Correct. That's why you don't use newer features until they're absorbed by the standard.

What I meant was: if they don't validate. I didn't mean "break" in the sense that they don't work.

You may not care for the practice, but nothing leaves my hands into production until it validates, except when the stakeholder insists on using something that won't.

I did read TFA, thanks very much. I was asking WHY her claims were rejected. We already knew THAT they were rejected.

Your comment adds nothing to the "why?"

I have also had business experience with government contracts. One of the problems there (though it was in a somewhat different field, so doesn't apply as much here) is that those who couldn't properly make it in the engineering business ended up going to work for the government... and became the regulators. Rather the opposite of the "corporate capture" idea, but still a kind of revolving door.

As a result, the bureaucrats and regulators were not respected by the industry they were regulating, and were widely (and appropriately) vilified for interfering in efforts to just get the job done properly.

Yeah, and was so "successful" at it that when there were problems getting Russian engines, they were temporarily grounded.

Then where are they?

Granted, they are starting to produce some decent stuff again, but only really started doing so when SpaceX and a couple of other upstarts threatened their warm fuzzy government cocoon.

NASA has become too big and bureaucratic to get much done in any kind of hurry. Yes, that is partly, or perhaps even mostly, Congress' fault with its budget shenanigans. But it has gotten so bad that when the Space Shuttle was grounded, they didn't even have a replacement. Shoddy, short-term thinking. It's not possible to run a decent manned space program that way.

NASA was ordered by the President to clean up its crony-bureaucratic act after the Challenger disaster, clear back in '86. It never did. It was ordered to do so again after the Columbia disaster. It still hasn't.

If it finds itself unable to do so, inevitably it will be replaced.

Were you doing websites 10 or 15 years ago? I was. Browser compatibility today is phenomenal in comparison. No, it's not perfect, or even wonderful... except when you compare to then.

I agree. Please remind Congress about this in re: the U.S. Constitution.

If it breaks my JS or CSS, I won't use it unless the stakeholder absolutely insists. And then I'll try to talk them out of it.

Where have you been all your life?

They aren't stupid (most of them, anyway). On the contrary. They:

(A) think WE are stupid, and

(B) want US to think THEY are stupid. While the entire time their hired pickpocket is sneaking into our wallets.

False dichotomy.

I am not much interested THAT Pao lost the suit. I am interested in WHY she lost the suit.

Until we know that, all other bets are off. You're guessing, and your guesses are probably not correct.

And they would largely be correct.

But not for that reason.

Or, even easier: Oregon or Washington or South Dakota or Texas.

I almost irrelevant but it's not irrelevant. What it is, is reinforcement of my point.

If you HAVE TO pay 1000 chimpanzees to stumble on the work that can be done by 10 educated and knowledgeable and experienced programmers, then ... good luck with that. Because you'll need it.

Even worse if you don't have to, but want to.

It all ceased when companies stopped treating their employees like valued part of the organization, rather than "cogs in the wheel". That started about in the late 60s, into the 70s.

Federal law (and most states) by that time had already been changed to guarantee the kinds of working conditions unions originally existed to fight for. Subsequently, they started to make ever more shrill and strident demands. (Just as the global warmists are now, once they started to realize they really are losing.)

(Partly) as a response, companies started treating employees more like the interchangeable "parts" that unions demanded they be treated as... to the ultimate detriment of the employees.

Don't tell me that's false; I went through it myself. I didn't want to be a member of the union, but I had to in order to have the job. The union kept pressuring the company to give us things we didn't even want. And AS A DIRECT RESPONSE, the company said they'd treat us at the MINIMUM level the union could get away with forcing them to do.

Company execs (who I knew personally and very well) said it straight up: as long as the unions kept the pressure on, they would treat their employees like shit to the best of their ability.

And I was an employee, and I don't blame the company a damned bit. It was the UNION causing all the problems. I knew them too, by the way: a bunch of smarmy mafia-type amateur lawyers.

So: anecdotal evidence. But in my experience, that evidence is very real. The union didn't care about me, all it cared about was itself. It actually fucked me over.

Your Slashdot comments are full of them, some of which I have thoughtfully saved for posterity.

I have argued with you about them at the time, but only later mentioned them in self-defense from your personal attacks. Unlike you, I am not trying to discredit you, except for defense of your personal attacks. Unlike you, I have only made comments on Slasdot that (should it ever become necessary) I can back up with documentation.

In the meantime, you have been given "plenty of rope to hang yourself", as the saying goes. And to continue the metaphor: you have made an awful lot of effort to put that rope to the use for which it was intended.

If you think I am at all bothered by your lengthy exercises in self-abuse here, you are very much mistaken. The more you do, the more goes into the notebook for later.

I am very patient.

Hey... speaking of which: what happened to that fatal condition you claimed here on Slashdot to have? The one you strongly implied would claim your life in a very short time?

It seems you have outlasted the dreaded (claimed) prognistications you quoted to me. Congratulations! By lying about that too, you have probably broken a record for the unethical ways one may tell lies on Slashdot.

I know. You got the "that was just a joke" part, yes?

No... you're thinking of Dork Matter.

Just kidding. But that was a great "straight line".

IANAL, but as I understand it, even where non-compete do apply they can only be applied to "specialty knowledge", like trade secrets, learned on the job.

Which means this is pretty meaningless in the context of a normal warehouse worker, unless it pertains to technical knowledge of, for example, how robotic retrieval systems work.

I will elaborate just a little:

I have personally seen code essential to execution time, which was neat and canonical, made literally more than 100 times more efficient in the sense of time and CPU cycles, by using methods that were a little less readable.

And I mean via testing, not just subjective impression.

TFA has its priorities skewed.