help).
You sound well informed on nutrition .. well I'm not sure the burger from Maccy D's without the bun/sauce is what I'd consider healthy, but yes, I get the point. I get dragged there by the kids and I generally skip it and look around for something else while they enjoy a happy meal, they'll run it all off anyway. As we know, once in a while is OK, but if I'm going to eat a calorie laden burger I'd rather it was a decent one ... I'm not convinced that message has been properly communicated, even in more enlightened nations, the advice about healthier eating is drowned by the marketing of the firms selling the other sort. It's not just the fast food places, culturally the energy dense stuff is considered healthy.
The point I was making is that even with that massive disincentive you have there ... no healthcare for the disenfranchised poor ... you end up with a bigger problem of an underclass that does not (or, we can argue about it, cannot) make good proactive decisions. A good example is the UK, which made a bunch of austerity decisions a dozen years ago to switch off all sorts of schemes designed to help people at that layer in the economy, which has resulted in a ballooning in the severity and size of the population affected, in turn contributing to its horrific failure when it comes to Covid death rates
Admin
Oh, and the auto-analogy. Well I confess, I hate auto and building analogies ... you are, I assume, a coder? How many times have you dealt with some domb-ass project manager of business analyst going on about "Rolls-Royce" or "Ferrari" or something when they clearly have not even a basic idea about engineering principles. So you want it; incredibly expensive, hand built, custom, maintainable only by experts, needing very frequent services and actually of mediocre performance and dreadful economy and environmental characteristics? I'm pretty sure that's not what they meant, but I digress.
That's not relevant because your point was more about behavioural science, and valid, even if I think it is made up from whole cloth. As with the food thing, some people take care of their stuff, take care of themselves, others don't, I don't know if that is upbringing, psychology, education or what, but I'm not sure I see a correlation with wealth or intelligence, for auto and health care it's more about training, for the ones who will care. I've known people who owned prestige vehicles and seemed to use the scraping noises from the bodywork in place of parking sensors, and people with rusty old bangers that they carefully nursed between services. Even with/without warranties or insurance, some people look after things, some don't. If there's an incentive in there I'd like to see the evidence for what it is and who is influenced by it, that would be useful, just assuming there's one is not.
Admin
First of all, you're painting this picture of western societies with population working 16 hour days. That's just untrue. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/02/new-way-to-measure-how-many-americans-work-more-than-one-job.html in the USA, 7.8% have multiple jobs, and that includes the majority of people having multiple part time jobs to aggregate the hours into a number which resembles full time employment. There just aren't many who work multiple full time jobs. It's not a thing.
Then you write this: "there is no subsidy for them, they are ill a lot, tired, poorly dressed, insufficiently educated and left behind. And if they aren't from privileged backgrounds they are probably not very good at selling themselves to their employer as a promising prospect, maybe because they aren't (without help)." Of my God, where do I begin. Subsidy? What kind of subsidy are you talking about? Those who work hard and demonstrate their value get promoted. I've never heard about a subsidy for being productive. And why is there no subsidy for "them"? Who is them? People with multiple jobs? Is there a law which says those with only one job get a subsidy, but multiple jobs - no subsidy? Can you cite it? Ill- why? Where's the evidence? What causes the illness? Poorly dressed - nobody expects that one should dress up for a promotion to factory line supervisor. Shower and shave yes, laundered clothes yes, HB or DG garments - no. Insufficiently educated and left behind - jeez i know it takes generations to build up your family fortune and get your children and grand children to become educated professionals. What does that have to do with eating junk food?
Regarding taking care of their car, yes, individually some people make the right choice of caring for their investment and some make the wrong choice of not caring. Here's a shocker for you: this kind of thing happens all the time. It's called behavioral diversity. Some members of a species act better than others. Those who act better, win. It's natural.
Admin
Maybe... discussing your personal identity isn't something that work is for. It might be for, I dunno, working or something?
Admin
My point is, some individuals making better or worse decisions isn't a justification to create government policies, like single payer healthcare or employer provided healthcare, which sweep the consequences of the bad crossings under the rug. Yes, there will be people who mess up. No, we shouldn't punish those who don't to make it easier for those who do. If you mess up, it's on you.
Eating junk food is 100% the responsibility of the consumer. Nobody forces them to, or tricks them into, eating it. You walk into a convenience store to get chips - you should be responsible for that deciding.
