Hmm maybe I stop donating then… I’ll have to dig into where my money is actually going.

Sorta. The foundation does.

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/

Yes. Just like I donate to my Lemmy host on a regular basis.

I even pay for YouTube, despite using Vanced.

Fuck ads.

The issue is fuck ads

I mean… They have though. It’s not in bing.com but “Microsoft copilot” is their newly rebranded Bing + AI search engine, which they’re embedding directly into desktops. They’ve been doing the AI summaries longer than Google has afaik.

You think Bing aka Microsoft is not planning on this exact same folly?

Or speech that hurts his feelings

Federated Stack Exchange isn’t harder for AI to eat. If anything it’s easier.

I’d argue corporations should strive to represent their employees.

That’s not a corporation that’s a co-op. I think cooperatives are great. Corporations less so.

Corporations don’t deserve to maintain anything, they aren’t people and have no ethical status either.

Ethical status isn’t what I’m talking about here: I’m talking about legal protections for entities. A corporation is an entity and has legal protections.

Again we can discuss if capitalism should be the system we use but as long as it is then corporations will, by definition, have legal status and protections.

Nonetheless you’re working double time to make sure the use of ‘reasonable’ with all its connotations is seen as acceptable here. Making sure everyone knows that you think this is normative.

It’s absolutely mundane and normal. It’s unnatural but not strange.

I’d rather the system didn’t work like this: but it is entirely expected given the laws that govern the nation in which this occurred.

And that’s by definition normative.

We will not reach a common ground.

You went from talking about concepts to directly attacking me. I wouldn’t expect you’d ever come to a truce with someone you see as an enemy. I’m sorry you feel that way.

It’s both reasonable and expected.

We can discuss if a corporation deserves to exist but granted that it does: it is implicitly reasonable that it deserves to maintain its premises and staffing in a way that is conducive to business.

Now if you want to talk about corporate structures and the dissolution of capitalist enterprise that’s a different story.

But in today’s world and with today’s rules it is entirely reasonable.

Not gleeful - just fully understanding why.

I admire their principled stand. They had to know it would cost them their jobs but chose to do it anyway.

Their firing isn’t a surprise and is fully reasonable by the company. I hope they get great jobs elsewhere, where their morals will be appreciated… But there are very few workplaces that give a damn about morals.

Internship placement would be great. Fighting to even get interns lately though. All management talks about is “efficiency” these days.

Using a SE 1-5 scale where 1 is junior - I’m generally talking about companies (or at least my current employer) preferring to hire SE2 rather than SE1. An SE2 is maybe 50% more expensive than an SE1 at {current employer} while an SE4 is about 3x an SE1.

A very small company I worked at basically only hired juniors right out of school but with the understanding that they’d stay on for at least a couple years to help out. The CEO was an engineer in the code though: fun shop. I trained 2 juniors there to competency… But it was a significant investment to do so.

I think Google engineers drag their feet on this.

Like - Google’s pre-installed corporate Firefox and Chrome both have ad blockers. Ublock origin is installed by default on Firefox (I can’t remember what was installed on chrome, I only used it for the work suite/cloudtop and did everything else on FF).

Nobody I worked with at Google liked ads… But I didn’t work at YouTube. So maybe it’s different there.

But I suspect the engineers are doing it just to show management that they’re doing something but it’s half hearted.

Real efforts and real threats of it getting locked down, sure, but half hearted effort.

I mean… It was the worst car he’s ever reviewed by a long shot.

If you’re sending a car to be reviewed by one of the larger tech YouTubers and you don’t have your shit together it’s not a good look.

Even if you have to send a 1-off faked model that’s Jerry rigged…

Reciprocated

I’m glad some managers see it that way. I wish it were easier to get junior headcount. Our mobile team is very small so we have huge bus factor at all times. A couple of junior devs, say 1 for each of the mobile components in our stack (backend, iOS, android) would help mitigate those risks for comparatively cheap, on top of improving our overall velocity.

You never hire somebody senior and find they can do twice as much as you thought.

Generally juniors are expensive for their performance though. If they can do double what you thought it’s great but I’m not sure how much of a cost savings that is against an engineer coming in as a senior (not lead or staff - just a vetted competent programmer who works). Then again I’m not in management at all: I could have the performance-per-dollar figure entirely wrong.

It wasn’t my intention to put words in your mouth. Everything I’ve said has been an honest reflection of my experience in corporate programming and represents the things I hear managers saying about team composition and division of labor. I’m in meetings with members of the c-suite talking about these things specifically.

I get you don’t think it makes sense for a corporation to do. I’m trying to say regardless of that - the executives are acting in what they see as very rational self interest.

I think it’s important for seniors to be in the trenches.

I’d expect a senior to be doing “junior” work even if juniors were available to take it on.

It’s not all about efficiency: it’s about keeping grounded and in touch with the ongoing state of the code base. Which I’d argue you can’t get just from reviewing PRs.

I can see what you mean as far as false economies go for the company but in order to have a task fully scoped for a junior to do you need significant amounts of managerial and engineering time spent grooming tickets, updating AC, explicitly enumerating changes… All of which could be cut through by more senior devs that handle ambiguity better.

Its hard. I’d rather have juniors to delegate to, sure. But I’d most like to have juniors to train. Even if they didn’t do anything useful for 6 months.

I generally feel like the opposite is true. I have more stability issues because of the weird half fucked hacks that I’ve installed over 7 different attempts to use the CLI to make my computer hallucinate small rainbow dogs.

If every company trained juniors, only for them to jump ship in two years, there’d be a pool of trained juniors to hire from.

I mean… That’s only if they trained juniors. Juniors have an incredibly hard time getting their first job in programming. Each company is incentivized to snipe juniors from everywhere else instead of train their own.

Beyond that, there’s work that is better suited to more junior employees because it’s literally a waste of the senior employees’ skills.

As a staff software eng - nothing is beneath me. There are some things that only I can do (in theory) but in practice I do everything from minor copy changes to architecting new services. If I need to do something I’m happy to do it.