https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2026/01/02/hypocrisy-on-full-di...

They are not "exactly" the same. There's a symbolic reason you keep your hand flat, rigid, and parallel to the arm, in a salute.

I (largely) wrote a corporate application 8 years ago, with 2 others. There was one change 2 years ago from another dev.

Lots of programs are functionally done in a relatively short amount of time.

"Accelerating or Dying" sounds like private equity's lazy way to describe opportunity, not as a metric to describe software.

This statement is over-generalizing the case. I'm talking about a niche context when trying to "shoot holes in an idea", not some general communication skill (as you've implied) that is practiced. I don't believe what I referenced is a skill.

https://blog.devgenius.io/open-source-projects-are-now-banni...

These are just a few examples. There are more that google can supply.

It's not like I don't speak with ex-coworkers or run into them at times - eg one guy I taught Java to (at a position where java wasn't required except for a tiny tool), is the team lead at blizzard now. If I was made a pariah, I would hear about it over the years.

There is a mismatch between how you would expect industry to work and what my last 30 years has taught me.

> With 35 companies, that would be around 1-2 years per company on average if you are retired or near retirement.

I have been at 4 companies for around 2 years or more. The rest of the positions were either contract or startup or contract-to-hire. The vast majority of engineers seem to settle in and suffer at terrible companies, rather than make moves to better jobs. They also tend to settle at whatever they are assigned and grow their skillsets by their employer's needs, rather than on their own.

Over the last 2 decades, if you stayed somewhere for over 2 years, you better have added concrete skills to your resume and have increased your compensation by over 10%. If that's not on track, look for another job, imo.

Contract-to-hire has been very popular. ie JPMC, credit, medical, adtech, games, big retail, subcontractor shops, to startups (4 of which were acquired). All initiatives to progress the careers of developers is applied more or less company wide because the line between contract-to-hire and fulltime is considered an engineering issue if there is more than hub. If you are a sole contributor, on some satellite project or still considered in training, you might not participate due to scheduling that had already been arranged, but the idea that contractors are excluded is more a possibility than a certainty. Most of the initiatives are little more than maybe someone talking with you every quarter, anyway.

> Getting lip service seems already good deal at that point.

It's strange that people are assuming engineers are treated special because of a resume that nobody looks at after an offer is made - having conducted hundreds of interviews. This must be a very rare thing some people may do.

Stop trying to make this into some abstract argument. It's not an argument anymore. It's already happened.

How one might choose to characterize the reality, is irrelevant. A vast (and growing) amount of source code is more open, for better or worse. Granted, this is to the chagrin of subgroups that had been pushing different strategies.

More challenging? Not really. It does require multiple boots on the ground to do it.

So they could have, for the reasons you have pointed out. It's not "because of the war" but it is a consequence for someone to do something they could have done and "triggered the kind of military response it's now already absorbing." - you and I have a very different idea of what reality is.

> The Economist isn't making a moral indictment as much as it's describing a consequence of routing payments through thousands of shell accounts across multiple jurisdictions.

Please don't do that. None of the last paragraph is about consequence of routing payments.

I have pointed out how the facts are a facade for demonization. I stand by it.

Iran could have leveraged these defensive tactics to make "a mint" from oil exports at any time. The war, for the state that it is in, is not where they are making the money. They have lost money as a consequence of the war and made money from tightening export controls to the point there are physical barriers. The forensic accounting is incidental and well understood from other nations (eg Russia, NK, etc).

The concluding paragraph that might tie these rather boring descriptions of economic machination together, is barely coherent. Read it carefully.

> The extreme redundancy introduces such complexity that the money is getting harder to trace even for Iran’s central bank—and easier for the country’s oil barons to skim. But it keeps the oil machine going. Short of all-out strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure—to which Iran would respond by bombing that of other Gulf states—it will not be throttled.

Both sentences are baseless indictments, at best. First aimed at oil producers who are "skimming", which they are not. The second run-on is gaslighting Iran as a state, as hell-bent on bombing unnamed neighbors in "the gulf" which seems purposefully chosen as ambiguous.

Is stating facts about the minutia of circumventing sanctions, then demonizing the actors, considered journalism? I don't think so.

You're suggesting the same government that would violate your rights would then help prevent it? I don't follow. Any power structure (tiered or not) was wiped away by authoritarians, historically. They will not be helping in the worst case. Ideological capture (corruption) has already started eroding at UK rights and that took a much less overt effort. America has had a robust 3-branch system (executive, legislative, judiciary) corrupted by a singular cult of personality. THAT was highly unlikely to happen, but here we are.

With this being said, I do predict that anonymity on the web is going to be phased out. It will result in all sorts of changes to cultural norms across western nations that largely will curtail rights. I dread it.

Shouldn't we try tracing IP addresses and fining organizations for letting the traffic through or originating the traffic first? Seems a lot simpler.

They picked her up in TN and held her for 4 months, even after:

The ND police knew the ID was fake and the person using it was not her. The ND police knew she had been in TN before, during, and after the crime.

She is still technically a suspect, even after all of this has come out.

Cargo-cult requires a rigid through-line.

What criteria would you use, to choose to avoid something in order to preemptively avoid hindsight analysis? It's a nonsensical line of thinking.

Microsoft services are tech debt. I moved the moment they were acquired and never regretted it.