People with the means to care about other people, do. Those without the means, prioritize themselves. News at 11.
Why is it elitist for the well-to-do to give a shit about other people? I don't follow that line of logic.
If I'm doing well for myself and I choose to pay +20% at a store that has better employee compensation, why is that a bad thing? Doesn't that mean people in my community are less likely to fall into poverty and require social services?
I'd rather not end up paying higher taxes to care of these people, I'd rather it be in the form of higher quality goods and services if I can afford it. I can adjust my budget for premium vs. economy products as my financial situation changes, but my tax liability is far less flexible.
I guess I'm just an elitist asshole for not thinking "FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE."
How dare the Bourgeois care for other people's welfare!
The people haven't been civil...basically ever.
It seems like every group has agitated members that seem incapable of having civil discussions, and take any disagreement, political or otherwise, as a personal attack. It's quite likely they will accuse you of being a member of the opposing political party if you disagree with them, usually with a derisive or pejorative tone. Ask any left-leaning person that has an assortment of firearms, or any right-leaning person that thinks social safety nets are not necessarily a bad thing.
The justification for leniency makes no sense to me. If a criminal is driven by impulse and lack of emotional control, shouldn't he (and it is usually a "he") get a longer sentence, since he is a greater danger to other people?
Is there a reason to punish the mentally incompetent beyond what is required to ensure public safety? Confining them to a mental institution seems like a better option than prison.
terrible solution not even salvagable
I think the idea is that the original code is more of a proof of concept; it only needs to identify a need and how feasible is it to meet that need. It doesn't have to be salvageable to do that. If the terrible code increases productivity by a significant margin, there may be a business case for hiring experts to re-implement or salvage at their discretion.
The real problem here is management being oblivious to critical dependencies. It's management's negligence that's allowing their department to become more and more dependent on something that wasn't designed from the ground up to be maintainable.
when they finally do hire a qualified expert to help, they restrict the expert to fixing the unfixable
That's also covered under "failure of management." If there wasn't an existing proof of concept, written terribly, would this same management even allow the expert to "create a good, appropriate solution to the original problem," or would they tie the expert's hands and force them down a poor design path? I believe so.
The solution to bad management isn't more qualified experts, it's better management. Good management not only knows when to bring in the experts, but to also heed their advice and guidance, because they know to do otherwise would be a waste of resources.
Have you thought about what might be wrong with your world view that prevents your beliefs from matching up with objective reality?
That's a good example of a Loaded Question.
And you call the new employees a buncha goddamn whiners because they don't want to learn "old stuff."
They are probably concerned with investing a significant amount of time learning skills that may not be broadly marketable. Sure, it makes you highly marketable to a niche market, but it's continuously shrinking. That might seem risky to someone that probably has another 35 years of their career ahead of them. Being able to quit and move anywhere and find a job has it's advantages.
On the other hand, the work may not be interesting enough at the wages offered. Companies compete for employees with money, time off, and among other things, interesting work. If interesting work wasn't a factor there wouldn't be so many postdocs qualifying for food stamps.
Not sure I agree risk aversion or the desire for fulfilling work qualifies one to be a whiner.
Knowing old stuff makes you valuable.
That highly depends on what stuff you're referring to. I don't see many job ads for 8-track player repair techs, but maybe the handful of them out there are making good money.
IMHO, a more long term solution is, for a company spending millions on a piece of equipment, to have more control over the software. To do otherwise means you're at the mercy of the manufacturer, and sometimes it's not in their interest for customers to keep using the same, perfectly running, old equipment.
The system is rigged against men being men.
So if a subset of men behave in a non-masculine way, are they not "men being men?" Why is "men being men" only defined as being outwardly masculine?
Its not hate my generation is exhibiting, its masculinity.
Social norms change all the time. If you don't follow the norms, don't be surprised when you are ostracized. If you expect others to have thick skin, you need to as well, and not be troubled when "labeled racists, misogynists, homophobes, etc." and accept the consequences for your actions.
we have let the radical feminists decide what social norms are for the rest of us
It seems like you yourself are trying to define your own set of social norms, by deeming non-masculinity in men as undesirable. The very same thing you seem unhappy with "radical feminists" doing. Why do you get to define what being a man means?
The young men of the special snowflake generation are a bunch of pussies
You make the assumption that non-masculinity is not a choice a man would knowingly choose, and only the result of drugs suppressing that aspect. Why is being a "pussy" not a valid choice? Why not let men decide for themselves who they want to be without labeling them "jocks" or "pussies" when they don't conform to our expectations?
will bacon-loving Slashdot rejoice that a citation request was answered, or continue on with the usual group-think?
What is the accepted form of rejoicing when one receives a citation? I don't want to be accused "[continuing] on with the usual group-think."
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken