Yeah but not the BBC. There used to a be a line. :(

This is why cultural stories now are higher than before on the main site. It used to be the case that news was _just_ news. Politics, crime, economics, health, environment, etc. Now culture stories, like puff pieces about the royals or entertainment end up on the front page.

You don't have to quit to start looking for another job, just start looking. You have 10 years experience, how can you say that you have no marketable skills? You could network, go to events, get involved in your local dev communities, show someone else your enthusiasm.

Is it the money that makes them stupid or smth?

In my time at high school (UK equivalent) I don't remember receiving any peer assistance at all and its feels like we've missed a trick.

The only reason I'm interested in this approach is that education itself is a massive expense which is often deprioritised in budgeting due to the fact that children do not vote, so it relies on the voting of parents to coalesce around a party specifically seeking to invest, which is difficult and unreliable.

So everyone cherry picks the answers they want to justify their position and screams into the void, with each camp rallying around their talking points and often failing to engage with the other in good faith.

The only small mercy is that its not as bad as the conversation around the use of AI in art.

Best thing about this era is that I don't have to personally read millions of lines of code to find all the bugs.

That gives that person the opportunity to go out there in our shared spaces and it gives me the opportunity to disagree with them, share my perspective and oppose them. Maybe someone goes to jail or whatever. But conflict is an important part of society.

Rather that than people living in their own bubbles, thinking everyone agrees with them while sitting on their hands and whining into the void and thinking that counts as progress. Put yourself out there, take a risk, engage with your opposition, you might learn something about them or about yourself.

The horror is if you're not running that in some sort of sandbox.

The author isn't hanging out and specifically introducing consequences to those they wish to punish for actions they don't agree with. If more people protested like this we'd see more social change. But people don't like to risk or sacrifice; so we don't. People who reject ethical positions often do not face social consequences.

Consider a world where owning an SUV carried a significant risk that it would be vandalised. People would buy them less and there would be less co2 in the atmosphere due to those willing to sacrifice themselves by spending time in a jail cell for their acts of vandalism.

Politically addressing needs has the same issue as regulating money, its unpopular either because of billionaire marketing or general ignorance and cognitive dissonance. Also resource allocation is hard when people interpret any level of cut as murder. So you're hemmed in on both sides while FPTP makes it impossible to be honest with the electorate where jetpacks for everyone and free head is what wins you elections, regardless of its delivery.

While some commenters might suggest socialism is the panacea, I think that's just a different format of the same sort of failure. The fundamental flaw in our societies is ourselves, as we build societies that reflect our own failures. We care for ourselves considerably more than we do others, sometimes aggressively against others, sometimes will utter, wilful ignorance of others. The big picture is too hard for our brains to deal with. We have no baseline emotional regulation, humans can wrap themselves into the same emotional state about leaving Britney alone as they do about the death of a loved one. This means everyone's needs seem the same, which makes resource allocation hard.

We see a similar whine about immigration where the abstract is simply: You get $10k and an immigrant moves next door, or you get $0k and an arbitrary person who isn't an immigrant moves in next door. Solve for the status quo. But people will elect governments on a policy of cruelty to think that status quo won't immediately rubber band back.

Not sure I entirely appreciate the use-case vs classical targeting. I'd imagine you're going so fast that you don't really have the opportunity to engage in thought that is particularly useful.

I think 12k could be fine given how much it might have cost them if nobody had noticed.