Addendum 2021-05-16 23:17: Deciding=decisiom; crossings=deciding (typos)
Addendum 2021-05-16 23:21: Crossings=decisions; Deciding=decision (typos, 2nd attempt!)
Admin
Fascist.
Admin
I don't get what's wrong with the name. Basecamp is still better than Initech Solutions or Expert Consulting names we see so much.
Admin
Agreed, this entire story has nothing to do with the concept of this site. Please stick to programming related silliness and stay away from "news".
Admin
The subsidy I refer to is rich parents, although I should have stated it. I don't agree with your description of what it takes to get promoted or hired these days, even basic manual jobs are expecting people to turn up in a suit, have made a video recording of their "motivation" for applying and god knows what other irrelevant nonsense I've heard spouted. I would disbelieve it, but as I see hiring policies for the likes of us largely misconceived, dumb and irrelevant I'm perhaps left credulous on that ... afterall, this site proves that. And I've got personal experience that showering and laundering clothes (even though I agree with you, but who cares about shaving?) are not a barrier to promotion, I had a colleague who was continually promoted despite smelling worse than a sewage farm and wearing a previously white shirt that looked like a chromatography experiment with all it's sweat-mold. Unfathomable when he was actually crap at coding, although his politics where similar to yours, as was the managements so you might approve!
In terms of ill health and poverty, that's well documented, poor quality accommodation, increased probability of pre-existing conditions like Type 1 diabetes, asthma, disabilities, you don't get to make "decisions" about those, you just get thrown on the scrapheap. Honestly the Spartans had more humane policies, at least they were honest.
Admin
Multiple jobs, a bit of a lazy by me, long hours, or long commutes to jobs that don't really pay all that well. People with little spare time. What numbers are we talking here? How many live in the US without access to healthcare? How many are living in poverty? we've been throwing mudballs at each other but never really defined the group we are discussing.
And I think we are conflating junk food with poor quality food. Spending your life eating from burger joints isn't good for you and not likely to be a good option economically, that should be clear to almost everyone ... we don't actually know the intersection between the set of people we are talking about and that group who are known to eat more than 7 meals a week from a fast food joint ... OK, the yellow arches place is pretty cheap, and there's cheaper, but you can do the same thing at home for less, around half I'd guess.
I'd disagree with your idea no-one is fooling people about junk food ... there's been generations of misinformation on the risks of everything from smoking to eating eggs, some well intentioned and wrong, some just wrong and wrong. In some cases following the official advice has made things worse.
When you don't have much time or money (or perhaps imagination or specific training in food) you will resort to rice, pasta, corn, potato "things", cassava, bread etc. They are packing and not considered bad food, but unless you are doing a manual job then you'll get to your early twenties, stop growing up and start growing out and really not know why. And that happens to people at all levels of wealth and education, it's just those of us with a bit more money have better access to decent information, healthcare, gyms, advice and whatnot to sort ourselves out.
I'd argue almost all government policy is, at some level, incentivising or deterring something, although usually as a byproduct of its existing. But does it give an honest path out of misery, whether that is down to bad decisions, poor parenting or genetics?
Admin
We must live in different worlds. Even attending interviews for software positions at corporations in downtown Boston, it was stated half-jokingly to me that there were other candidates who showed up in dirty shirts and while my suit and tie outfit is appreciated, they would've been fine with just a clean shirt. We're talking manual labor jobs, like construction, shops, restaurants, etc. - there are no interviews and stuff, there's an ad, you show up, have a conversation with the boss, he decides yes or no, done.
I know children of rich parents have an advantage, but their parents didn't become rich out of nowhere - they had to work their asses of to get there. Ancestors of people referred to today as the privileged used to actually work 12 hour shifts in mines and foundries. That's what I mean - building wealth is multi generational. There is no shortcut.
Regarding other illnesses - that's a different topic about how to structure the health insurance market and a very complicated one. Yes there are illnesses which are not of one's own making - people get cancer despite not smoking, etc. I'm specifically not going into that discussion; it would take weeks and pages of back and forth. I'm focusing on easily preventable diseases; every year, half a million die from obesity and even more from smoking, alcohol and drugs. Additionally, all these people (not just the million who die but millions more who survive with a bouquet of self inflicted conditions) use the healthcare system, which diverts resources away from those who get ill due to "bad luck" (genetics, infection, birth defects, etc.)
