And apparently that mindset drove an enormous amount of profit and, at least in the beginning, gave the company some sort of social conscience.

It's amazing that you can be so against these things

Why is it that you think that the people who see the sausage being made are exactly the ones most unqualified to criticize it?

Arguing vociferously about how that "wasn't such a big deal" would make me wonder what ax you had to grind with people who talk shit about mensa.

This is kind of why I expected some people to make a big deal out of how this isn't a big deal. Tech unionisation is genuinely threatening to many here and this Google walkout stuff is a potential sign of things to come in this industry.

100% of the solutions ive seen to address this problem have been hacky - either polling bash scripts or explicit waits.

docker compose is a piece of shit.

>The problem of waiting for a database (for example) to be ready is really just a subset of a much larger problem of distributed systems. In production, your database could become unavailable or move hosts at any time. Your application needs to be resilient to these types of failures.

absolute bullshit. docker compose thinks that it can excuse its bugs by dint of the fact that we're supposed to build "more resilient" applications to accommodate them.

and, their proposed workaround with "wait for" is disgusting. their tool should be able to handle readiness detection. it's so fucking basic.

it's not only this but this is an example of the bullshit in this shitty tool excused with shitty reasons.

Language policing is still big in dem circles.

It's just not cost effective without both massive implicit and explicit government subsidies.

Renewables are cost effective now and will only become more so.

Saving 50% on generation gives you a lot of options in terms of demand shaping and storage.

It's also far, far less capital intensive and doesn't require an uncapped disaster insurance subsidy from the taxpayer.

Whereas apparently many software engineers do not take their cue from customers since they strive for some impossible "no bug policy" (or some other such rubbish).

I think a lot of companies don't care about bugs as much as their developers do though, and that isn't necessarily irrational behaviour.

Some kinds of customer facing bugs really are ok to just let happen.

I was dubious before the crashes but after Boeing's reaction to the crashes I'm fairly sure I'd feel safer on their planes than Boeing's.

They actually didn't. They just broke them because they (rightly) saw that as an effective means of raising the price of their artisanship.

The luddites are more akin to the Paris Uber strikers - who also weren't anti technology.