Well you’re half right. Either there wasn’t monitoring for this or if there was monitoring in place that’s not what caught this, because the page originated from a customer support ticket.

Anecdotally I remember 1 hour to 90 minute lunches being the norm 10 years ago. Now, taking more than 30 minutes feels like I need to play 'catch up', primarily because the workload and expectations of SWEs has increased dramatically since then. The pay? Not commensurate. And that's even if you include the short lived post-Covid spike in salaries.

"Be grateful for what you have" gets old quick, especially when leaders (and I use that term loosely) use any opportunity to take more and more.

Thank you for putting this so eloquently into words. This rigid thinking is also common in topics such as working conditions, collective bargaining, on-call time, parental leave, healthcare, and effectively (unintentionally or not) shuts down conversation.

I've come to realize the objections from people who think this way all effectively boil down to 'Be grateful for what you have because any alternative would be worse.' But if you pry and ask that they expand you'll find there really isn't any there there, because it's black and white thinking. It isn't rooted in fact, it comes from fear. I sure hope we haven't collectively forgot how to even imagine a system that functions better than the one we have today.

1. White House officials from the CDC, FBI, and CISA urged platforms to remove or suppress content deemed "misinformation" including "lab-leak theory. [1]

2. Missouri and others sued the Biden admin and requested an injunction for "federal interference" against social media companies.[2] That injunction was granted.[3]

3. The injunction was appealed to the 5th circuit[4]. Notably, while the the 5th circuit upheld the injunction, they didn't agree that the Biden admin was "coercive", which is why their ruling significantly narrowed the scope of the injunction. From that ruling:

  "Generally, the State Department officials did not flag content, suggest policy changes, or reciprocally receive data during those meetings."

  "...although CISA flagged content for social-media platforms as part of its switchboarding operations, based on this record, its conduct falls on the “attempts to convince,” not “attempts to coerce,” side of the line."
  
  "There is not sufficient evidence that CISA made threats of adverse consequences— explicit or implicit—to the platforms for refusing to act on the content it flagged."

  "Nor is there any indication CISA had power over the platforms in any capacity, or that their requests were threatening in tone or manner. Similarly, on this record, their requests— although certainly amounting to a non-trivial level of involvement—do not equate to meaningful control."

You wrote the Biden admin was "forcing" Twitter to censor people but even the 5th Circuit, which was sympathetic to this complaint, disagrees.

Sadly my original assumption was true: this is another false comparison. Trump using or even threatening to use the FCC's licensing authority to revoke licenses of private companies that don't fire a comedian for speech the president found upsetting is not the same.

Now, if the Biden admin used (or threatened) the DOJ's authority to seize Twitter or Facebook's domain name if they don't take down legal, 1st amendment protected content the Biden admin disagrees with i.e. "lab leak", then I might agree with you.

My question to you is - do you agree these things are not the same or do you simply not see a meaningful distinction? Why or why not?

[1] https://reason.com/2023/09/11/the-5th-circuit-agrees-that-fe...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri

[3] https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/4/23783822/free-speech-rulin...

[4] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pd...

In the first year of his second term Trump has repeatedly nationalized other states' national guards, against the judgement of those states' governors. He also threatened to deploy one state's national guard into "blue states" the President has personal grievances with. Let's not get into the why because the why is clearly not relevant to your comment, "I don't know what more he could have done."

Once again, you're either not responding here in good faith or you need to take a long honest reflection at how you came to that absurd conclusion.

> I'm sure the $80,000 extra dollars is enough to pay for the healthcare premiums and daycare.

You're probably right. That said, SWE compensation in the U.S. has been quite an anomaly compared to the vast majority of American labor, especially in the last 5-10 years. I don't think those who are comfortable right now are thinking far enough ahead about what they'll do if that changes, or perhaps when that changes. If this AI hype has taught me anything it's that those with capital cannot wait to start trimming their pesky engineers with those high salaries. And maybe that's always been the case, but seeing them go full mask off hits different.

Unrelated, I like your website. It's simple and the color scheme is aesthetically pleasing.

How about much is daycare in the U.S. for 3 children? Conservative estimates put that at $4-$5,000 per month, and that's after tax.

Is there a reason your comment omits these key differences when comparing a SWE's quality of life living in the United States vs. Canada?

I agree it’s not surprising and I would also agree it’s not noteworthy, if the CEO of OpenAI wasn’t still making public statements like this:

People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model … But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you *get smart*.

It would be an understatement to say I am ashamed to work in the same industry as many of the commenters here do--commenters who are completely ignorant of antitrust law and why it exists, or for whatever reason, are completely unconcerned with the absurd market power these mega conglomerates (ab)use.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I know the rules say to assume good faith but I don't see how anyone can do that given what you wrote. I'm really struggling to understand how that is your main takeaway from all the events that transpired that day.

But rather than rehash that maybe it's better to focus on current events. What are your thoughts on Trump, the first day assuming office in his second term, issuing a blanket pardon for all of the crimes his supporters committed that day in his name? Why would Trump who just wanted people to "protest peacefully," pardon those convicted of... beating officers with a flag pole, stomping on officers' heads, and crushing an officer in a metal door frame using a riot shield?

I do agree with you on one thing though:

> it's like they're living in another world

It truly saddens me to see so many people living in completely different realities. But I honestly don't think it's me or the person you're replying to that decided to relocate.

It's sad how many people truly believe this. Intelligent people, including tech workers, many of which have mistakenly convinced themselves they're not part of the working class.

Did you create this? If not how did you come across it?