Most software is a terrible pile of unreadable code with no tests and horrible architecture choices, that somehow manages to keep working just through the power of years of customers finding bugs and complaining loud enough to get them fixed.
If you write any automated tests at all, you’re already better than most “professional” software companies. If you have a CI/CD pipeline, you’re far ahead.
Soylent Green is people.
The quality of education at college and university is in free fall.
US universities are pro football teams with a sideline in education.
lol education? you mean terrorist chanting camps.
Yep it only took 1000 allu akbars to get my mechanical engineering degree 🤡
There is no financial motive for software to work well. The people who sign the check for it almost never have to use it.
If they do a bad enough job they’ll create a niche for a competitor to fill.
That’s a dream. The googles and such just buy them out and shut them down. There is always a bigger fish that spends more money preserving the status quo than making a product.
True - that’s a big reason I like open source software. Doesn’t help with search though.
That’s why a lot of us are here after all.
Depends on business model. Saas - quality is very important. Non-profit insurance/bureaucratic type - they’ll burn millions to hire plenty of QA then treat them like shit, ignore them, and push trash software all day
Quality is meaningless in SaaS. Only features matter.
False. Have a 70% up time and let me know how many clients you have left.
Uptime isn’t quality. Perf and reliability are easily faked with the right metrics. It’s trival to be considered working on PowerPoint without working well for the user
Yeah no. Performance, reliability, uptime are huge.
Uptime isn’t quality. Perf and reliability are easily faked with the right metrics. It’s trival to be considered working on PowerPoint without working well for the user.
Uptime is quality. It’s why uptime is in SLAs. A quality product isn’t down half the time.
I mean, no? If you are at a SaaS company the software working well is the most important aspect. Loss of quality leads to loss of subscribers.
Subscribers? 90 some odd % of SaaS is sold to businesses, not individuals.
And if the business needs aren’t met, said businesses will go to another SaaS company that promises them a better, brighter future.
The user might not be the subscriber, but the user being less productive because the software is getting in their way, will irritate the subscriber.
I know a SaaS company that put thousands upon thousands of engineering hours into making small (and sometimes large) optimizations over their overall crappy architecture so their enterprise customers (and I’m talking ~6 out of the top 10 largest companies in one industry in the US) wouldn’t leave them for a solution that doesn’t freeze up for all users in a company when one user runs a report. Each company ran in a silo of their own, but for the bigger ones… I’m not going to give exact numbers, but if you give every user a total of half an hour of unnecessary delays per day, that’s like 500 hours of wasted time per day per 1000 employees. Said employees were performing extremely overpriced services, so 500 hours of wasted time per day might be something like 100k income lost per day. Not an insignificant number even for billion dollar companies.
I’ve since left the company for greener pastures and I hear the new management sucks, but the old one for sure knew that they were going to lose their huge ass clients over performance issues and bugs.
The key phrase was work well. You are saying they have a motive for it to work. Like not freeze up. I am saying they have no motive for it to work well. As in be user friendly or efficient or easy to use.
It still worked - you could use the software with occasional hiccups, it’s not like there was data loss or anything. It just didn’t work WELL.
Ok, well really splitting hairs on what “working well” means but ok. Why do UX designers exist? I mean if you have a bad UI that takes a user 10 min to do something that can be done in 10 seconds in another solution, you lose. Time is money. Anyone who has ever been in magament knows it’s all about cost vs output. If a call center employee can handle 2x more cases with another solution due to a better UX, they will move to that.
You are saying efficiency doesn’t matter, which is just %100 false. A more efficient solution makes/saves more money. It saves time, which is also money and improves agility of the team. How can you say with a straight face that a business doesn’t care about efficiency of it’s workers…
Yah, clients are subscribers
Okay then the users aren’t subscribers, thier boss or the boss above that are. And that person doesn’t really care how hard it is to use. They care about the presentation they gave to other leadership about all the great features the software has. And if they drop it now, they look like a fool, so deal with it.
They do care, %100 they care. If you take longer to do task X because the SaaS solution crashes or is unavailable, or causes issues in finance, or a dozen other things then the company will very much care. I literally work at a SaaS company and hear complaints from clients. Money is all that matters, if your solution isn’t as good at making/saving them money as another solution, you get dropped. And reliability is a big part of that. A solution that frequently has issues is not a money-making/saving system that can be relied on.
It’s not about looking like a fool; it’s about what your P&L looks like. That’s what actually matters. Say you made a nice slide deck about product X and got buy-in. Walking that back is MUCH easier to do than having to justify a hit to your P&L.
What experience do you have to be making these claims?
