Really, that little? Don't feel even slightly embarrassed about your morals being so cheap? You'd hurt your neighbors and acquaintances for 20K a month?
Given you probably don't earn that today, say you got paid that now instead of whatever you earn, what would you spend that money on in reality?
Sure, but what about all the other aspects of your life, those contributing more to your happiness? Corrupted people have money as their top goal in life, everyone else is trying to live a good life once they have enough, but there seemingly is no "enough" for quite a large part of the population, and in some places of the world this obsession seems worse than in others.
Hate the game, not the players. Somebody is supposed to be regulating this stuff. If you're in a poor city or country having a shot at such compensation would be life changing for the whole family, not just you and game-theoretically someone else will take that job anyway, for similar reasons, too.
No, I'm sorry, but fuck that. I've been one of the players, and it's definitively possible to not play the game, especially when you see what's going on around you, and still live a perfectly fine life that is above the living standards of most others in your country, if you're working as a software engineer. And I'm saying this as someone who never came close to FAANG salaries yet was lucky enough to paid enough to live better than I thought I'd ever do, but initially had really shit living situation and have had to steal at one point to feed myself. I've had chances that could mean I'd live a life of luxury earlier than what it ended up being, but I couldn't live with myself if I did those things, when I had anything resembling of a choice.
There is almost always a choice, and "hate the game not the player" is such a bullshit excuse for people to just participate because everyone else is. It's spineless and the answer of a chicken who doesn't want to consider the consequences of their actions.
I would feel embarrassed, yes. But that's 5 times my current salary for a 'similar' position. I am not sure it'd be 5 times worse in terms of societal effect. And even if it were, I am not sure I would be 5 times as embarrassed, if we are considering a linear conversion rate.
What I am trying to say is that I am on your side - as of this moment it is incredibly unlikely that I would ever see this kind of money. That makes it an easy position to take in a online conversation. But I have seen decent people throw out morals for a 100th of what we are talking about.
look, i dont want to work at any of those companies anyway. I am with you - i was trying to say that money can break most of us. I appreciate you being so farsighted by leaving such a position, but for many other people that would be unthinkable - And that does not make them monsters.
At this point I would be more worried about working for a US company, than which one exactly - (not totally serious of course, but also not entirely inaccurate)
I had no safety net and nearly became homeless after draining my savings helping a family member in the months after this happened. I come from a very poor background and have no family to rely on. I spent several years as a teenager and in my early 20s homeless, without parents or anyone to help me financially. I starved and was very ill.
I say this to make it clear that I didn't make this decision free of consequences, and it was unthinkable at the time for many from better backgrounds than I. I have experienced worse conditions than most of my peers ever will and my soul is still not for sale. There is no excuse. Selling heroin on a street corner is more ethical than what is going on at Google and Meta.
I did not mean to imply that you did not face any consequences. Sorry if that came across that way.
But my point stands. While I heavily disagree with almost everything Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, etc. stand for, I cannot hold the developers in these companies to the same level of judgment as I would politicians, lobbyists, and managers.
You may compare selling heroin on the street to whatever stuff is going on at these companies, and I might agree or disagree. But the fact is — selling heroin on the street is illegal, while training a recommendation model is not. Quite the opposite. And the complacency and failure to put reins on this situation 15 years ago is a deep failure of our civilization. As long as we train people at university for these positions and pull them in with such incredibly high salaries, I can't not forgive them to a large degree. I do not forgive the policymakers that enable this madness, however.
I understand that's just moving the blame to a higher level — that's not the intention. It's a systemic failure, and it needs systemic change.
The user had more arguments than just "it's all politics". What level of scrutiny does his statement have to hold up to? Because as far as I am concerned this is not here to find scientific truths.
I don't know man. It's always the same debate: It's either "too much politics" or
"no change at all" whenever this issue comes up and the "nothing changed" crowd keeps on reminding everyone that C3 "was always like that". I'm not requesting a scientific study but if you're this convinced that nothing changed despite may old school attendees chiming in to confirm the opposite, perhaps it would be helpful to compare old and new schedules.
I find it strange you didn't latch on to the original comment, which has the exact same problem you complained about, but reacted to the response. The best action is to ignore threads and sub-threads you don't care about and leave others who do to their fun.
I would hate to have a 40px title bar doing nothing except wasting space on my screen. I've been using this layout for years, and I didn't even consider that anyone could have an issue with this until I read your statement.
I'm not saying that you are wrong to disregard it due to your personal preferences, but please consider that this might not be such a horrible design as you make it out to be. Also, you can be certain that you are not the only sane person left - I think it's just that most of them don't show up on boards and forums.
The parent post is overly strongly worded, but I agree with the meat of it: tabs should not be in the title bar of the window. It's worse usability for a space savings that really isn't relevant because it's so small.
Just because it is not doing anything at the moment doesn't mean it doesn't serve an important, necessary purpose. For a windowed application environment to be functional and usable, there needs to be an easy way to drag windows around the screen. When you start moving things into that space, it makes the system harder to use.
A once-simple action which required minimal thought now requires you to parse an arbitrarily populated area of the screen and find a tiny gap within a litany of buttons and controls and carefully drag that part of the window. If you make a slight mistake and click on a tab or button, the unwanted activation of that control (e.g. switching to a new tab) serves to needlessly penalize the user.
This is not just an issue with web browsers now, but seemingly everywhere. It's been a big issue in the macOS Finder for a while now.
At the very least, Firefox still gives me the option to show the native window title bar, which I very much appreciate. It's certainly not the sexiest part of the UI, given the native element clashes a bit with FF's controls, but at least it's usable! This is an issue that could be solved by giving people a choice via a simple toggle... Most often, the option isn't there.
I'm sorry people have downvoted my post here a bit, and I agree it was a bit strongly worded, but I won't apologize for venting some frustration at what I see as the perpetuation of user-hostile design choices like this.
I love chatterbox, it's my favourite. While the generation speed is quick, i wonder what performance optimization i could try on my 3090 to improve throughput.
It's not quite enough for realtime.
without wanting to sound overly sceptical, what exactly makes you think it performs so much better compared to claude and chatgpt?
Is there any concrete example that makes it really obvious?
I had no such success with it so far and i would really like to see the clear cut between the gemini and the others.
I was thinking that too. I am really not a professional developer though.
OFC it would be nice to just write python and everything would be 12x accelerated, but i don't see how there would not be any draw-backs that would interfere with what makes python so approachable.
reply