That's good you mentioned the group in question. Americans and even some Western Europeans are getting fat across income spectrum. That's exactly my point - it's not confined to poverty.
Admin
Again, nobody should spend their life eating burgers at McD. But then, nobody spends their life working minimum wage jobs. In the USA, only 3% of the population make minimum wage. This roughly corresponds to the percentage of population who are inexperienced, uneducated, or unwilling to be productive (for whatever reason).
Regarding deceiving consumers - true, companies can claim their products are good, but to give those claims any significant weight is beyond naive. Like I said, internet, which is available to 99% of westerners, has plenty of information about ways to lose weight and live a better life. If a person chooses between believing McD (who has a financial stake) and some dietary resource online who warns about sugary drinks (and doesn't have an interest), and chooses to believe McD, it demonstrates lack of fundamental thinking ability. This is "sheep trusting the wolf" level of stupid.
And you brought up an important point about false information. The US government went on a war against fat and started promoting sugar and carbs in general as the healthier option. Since then, the obesity has skyrocketed. Can we at least agree to keep the government out of people's health? Its intervention has already caused millions of early deaths. That's enough.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that as soon as we force people to arrange for their own healthcare, everybody suddenly becomes 100% healthy. But, it will make things a lot better. Right now, we're asking the healthcare system to fight a fire while adding fuel to it at the same time. This is stupid.
Admin
In terms of interviews, yes, probably different worlds. My experience seems bizarre but it is the reality I've seen and been baffled by ... and you failed to acknowledge the point you cannot disagree with, our sector is stuffed full of idiots who inexplicably get the job despite no demonstrable ability. We can all argue about the details, but you know it's true. I was not joking about the guy with the chromatography shirt, I was there, I watched the yellow spreading across his shoulder blades, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of my lung damage is a result of sitting in that fog of BO for a year.
I will argue this notion that parents didn't become rich out of nowhere. I come out of a country with an established aristocracy. Somebody, at some point, had a good idea and exploited the hell out of that to make a fortune. It may have been coal, slavery, tobacco, or whatever. It doesn't matter, the opportunity was there and they took it, good for them. This doesn't mean they "worked their asses off", not at all. And certainly none of those people worked in mines and foundries. I've worked in a foundry, no-one emerges from those places a millionaire, despite the myths.
Admin
And the "interwebs" is as stuffed full of as much fake information as real stuff, I am not going to pretend what is there is possible for an ordinary person to successfully determine is "fact" and neither should you. If you are saying the US government failed to persuade people about better eating habits (when completely outgunned by the vested interests) then I'm saying you belong in a McGullible Sandwich with fries.
Admin
And the "interwebs" is as stuffed full of as much fake information as real stuff, I am not going to pretend what is there is possible for an ordinary person to successfully determine is "fact" and neither should you. If you are saying the US government failed to persuade people about better eating habits (when completely outgunned by the vested interests) then I'm saying you belong in a McGullible Sandwich with fries.
Admin
So, you're saying from your experience, companies require suit and tie for warehouse jobs, but are OK with software engineers wearing dirty shirts and smelling? Interesting.
I can't speak about your country because 1) I don't know where you're from and 2) I don't know that much about other countries, but in general, over regulated economies slow down the social mobility. It's more difficult to become "upper middle class" with high taxes and regulations which are common in Europe, therefore you have the same few families who made their wealth in the past who continue forming the "aristocracy". In more free economies, like USA, (which by no means is perfect in this regard) most rich people are self made, and most rich families become poor. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-majority-of-worlds-billionaires-self-made.html This is about billionaires, but even the regular high income people like highly skilled surgeons or building contractors, make their money themselves by hard work. Yes overall families get richer over generations, but it's not like all rich people are swimming in inherited money - in fact, the opposite is true.
Yes there is plenty of nonsense online, but again, this argument is irrelevant - with tobacco, alcohol and drugs, 100% of the population knows that they are bad, yet there are vast numbers of people who use/abuse these substances. Even if there was perfect guidance on food from a source which the whole country trusts, the "diet God" so to speak, there would still be people who ignore the good advice.
I'm saying the US government actively caused the problem. Their guidance IMO promotes WORSE eating habits.