I have 30 years of work experience on both sides of the equation with companies of varying size. Once a company gets to somewhere between 500 and 1000 employees, the 2nd level managment starts to attract professionally ambitious people who prioritize thier career over the work to a more a more extreme degree. They never walk anything back. Every few years they will often replace a solution (even a working one) so that they can take credit for a major change. Anyway, you get enough of these and they start to back each other and squeeze out anyone who cares about the work. I have been told in one position that it doesn’t matter if you are right, you don’t say anything negative about person X’s plan. And many other people from other companies and such have echoed that over the years. Now small companies often avoid this. But most software targets the big companies for the big paydays. Of the ones I have worked at, some even openly admitted that financially they couldn’t justify fixing a user issue over a new feature that might sell more product because the user issues don’t often lead to churn, where as new features often seal a deal.
That is true for outsourcing companies, but not true for product companies usually.
I think it’s equally true for product companies. Do you know how hard it is to get a company to prioritize bug fixing over feature work? Shy of a user revolt, or a friend of the CEO reporting an issue, bugs are almost always second priority or lower.
I’d say this strongly depends on the industry.
In an entertainment or ad sales product, I’d completely agree with you.
In a medical or financial product, the bug will take precedence.
Medical? Your funny. Healthcare software is the worst. There is a reason the stuff that matters is decades old. Cause the new stuff rarely works. And the rest… tell me again why I have to fill out the same forms year after year, and they never populate with my previous answers? Or why I have to tell them my 2 year old son isn’t menstruating or hasn’t stolen a car yet (on the same form no less). The software is so hard to use the providers have given up.
Former process engineer in an aluminum factory. Aluminum foil is only shiny on one side and duller on the other for process reasons, not for any “turn this part towards baking, etc” reasons.
It’s just easier to double it on itself and machine it to double thickness than it is to hit single thickness precision, especially given how much more tensile strength it gives it.
Also, our QA lab did all kinds of tests on it to settle arguments. The amount of heat reflected/absorbed between the two sides is trivially small. But if you like one side better you should wrap it that way, for sure!
The majority of technologies that power the internet were developed in the 80s and refined in the 90s. Everything since then is built as a layer of abstraction on top of those core technologies.
The key word is “majority”. I think IPFS will gain more popularity moving forward especially if fascism and censorship continue to rise.
Also, the development and evolution of these open technologies relies on human interest and attention, and that attention can be diminished, even starved, by free, closed offerings.
Evil plan step 1: make a free closed alternative and make it better than everything else. Discord for chat, Facebook for forums and chat/email, etc.
Step 2: wait a few years, or a decade or more. The world will largely forget how to use the open alternatives. Instant messengers, forums, chat services, just give them a decade to die out. Privately hosted communities, either move to Facebook, pay for commercial anti-spam support, spend massive volunteer hours, or drown in spam.
Step 3: monetize your now-captive audience. What else are they going to use? Tools and apps from the 2000s?
We are facing a very real possibility of the end of the web browser as we know it. Google owns the chromium engine. Mozilla is on ever more precarious footing. It’s become logistically impossible to build competing products except for tech giant. Even then everybody else gave up and went with chromium.
And Mozilla is largely funded by Google. We all just hope they don’t pull the rug from them but I have no faith that our inept, slow government would stop that from happening before it’s too late.
controlled opposition lenin quote
Almost certainly the entire reason Google is funding Mozilla is to try and stave off antitrust lawsuits.
Yep.
Google will spend more on a legal team working out how to prevent the lawsuits in the first place than they would be giving to Mozilla
I think this reason is stupid. Why can’t there be a duopoly in the browser market like in the phone market? Even if there is no firefox, there will still be safari on its own engine
I think the phone market should also be broken up.
The reason a doupoly is bad in any market is that it’s essentially next to no choice for the consumer, and the businesses can force changes to the market that are anti-consumer with little reprocussion. In any given market the minimum number of legitimate competitors necessary for meaningful competition will be different, but even three is too few in the web browser game, especially when the market shares look like this.
That’s why I’m rooting for Ladybird.
I find it kinda ironic that they communicate over Discord, but it looks interesting
Usenet:
Edit: I’m talking about step 3
The IRS has what is called a first time abatement of penalties. So if this is the first time in a 3 year span you owe you can have the penalties (not interest) waived.
With no other realized penalty for the individual? Nothing indirect?
It’s the failure to file and failure to pay penalties. The tools we have do a 3 year lookback from the tax year in question for these two penalties and if they don’t exist in those three years we can abate any and all of those penalties that would accrue for that tax year.
Fractional-reserve banking. Most people have no idea what it is, probably a good thing. You could argue that it’s not a “secret”, but most people aren’t aware of it regardless. I don’t think most people would be fond of grinding for $15 an hour if they knew banks could just lend money they don’t actually have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
I’m always surprised how few people know about this. The banks are literally gaining interest on money they never had. It should be illegal.
