Unless the company has a bug-bounty program, never ever tell them about vulnerabilities. You'll get ignored at best and have legal issues at worst. Instead, sell them on the black market. Or better yet, just give away for free if you don't care about money. That's how companies will eventually learn to at least have official vulnerability disclosure policy.
1. Goto pattern is very error-prone. It works until it doesn't and you have a memory leak. The way I solved this issue in my code was a macro that takes a function and creates an object that has said function in its destructor.
2. Defer is mostly useful for C++ code that needs to interact with C API because these two are fundamentally different. C API usually exposes functions "create_something" and "destroy_something", while the C++ pattern is to have an object that has "create_something" hidden inside its constructor, and "destroy_something" inside its destructor.
1. If all platforms introduce age verification by law, then no platform gets unfair advantage by not having them.
2. Age verification obviously allows them to gather even more data about users.
3. Age verification creates the illusion of there being "a safe internet" which is extremely important to parents who give their children iPads so that the kids shut up and fuck off, while the spread of brainrot can continue undisturbed.
Because phones have device-specific code. Effectively, each single model is running its own fork of Android. Naturally, Google has no incentive to change this - it makes it difficult to update (planned obsolescence) and install other software (like GrapheneOS).
Between 1950 and 2008 it briefly spiked above 20 six times total. Since 2008, the number never meaningfully fell below 20, staying in the 30-40 zone between 2008 and 2015, and then hovering between 20 and 25 since then. Yes, it's obvious that the status quo has changed.
IMO the reason is that there's simply more paper trail behind you. If you fall behind once, it's not like you can get your things, change name, and start a new life in another state.
> if your parents name you Tequila, get a name change.
I want to be named Charizard but my country doesn't allow name change.
> It has never been like this, why is it like this now?
Imagine you have a hiring panel of 20 people, and you are a member of it. It's obvious that the whole process is completely broken. What's your correct move? If you improve the hiring process, the size of the hiring panel will be reduced from 20 people to 5, which means there's 75% chance you'll be fired. Congratulations, you played yourself. Instead, the correct move is to keep making the hiring process as bad as possible, so that the company expands the hiring panel even further, which lowers the risk of you being fired.
When you take a look at why soviet economy failed, the biggest issue was that the system actually rewarded inefficient institutions, allocating to them more resources, while punishing efficient institutions. Exactly the same problems exist within a single capitalist company.
On top of that, the employment has shifted from small business to large corporations. The best example is food delivery - 10 years ago you would've been hired directly by the restaurant, which means that either restaurants would freely compete for workers or workers would compete for restaurants, depending on the market. But nowadays either everyone deals with whatever bullshit UberEats pulls off or you're out of the game.
That's a simplified example I used to explain the point. Of course you rarely have people whose job is nothing but hiring, but often you have people whose all responsibilities revolve around inefficient processes, and making these processes efficient threatens their jobs.
TurboTax is a great example of this - the entire purpose of their existence is to make sure that filling taxes is as complicated as possible so that people keep using their services. In other countries simpler and cheaper tax systems are used, but if such a system was adopted in the US, the entire business model of TurboTax would immediately collapse, so they will fight tooth and nail against any improvement.
I think that's the whole shtick because most tech workers are so far removed from homelessness they don't even consider the possibility. It's not about the author being a narcist, it's about most people from higher social classes having some flavor of narcism.
> The fact that despite privileged upbringing and working in tech in the valley he has no one willing to offer him a couch.
Totally believable. There are very few people I'd offer a couch for more than two nights, and I imagine that in highly competitive environments, like the US tech sector, the typical situation is more grim. Look around and ask yourself - how many true friends does a typical corporate employee have? Someone they could realistically call "ay I'm going homeless can I get a bed for free for like, a few months". Most "friendships" turn out to be very superficial when tried.
> The most striking for me is the framing of his own grandmothers death as exceptional, proving his lineage is special.
This makes a lot of sense. From his point of view, his grandma was special. From your point of view, your grandma is special. The whole point of this post is the contrast between "I am special" and the world disagreeing.
Imagine a situation: someone steals all your money and frames you for pedophilia. Instantly you lose your job, all your friends distance themselves from you, you get evicted from your house. Suddenly, through sheer unbelievably bad luck, you have $5, an old jacket, and serious charges. You show up at soup kitchen in order not to starve and you see all these meth addicts, mentally ill, mentally ill meth addicts, and other types of folks from the lowest class of the society. Would you stand there thinking "ah yes, I'm equal to them, these are my homies, wassap nigga" or would your brain scream "no, this isn't happening, I'm only passing by, I'm different, why is this woman with rotting face staring at me, I need to get out of here ASAP".
> Look around and ask yourself - how many true friends does a typical corporate employee have? Someone they could realistically call "ay I'm going homeless can I get a bed for free for like, a few months". Most "friendships" turn out to be very superficial when tried.
I think a lot of people are willing to open up their couch. That story changes big time when that person has what might be schizophrenia.
reply