Trust is earned, so at the beginning you give people the benefit of the doubt and you have 'faith' that they are trustworthy. But don't call it trust. Trust takes time.
And regarding your 3 unfortunate betrayals, just remember: people can justify anything.
This is why I can't understand age discrimination. We oldies have a wealth of experience which we can turn to. How can a new programmer have a "gut feel" which should be listened-to when there is little to no experience? The oldies "gut feel" is real because it is based on true experiences; either direct experiences or experiences of (say) a colleague.
And most of the experiences that I have, for example, are largely independent of a particular language or environment, they are more about the correct way to structure 'things' within programming regardless if it's GO or COBOL.
It seems to me that developers go one of two ways as they gain experience - they either become set in their preferences and ideas and become resistant to change, or they consciously suppress that instinct and realize their preconceptions may be incomplete.
I try to be the second type.
For example: I have been writing HTML/CSS/JS for around fifteen years, and have established a strong pattern for separating structure (HTML), presentation (CSS), and behavior (JS). There are obviously instances where these barriers are crossed but those should be the exception rather than the rule. When I first picked up React, I was appalled by the mixture of the three. Using inline CSS is a huge code smell to me, yet that seems to be the convention in React.
The other developers out there who created React and who use it idiomatically are not morons. Instead of trying to make React fit the way I want to do things, I set aside my "gut feeling" and follow the convention. I already know plenty about the type of debt that can be incurred by using inline CSS, so I watch for that to begin to accrue. If I start to run into those issues I can raise the alarm and refactor before it gets to the point where doing so would be a prohibitively complex undertaking.
My point is, you can find a lot of value in that gut feeling without allowing it to control you.
I'll even go so far as to say that my "gut feeling" is one of my greatest assets. If code smells to me and it costs very little to satisfy that sense, I refactor it. I don't have the space in my working memory to remember all the rules and guidelines I've developed over time much less the reasons for each of those.
Now, if I'm doing a code review, that's another story. Then I'll note that something has a smell, describe how I identified that smell, and describe my justification for it. I see code review as an opportunity to transfer that knowledge.
My kids school had a career night where parents from all sorts of different jobs came to answer kid's questions. I was the IT rep and I thought I would be inundated with kids all night. Well, I had 3 kids. 2 were definitely geeks and one was a smart kid who said he would try other jobs before he would think about IT.
I couldn't understand it. Here we have an industry that is full of billionaires and success stories and yet only 3 were interested. I thought maybe they felt is was too boring just staring at a screen all day. Maybe they didn't understand how pervasive software is and how it basically drives everything. Or maybe they have a different definition of happiness which programming seemingly won't give them.
Well, IT and software and engineering are all _hard_ domains where it's well known that it'll be 1) hard work, and 2) hard work, and 3) how likely is it that they'd be able to create the next Google or Facebook. I think between the slope of the skill acquisition curve and the sense that everything's (or will be) done before by these huge success stories, kids just don't see a gap for them to fill there. It's really hard for them to imagine that Google (or any of the current hot properties) will have its day, like IBM or AOL, and then fade into irrelevance. So they can't connect the hard work to making the next big thing.
You cannot use harm as an argument unless you also include tobacco, alcohol, and opiates. These are the drugs that kill directly and indirectly. We know this, we've known this for decades, and yet they are still legal.
And if it is harmful to smoke, so what? The State allows me to drink 10 bourbon bottles a night, or 10 packs of cigs, or 10 large pizzas now. Do we own our bodies or not?
Yes, and the State and society is fine with that judging by the fact that we understand the severe consequences of tobacco, alcohol, and opiates and they remain legal. For example, we know that in 2015 over 10,000 fatalities occurred on the roads due to alcohol and, once again, we are fine with the human tragedy and increased healthcare costs.
Don't think of it as legalising another drug; think of it as expanding the rights of a person to own their own body. What right does the State have to legalise and promote one drug but put another in jail for a different drug. Do we own our own bodies or not? These morality laws are from a different era and need to be removed. Drugs are here to stay so lets be sensible about their use.