Well, they have it in the sense that somebody deposited it with them, and they have some fraction of it held
in reserveto cover withdrawals.Edit: Well, in the form of capital, so that’s actually the wrong terminology.
Yes, they still have it. It’s just not in cash.
Fractional reserve banking works because most people don’t need all their money as soon as they get paid. Most businesses keep some money in the bank too. Banks have a required percent of deposits that they must keep on hand to allow these withdrawals. And if they run low on cash, they just borrow money for a day from other banks (literally just one day). The US government can adjust the percent of required reserves or the overnight lending rate to keep banks from lending too much money out.
Banks use this money to loan to businesses or people buying houses. It works well because whenever the money is loaned out it is used for a purchase and just redeposited in another bank. A percentage of that money is retained by the bank and the rest is loaned out again. And again and again. This way money is “created” when people buy things in the economy.
This seems like an already failed banking model which places lenders at the front of the pack and will lead to only larger asset bubbles. Japan’s Kiretsu system of banking led to banks taking out loans to cover up their own investment losses as they had put their money into an asset bubble which collapsed. Banks then committed wholesale fraud by disguising such losses on their books. The Japanese government then used quantitative easing. They create money ex nihilo, swap the money for a t bill, then they bought the toxic assets by giving t bills to the bank. The bank doesn’t sell the t bill, they merely collect interest on it.
The main effect is a system in which bubbles are never popped and consumers suffer a declining standard of living in order to keep asset prices high.
I mean, there’s all kinds of math that goes into making modern fractional reserve banking a self-correcting system with a reasonable theoretical basis, but I’m guessing you’ve made up your mind already.
Sorry I appreciate your comment. So I read (erroneously?) that central bankers had done away with the reserve ratio in the fractional reserve banking article. And that just seems like a reckless thing to do given how prone to bubbles our economy is.
One of the main points in “this time is different” is that despite the math, we are experiencing greater and greater asset bubbles and at no point in world history were things actually different.
In a lot of jurisdictions there’s no minimum reserve requirement anymore, in cash. It’s not really a problem, because at the big bank level money on paper is barely real. If they need more, they can almost just ask. They do have to have a certain minimum amount of capital, though, which can take a number of forms.
I mixed up my exact terms a bit earlier, sorry about that. I’m not a professional macroeconomist, I only know enough to know they’re not completely full of shit.
we are experiencing greater and greater asset bubbles and at no point in world history were things actually different.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. If things aren’t any different from before, how can we have bigger and bigger asset bubbles? I don’t know that we do, really. The niche for bear investors is very full, if something’s overvalued by the whole market you and me won’t know either.
Polystyrene is about as recyclable as any other type of plastic
And is chemically very similar to the chemical that gives cinnamon its flavour.
NileRed(or maybe NileBlue?) made cinnamon hearts out of styrene
At this point, I’m not sure if I should interpret that as “very recyclable” or “barely recyclable”.
Chocolate production is infested with slave labor, child labor and child slave labor.
So is banana production. And here I am with a bowl of banana-topped chocolate ice cream. Dammit.
So what are you gonna do to stop it? 🍫🍌
I alone cannot stop it if that’s what you mean. In fact, often the reverse course of action seems the best. But I try to think forwardly and would stand up for what’s right even when I’m alone in doing so.
Not trying to be offensive, but could you provide examples of your second point? 😉☝🏻
Emergency Medical Service/Ambulances are a ridiculously low qualified in a fair shair of industrial nations, especially the US,France, or Austria.
Even in the countries with more training/physician based services (Germany, Belgium, Italy)the actual qualification of the responders varies widely - most of them wouldn’t be allowed to care for a single emergency within a hospital on their own.
Do you know, has it always been this way, or has the gap gradually widened with the enshitification of medical services to maximize profit?
Both.
The US never had a comprehensive EMS system as it was never seen as an essential service, both because EMS is expensive to run (especially in the healthcare/insurance/taxation environment the US has) and because there was significant lobbying against it (there is money in EMS on a large scale if you operate it in a very cut-throat way).
But the recent downturn in healthcare availability and county-tax-income in rural regions and the dwindling volunteer numbers and enshitification of medicine have all done their part in making the whole situation so much worse.
There is actually a good study showing “ambulance deserts”. (Just as a reminder: That does not mean that no Advanced life support provider comes…it means that no Ambulance is available at all. So not even one staffed by an EMT-B and an emergency medical responder. And we’re not talking about "what happens if we need two ambulances at the same time)
In the US, at least, there are two levels of medical emergency responders. An EMT is a basic first responder, and receives 170-200 hours of training. A paramedic has more advanced training (1200-1800) and is able to perform more procedures and administer medicine. Most ambulance crews are one EMT and one paramedic.
