- well, you are advocating for economic stagnation, coupled with inflation it is known as stagflation. Stagflation, that's when you are laid off and your money is worth less every day as well, so you can buy less and you cannot even earn new money, this is how you use less and less energy per person per day. This is how you turn industrialized world into 3rd world, the problem is that while the industrialized world actually can gather the capital and knowledge and materials and plans and organization necessary to implement real solutions that actually work, like nuclear power, while the 3rd world countries only increase their reliance on burning coal, wood, heavy oils and such. Your plan is a failure before it even starts.

the poster you are replying to is not a detractor, he is a terrorist sympathizer, which is clear from his antisemitic sentiment.

So the pragmatist in you says: a nuclear power can take anything it wants and kill as many people as it likes, that is your message. OK, but this is a weakness, the weak get eaten. Iran and Hamas don't have nukes yet, still look at the message the POTUS has sent to the world by telling Israel to stand down (and I am seriously hoping Israel will tell him to pound sand and will carry on destroying Hamas and Gaza), the message is - we are so weak, even our alies cannot rely on us, so do whatever you want, terrorists, insane religious leaders, whoever.

This is how you get slaughtered.

Yes, I am proposing we build thousands of new nuclear power plants around the world, it's exactly what I am proposing. I am proposing we allow people to do this without huge red tape that is normally preventing such projects from starting in the first place, for sure if we start working on it now, then within 5-7 years we would actually start making a dent in the 50 Billion ton of CO2 production related to electrical energy and heat generation. What exactly are you proposing, what is it that we can do at all to *replace* coal and gas and oil in energy and heat production? There is nothing, no solar, wind, hydro, thermal or anything else that we can do that will come near what nuclear can do.

- I am certain that if we don't start now, then 5 years from now it will be the same problem as today, only much bigger and another 5 years to build nuclear power plants.

Just like what is happening with the ruzzian war on Ukraine and the ineptitude by the Western countries to do anything on time, waiting for years before beginning to do anything significant at all, the problem is just much bigger and simply shifted forward into the future.

The cost to this is a complete end to feature development in the app, including new hardware support. Business wise this is not very practical. Sure you can try to roll out your new features in the old app and support the new hardware in the old app while still desperately trying to get the new app up to the same level of service as the old but for most development teams that is not practical and for most businesses (particularly ones that produce hardware) pushing out feature support and hardware support until the new app is "ready" is a non starter.

At some point you need to pull the trigger on the MVP and then you can stop supporting the old app and move everyone on your team into getting the new app up to parity.

The problem here didn't seem to be what you describe.

It appears the new app didn't even have the "old" functionality....much less all the new working.

I mean, with a new app, you, as a customer bare minimum expect what you had before to work....plus anything new.

Ok, so we can start using more nuclear power and shut down coal and oil and gas power plants and this would reduce our yearly CO2 production by maybe 15%, which is significant given 50 Gigaton CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere yearly or we can spin the wheels on all these pointless carbon credits and pretend that we are doing something.

... your job is producing pornography?

Asking for a friend.

If you call it "orientation", you should not be surprised if the people "orient" themselves and realize what a hellhole your company is.

Call it "onboarding".

I fail to see the difference?

In many jobs that benefit from collaboration and differing perspectives, WFH is no where near as productive when actually working.

Well, I've been working 100% remote for about the last 14+ years.

And in IT...development...big systems (24/7 uptime), admin, etc....I've yet to see where you can't do it well and efficiently with WFH.

Hell, we don't even turn the cameras on when we have Teams chats, etc....no need for it.

Sure, some areas do better in person, but since IT is a big part of what's left of Slashdot....it isn't really necessary in much/most of the common industry we experience here.

I'm retired, so I have no skin in this game, other than feeling saddened by how my generation has shafted today's generation.

Expecting the next generation to work up to the previous generations' standards is not shafting anyone.

The cost of not doing it will bite them in the arse even harder.

Airbus can't open it's order books fast enough for the A220 and A320 families, Boeing is struggling to sell the 737-8 MAX in a market screaming for 150-200 seat narrowbodies.

The longer they wait, the longer the deficiencies in the 737 will hurt them. Airlines love the A320 because it's a more efficient aircraft, lower turnaround costs (B737's are so old they can't even accommodate ULD containers in the hold, so bags and cargo have to be loaded manually). Passengers hate the 737 because they've become so incredibly cramped (same with the 787). A clean sheet design to replace it is needed but Boeing refuses to commit because it will affect the bottom line in the short term, of course this will affect the bottom line in the long term but that doesn't pay their bonus this quarter.

If Boeing doesn't start on a clean sheet design, there is a chance COMAC may actually get their act together and become a serious competitor (or Embraer, although that's unlikely).

I think the 737-8 MAX is eventually going to require a new type certification. They haven't fixed the problem and the issue with MCAS is worse than most people think (it isn't just an anti-stall system, it's designed to make a plane with different aerodynamics fly like the old model by fudging the inputs). I think we'll end up having another incident, I just hope it's not a fatal one. Boeing have tried to "manage" their way out of an engineering problem and that never works.