As for schizophrenia... it's funny that people think that cannabis use is a recent thing. Do you realise that cannabis has been used for centuries and if there was a solid causation between cannabis and schizophrenia you would see the effects now. Also no one has disproved the theory that schizophrenics and other mental health sufferers naturally gravitate to cannabis to ease their symptoms.
I was born in NZ but the family moved when I was 2. I recently got NZ citizenships by descent for my kids because I want to give them the option to move to there if all hell breaks out in the world. It's probably the last place on earth that one can still drink pure water right out of a lake. I choose not to move back there as an adult due to the isolation but if climate changes or wars happen then this isolation becomes a positive.
>It's probably the last place on earth that one can still drink pure water right out of a lake
Dramatic much? I've done this many times from lakes in the Rocky Mountains in the US. I'm sure there are countless other places where it can be done as well.
There are certainly clear, cold lakes in the Rockies. However, I really wouldn't advise just drinking out of them without filtering or other water treatment. Yeah, you'll probably be fine but there's definitely Giardia and Cryptosporidium in a lot of water sources that look perfectly clean.
http://ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/1789 is the only significant study that I'm aware of. My interpretation is that risks are substantially over stated for true "back country" sources in the Sierras and likely most other places where you would find drainage areas without significant human impact. I still filter water almost all of the time but I worry less when I can't for one reason or another.
I don't really disagree. I expect that, as a practical matter, it's pretty safe to just drink water in a lot of remote places. That said, I also filter or use iodine even if I don't worry about medical facility cross-contamination procedures a lot of the time :-) It's not a lot of trouble and the consequences of getting an infection are unpleasant.
Look. I have no idea personally. However, conventional wisdom is that it's prudent to treat water. If I were dehydrated and had no treatment options, I'd certainly take my chances and drink apparently clear, clean water. (And have on occasion.) But I wouldn't just set off on the assumption it wasn't necessary either.
Yeah, I grew up in New Zealand, and I kept hearing how we had the "most beautiful country in the world", so somehow I got the impression that no other country had beautiful nature like ours. That's completely untrue. There are countless places in the US, Canada, Europe, and Asia where the nature is absolutely pristine and stunning. Canada actually feels very similar to New Zealand in some places.
Most lakes and streams at high altitude in the Sierras, Cascades, Rockies, etc are safe to drink. Once you're above the tree line you don't have to be worried about giardia because few animals live that high up.
I so wish this were still true, sadly unrestrained conversion of farms to dairy has resulted in many rivers not being swimable, much less drinkable. Sadly the government's recent solution to this problem has been to change the definition of "swimmable" to "makes you ill only 5% of the time"
Unfortunately New Zealand rivers are now very polluted due to the booming dairy industry and relaxed environmental policy. Most rivers are no longer swimmable, let alone drinkable. The clean, green image unfortunately doesn't always line up with reality.
I choose not to move back there as an adult due to the isolation but if climate changes or wars happen then this isolation becomes a positive.
If things get so bad you need a bolthole, how do you plan to get there?
There was another article on HN recently about billionaire preppers... But if the shit hits the fan and you don't also have a plan to take your Learjet's pilot's family with you, what makes you think he'll wait...
Don't agree with this at all. Pricing should never be up to the client and their ability to pay. And also, you will have to keep track of every customer and their individual prices which would be a mess to keep track of.
You have to remember that most industries are very incestuous with people moving between companies within that industry. So what happens if someone from a price-sensitve customer (price A) moves jobs to a price C company and tells the new company the low price that their old price-sensitve company was getting? Price C company will demand that price (as I would) and then you're in trouble.
I make things simple. I charge the same price for everyone with discounts for volume. That's it. Nice and clean.
Agreed. I got my PP license 40 years ago on a 172, then 4 years ago went thru training again to renew but quit due to the condition of the planes (all 150's, 172's). I also quit because I realised (maybe because I'm older now), that there is no place for a part-time pilot. Too dangerous. Either you fly every day or don't fly at all because eventually something is going to happen, especially considering the planes I was flying and if you fly 1-2 times a month you are ill-equipped to handle any emergency situation.
The market's invisible-hand benefits. If this corporation is toxic, then it fails and in it's place will come a better, more ethical, more resilient corporation.
And regarding your 3 unfortunate betrayals, just remember: people can justify anything.