AggressivelyPassive @ agressivelyPassive @feddit.de

Posts

28

Comments

2,513

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'd say the former.

Many queries don't find relevant questions, and the relevant questions are often not answered properly. I often find the exact same problem I'm having, but the answers are just a bunch of those CV padders that post completely irrelevant answers based on a buzzword they saw while skimming the question.

Have you considered something like tailscale?

Could be a weird perspective thing.

It's not, and it's disingenuous to imply that this is what I wrote.

You're building a straw man.

Then introduce a refund system. Has been proven to work in Germany for over 20 years.

And as I wrote in another comment already: these regulations are a distraction so that the real problems can be ignored. They are actively harmful.

Ask yourself these simple questions: where is micro plastic coming from? And what would be a good lever to reduce that? Bottle caps are not the answer for any of that.

So the result is barely any change in the amount of plastic introduced in the environment, the real big sources (for example the plastic wrapper around the bottles, and around the pallets of bottles) are untouched, but people (like you) become complacent, because we added those cap straps after all!

Yes, reducing even a bit is helpful, but it's far from being free, because this exact bullshit makes people ignore the real problem. Your view is far too myopic.

It was implemented as a symbol. I described it above.

The entire idea, similar to the carbon footprint, are attempts by the fossil industry to shift responsibility away from them and towards consumers. We from BP and BASF would love to stop pollution, but you guys keep throwing away the bottle caps! So they lobby the European Parliament to enact such regulations, the Parliament can act like they actually did something and the industry can keep producing plastics.

Yes, other solutions would cost more money. But these solutions would have at least a realistic chance to change something.

Remember the straight cucumber regulation? That was demanded by the retail industry. So it's not like the EU doesn't enact regulations for some lobby groups.

And if you think these caps are doing anything, the fossil industry fooled you successfully.

And even that is dubious.

How many of the caps are actually reaching the ocean and is that actually a way to reduce that?

I mean, how about a European refund system? Works perfectly fine in Germany and actually makes recycling a bit easier?

These caps are empty gestures as I described above.

I'm working in the digitalization of the German bureaucracy, and I can tell you: paper is not the problem.

It's a waste of computing power, though.

I have an M1 MacBook Air and barely ever actually used the CPU. Putting these chips in iPads, which are mostly used for drawing at most, is just a waste, and one of the reasons they're so incredibly expensive. Apple could have just kept producing M1s and putting those in current iPads.

The reality is, there's zero innovation in Apple products. The switch to M1 was really great, but everything since then was just "more M is more better", utility stayed the same, price went up. Awesome.

...then it scratches my cheek.

Why is it so hard to understand that a useless piece of plastic in your face might be unpopular?

Maybe your bottles are different, but the bottles here in Germany have a very short "leash" and are often connected to the right in two places, so it constantly pushes in your face when drinking.

If an actual problem would have been solved, I'd be fine with it, but it's just a pointless law which only exists to create the illusion of progress and shift blame onto consumers.

Wenn dein Geschäftsmodell nur funktionieren kann, wenn dafür tausende Menschen ausgebeutet werden, dann funktioniert dein Geschäftsmodell nicht. Ganz einfach.

Not really, it's really largely a technical discussion, but we have a distributed monolith (the architect calls it micro service...) so each change of an interface will percolate through the entire system.

And how many buyers actually care about that?

I'm pretty sure, nowadays institutional buyers define the market. Tons of regular people don't even have laptops (or desktops for that matter) anymore.

The beauty of titles like this is that they're absolutely meaningless.

You can't compare them between companies, sometimes even departments, you can't compare them between different industries, and you can't compare them between countries.

I'm a senior, and my job is currently to sit in meetings most of the day to convince BAs, architects and other team's leads not to make stupid decisions. The rest of my time I'm communicating the results back to my colleagues and writing escalation mails, because Steve again tried to re-introduce his god awful ideas that we shot down five times before and I'm hereby voicing my concerns in a business-like tone, but actually would want to exterminate him and his entire offspring.

My old project, however, was completely different and I actually spent 70% of my time actually writing code and 20% code-related meetings.

Not really, especially not in countries with sane workers rights. Google won't just fire a bunch of people because a project is a bit late. They'll finish the project, eat up the costs and maybe decide later on what to do.

Of course, given the absurdity of the US labor laws, big corporations will also fire people, but ceteris paribus, a larger corporation will be more likely to be able and willing to keep you employed than a smaller shop.

And my aunt gets headaches from 5G.

You're not getting headaches from water bottles. It's placebo (or nocebo, in this case).

Smaller companies offer much less safety, though.

If a project is late at Google, you can pull in resources from other projects, delay the release, etc.

If a project is late at a small company, that could mean bankruptcy, even if everyone pulls 80h workweeks.

I personally would prefer a company that is just small enough not to require much corporate bullshit, while still having enough buffer to survive rough patches.

My current project is together with Cap Gemini and holy shit are those guys corporate drones. Absolutely horrible.

As someone who had the wonderful experience to work with HR I can tell you that the bullshit they're telling us is 100% an attempt to justify their own existence.

HR adds less than nothing to the entire recruiting process. They inflate requirements, they smash together templates so that the result makes no sense at all, they add buzzwords they think are important. If someone actually applies, they "filter" applications based on elaborate models of a coin toss, and during interviews, they want to make clear that they are, in fact, not useless by asking nonsensical questions.

In short, they are parasites and don't want corporate to know.

I've got my current job via a recruiter and it was a super relaxed process. One video call of an hour or two with my (to be) team lead and his boss. Both of them were actual developers. HR was only involved for the formalities, as they should be.