This causes unnecessary code changes later on, code changes mean new code, new code has bugs. The team should try to get it close to perfect on the first try instead. They won't, but that should be everyone's target. If that sounds impossible, then the PR was to big.

Germany is an outlier in that there is no capital backing for that generation whatsover. The problem has been known for 30 years, they just chose to ignore it.

It is truly the most egoistic generation ever.

A steeper learning curve in a professional field generally translates into higher earnings. The longer you have to be trained to be helpful, the more a job generally earns.

I am already trained.

Now of course it is not Django's responsibility to unite the Python ecosystem in the first place and they can value other factors and arguments as they see fit.

Although this very thread shows that there might have been something to it.

SQLAlchemy was historically a much better ORM than Django's. It's layered architecture combined with Alembic does make a difference.

I still agree that using the integrated thing anyway is probably the right way to do it if you are working in a team. I also think Django should just adopt these components and we would not have the discussion in the first place.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...

What I am suggesting is to keep the markets and let corporations follow incentives to make the best products, while trying to limit these meta games. This thread shows an example where this is arguably already working. I am suggesting to do more of it, e.g. make corporations publish reports of how they are actually doing in that regard, maybe even as a sort of disclaimer next to their own branding efforts.

I just want our rules to be a little stricter when it comes to false advertising and fraud. Why should a corporation be allowed to say: "We care for communities in America." This is not true. They care for shareholder value. There should be a disclaimer like: "We care for our community. We have no independent proof to back that up. Our main objective as a for-profit is to maximize profits. We are making XX $ / year and have in the past moved our production facilities to the cheapest location."

I am exaggerating here and am not providing a finished solution, just trying to illustrate what I mean.

> But then where do we draw the line?

That is in fact tricky, but I think our society as whole should move a little closer to facts.

Nevertheless, it should be possible to set higher standards for corporate communication than for individuals. I am thinking about this more in terms of markets and information asymmetry than personal liberties. I think it is fine when corporations are required to publish what they are doing. There is room to improve how mandatory disclaimers work and for what they are required.

[0]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__138.html

Name one non-capitalistic system more moral than the currently existing ones.

All rankings trying to quantify morality and order societies by it, are consistently topped by social market economies, a form of capitalism.

> Waving away all morality in moral nihilism is teenage-level ethical sophistication.

It is also something I have never done. With the edits to your post, its nature became more and more apologetic to dictatorships. I hope this was not what you have intended.