A EMT is in no way qualified to handle emergencies on their own (and yes,I know their curriculum very well). And no, the majority of ambulances are not paramedic-staffed in the US - Actually only 25% of all licenced providers are Paramedics and there are large areas which have only BLS available in a reasonable timeframe. Or no EMS at all, as ambulance services are NOT an essential service in most states. (Only 11 States see it differently).
So no, not even remotely “most ambulances” are paramedic staffed. Mathematically impossible.
Besides: The shortest current timeframe in the US for paramedic training is 6 months.
That is incredibly short in international comparisons, especially when one does compare it to the skills allowed with it.
Comparison: Australia: 3 year bachelor degree to even make it on a Emergency ambulance (not counting very rural WA&NT), a master degree for the more serious skills.
Germany: 3 Year apprenticeship to be in command in the ALS ambulance, but emergency physicians are tasked to more serious cases
Switzerland: 3 year degree, emergency physicians being somewhat common, though, often additional nursing and critcare degree required for more serious cases.
Hungary: 2 Year EMT course for EMT, 4 year Bachelor for Paramedic
Poland: 3year Bachelor as minimum.
South Africa: 1year minimum for the entry, 2 year’s for most jobs, 4 years for paramedic.
the oh so well kept secret of the software and services (surrounding it) industry that people seem to think is worth paying money for.
Yet time after time these paid software companies produce the most vile awful, dysfunctional, and garbage software (and services) that have ever been created. While somehow a group of people who aren’t being paid, and aren’t doing this for any sort of reason other than “why not” manage to create the most functional software ever, while also managing to somehow catch the single biggest potential software vulnerability in this decade (other than wannacry) purely because ssh has slightly sus behaviors when running the infected payload.
Please stop doing web dev, it isn’t real.
I just wanted to take the time to thank you, personally.
you are welcome my friend, ignore the fact that i don’t know fuckshit about web dev, let’s just pretend i’m omniscient :)
There is not much to know.
Web dev solves a simple UI pattern kinda elegantly for rapid development. I don’t disagree with where you’re coming from but I think your last take away is a mischaracterization of why it’s used.
Web dev solves a simple UI pattern
kinda elegantly
for rapid development
i smell cope :)
Funny enough I work in the opposite end of the spectrum with embedded firmware. But even I can see the value of webdev.
Chefs can put as much butter, cream, salt, sugar and fat as they like into restaurant meals. That’s why they tastes so good.
Is that really a secret?
No but this usually is: If your vegetarian/vegan dishes taste really good it prolly from real chicken broth they add to the recipe.
A bit of a plausible deniability open secret, yes. If I have a restaurant do it behind closed doors, “what I don’t know can’t hurt me” is the approach for most.j9
The use of chatgpt for writing is so widespread in higher ed, it will cause serious problems to those students when entering the workforce.
Lots of fancy stuff is written about how we just have to change the way we teach!, and how we can use chatgpt in lessons! blablabla, but it’s all ignorant of the fact that some things need to be learnt by doing them, and students can’t understand how they hurt their own learning, because they don’t know what they don’t know.
I bet AI detection is going to get a lot better over time.
I wonder if there’s going to be retrospective testing of theses as time goes on.
Could really damage some careers down the line.
Edit: guys, retrospective testing means it was done later (i.e. with a more up to date AI detector).
Once a detector is good, you can train a model to adjust its outputs to cause false negatives from the detector. Then the cycle repeats. It’s a cat and mouse game basically.
The only proper way I see is a system that is based ob cryptographic signatures. This ia easier said than done ofc.
Yeah but if your wrote your thesis in 2024, and the detector is run on it in 2026…
You’re probably busted.
It’s not like you’ll re-write your thesis with every major ChatGPT release.
Are you expecting that the for-profit college will go back and retroactively rescind degrees? What’s the end-game for re-running the thesis?
It likely won’t be done at scale, but let’s say you are wildly successful and are now in line for a high-value position, where vetting is common. Might look pretty bad if you fabricated your whole thesis. Recently, Bill Ackman basically bullied several schools into firing their head administrators on the pretense of not citing sources correctly in their thesis papers.
It could be a new level added to the peer review of work. Nothing to do with the university. Just “other professionals”.
A thesis isn’t just an exam, it’s a real scientific paper.
And usually claims is contents as fact, which can be referenced by others as fact.
And absolutely should be open to scrutiny so long as it is relevant.
Building HVAC engineering (equipment sizing, ducting design, etc.) has been largely handwavy bullshit for a very long time and only recently has moved towards any sort of precision. Not uncommon to find boiler plants that are 3-4 times the maximum heating load in the winter, or fans running at 100% 24/7 when code only requires half of that.
Costs just get passed on to tenants so there was never much motivation to do better, the only reason building owners are moving now is because of government regulation and incentive programs.