Admin
Well I don't disagree with what you are saying there, except the implied stuff about inherited wealth. We all want the best for our kids, but they've got to do it for themselves and that simply isn't how it really works. I've no problem with a highly skilled surgeon making a fortune, all for it, but I don't think that's really the demographic we are talking about. I don't see how taxation policies in Europe are delivering to your argument when they are largely devised to favour the already rich.
And 100% of the population doesn't actually seem to know what you say. You know this. I'm not sure the US government "actively caused" the problem, but for sure they fucked up massively.
Admin
Discussions about identity ARE political... And no one wants to hear that they were born a man/woman but that they "feel" they are the other gender. Except maybe SJWs.
Admin
And that's where the core of the disagreement is. I think and correct me if I'm wrong, when you see the rate of substance use, you deduce it to lack of education. When I see it, I deduce it to poor personal choices.
Unfortunately for you, I'm pretty sure I'm right on the 100% (or 99%) knowing that substances are bad. A lot of them are illegal; tobacco and alcohol are regulated. If it was an obscure website talking about it, it would be one thing. But people are reminded about it daily: the high cigarette prices with pictures of black lungs; the age checks at liquor stores; the efforts by police to reduce drug usage constantly on the news.
Think about it like an equation. We know there's no way for any sizable number of people to not be aware of dangers of substances. Also, we know sizable number is these substances. Therefore, sizable number ignore the good advice.
And then we ask the question, why. I propose that one part of it (not all of it) is the lack of actual direct financial responsibility.
Addendum 2021-05-18 21:24: *sizable number use these substances
Admin
"agree with us on everything or we destroy your life". That's the definition of fascism.
No, it's really not.
Admin
and what is with the headline suggesting Andrew Yang is not self-aware? and how is Basecamp not self-aware? it seems like a fundamental error for the author to suggest that they are not self-aware, when he really means that they seem to acting without regard for how he perceives them...which of course is to presume the universality of his own view of the world, and represents a lack of self-awareness. wtf indeed.
Admin
So much of the fuss about this has been people commenting on other peoples' comments without reading the actual policy.
Basecamp didn't "ban political discussions." They just said don't use internal company platforms. DHH said he'll be as political as we wants and encouraged others to do the same.
Half of the comments on Twitter and elsewhere have implied that the policy bans necessary discussions between employer and employee as long as the subject can be framed as "political." Like, "I guess discussing asking for more paternity leave isn't allowed because it's political." Don't contort the policy into a weird strawman version of itself and attack that. It's nonsense.
I support neither liberal nor conservative politics. But it's obvious that those who object want this to be a one-way street. Imagine if that policy was not in place and someone used those same internal platforms to express the "wrong" political opinion. The same people freaking out over an alleged ban on political expression would freak out even worse. They would demand that Basecamp take their side all the while insisting that it's not politics but human rights, defending people's right to exist, etc.
The only winning move is not to play. Basecamp made the right call. Most of the people complaining either didn't read it or just use anything as an excuse for histrionics.
Admin
fasc•ism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Read: "violent suppression of the opposition"
Admin
My experiences are not statistically representative. I know that. But they suggest that just about everyone here is wrong.
Not everyone knows that junk food is bad for them. Some people use illegal drugs because they can't afford prescription drugs and can't afford the doctor visit to get a prescription. Mostly I've heard of marijuana and heroin being used in that fashion, I don't know if others are or not.
It's probably all more complicated than anyone here is able to understand. That said, I just know for certain it's more complicated than I understand.
Not going online with political opinions using company accounts seems reasonable to me. I'd personally take it a step further and suggest company accounts shouldn't be used on social media at all, except for those people whose jobs specifically task them with doing that. Even for those people, it should only be done to the extent the job requires. But I'm just me, and I can't see the whole picture.
I do think it would be nice if people could safely engage in conversation with others without needing to look out for or assume potential malicious intent.
Admin
The overwhelming majority of drug users are recreational. Even if you look at legal medical marijuana patients, a good chunk of them got that card for recreational purposes. I know some people transition from big pharma opioids to heroin, and that whole situation is tragic, but there are many more drugs other than opioids which are recreational only. It's a logical fallacy to try discrediting an argument by appealing to a statistically insignificant factor.
Yes some people don't realize that junk food is junk, but many do and continue consuming it. Out societies should continue educating themselves about proper diets, but at the same time, there has to be a responsibility involved for ignoring your own health.
I agree with the rest of your post though. All this is complicated, and stopping political discussions using company accounts is perfectly reasonable.