A species that destroys its habitat will go extinct.
So I guess we’ll see if natural selection removes people like you from the gene pool so the species itself can continue to evolve or if the dynamics are too extreme and this is part of the great filter.
natural selection pressure the species whole, what survives next is just those that were somehow more adapt to the new environment, it doesn't carry any punitive or karmatic meaning.
it might very well be that psychopaths will be the one surviving the first aftermath by virtue of their selfishness
That's the problem. Generally there are selective pressures against excessively selfish behavior but since climate change is relatively slow and distributed I'm not sure if that will apply in this case.
Maybe in this case selection pressure applies to entire species or planets and is one of the reasons we haven't detected any signs of intelligent life outside the solar system?
I notice this quite often - people will be arguing completely logically but from a axiomatic starting point that I (and probably most people) would find abhorrent or misinformed.
They will obscure the axioms they're arguing from so as to not get immediately dismissed, and instead just look rational at a glance and intellectually dishonest when you ask too many questions or read too carefully.
I have spent last 10 years travelling, sailing the ocean, hiking in jungles, diving in the reefs that would be extinct soon. I live in a climate where some moderate warming will make more pleasant.
I do not care what will happen beyond 20 years ahead. Maybe even less.
So why would I inconvinience myself? Why worry? People will get exactly what they deserve.
"People will get exactly what they deserve". What have children born today done to "deserve" the devastating consequences that are going to unfold? Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless.
> Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless.
Perhaps but I haven't seen any of my middle class friends taking their children to school on a bike or by public transport. And when I point that it is possible it is always "Meh, it is more convinient in my car and I am above that".
Caring about children isn't about arguing from premises. Indeed if someone claims to need an argument to care about children, it's a pretty good prima facie case for the existence of a psychological disorder.
Pretty much every job? I'd say about 10%. With all the web and web-adjacent jobs around, maybe even less. Most stdlibs are already written in a sensible way, so calling "sort" usually means calling quicksort. Most people just do not care, they have tickets and bosses to worry about.
Some people like that sort of thing. Mostly the "academic" types. The memorizers. There are people who got through their higher education by using memory instead of wit. I know some of those people, I went to school with some of them, they were always studying and ramming as much "data" into their brains as possible... while I was getting through with minimum of effort by just coding a lot and trying to think about things in my own way.
The memorizers in this industry often get jobs higher up the tree and therefore they are highly represented in the hiring practices.
Anyways, I completely agree with you. In my opinion it is essential to KNOW that you DON'T KNOW (i.e. you don't remember how exactly an RB tree works, you just know there is such a thing). Everything else is just a quick Google session away.
I always cringe when one of these "we could have been driving electric cars" articles shows up. Cars are not bread and the vast vast majority of the planet's population (who even own a car) don't just go around shopping for new cars. It's going to take DECADES before electric cars have a significant impact on the climate change. That is an economic reality. (Not to mention that electric cars are only now starting to barely match gasoline cars in terms of usability and range.)
The line is in the little thing only backwards people seem to use these days... the law. In the case of 8chan, the US law. It is within the US law to praise terrorists under the Freedom of Speech law (1st Amendment). If you want to change that fact, you can try to change the law. For example, I'm a Czech citizen and it is illegal for me to praise terrorism or nazism. Anyways, until such time that the law is changed, any calls for mass action against 8chan are little more than mob rule. Also, it doesn't help your case than almost all calls for extreme action like deplatforming come from a fringe minority of society (progressive far left activists) who are typically orange man bad, guns bad, free speech bad, low taxes bad, low regulation bad as it makes it hard to find compromises for such a group of people.
Good. Great even. If the implementation is top notch, mantained and from the 1st party, why the hell not, but most of the times, language server implementations are half assed, slow, "kinda" working messes that are all but useless in the long run. The PHP language server implementations are a great example of this. A buch of broken, incomplete, underperforming projects maintained by a single person (or straight up abandoned). Compare that with Phpstorm and you have just compared a rusty tricycle with a spaceship.
From my experience, one of the causes of this issue is that in some companies, the people who are in charge of the money (upper/top management) are rarely also people with software engineering backgrounds. These people are often unable or unwilling to fully grasp the concept of "ramping up a new employee" in the context of software development. The fact that any large codebase will take a smart person 3-6 months to acclimate to and become productive. The fact that other people on the programming team have to help these new people (and therefore lose productivity themselves). The fact that the new person is going to produce more errors and the number of defects in the product will temporarily increase.
If you look into the history of a company (e.g. by looking at how many users in the issue tracker are no longer in the company etc.), it's usually quite obvious when there's a systemic problem - the employee turnover is high. The management is interested in saving money by looking at the market and trying to hire at or just below the average compensation levels. In their eyes, it's cheaper to bring a new employee to the team (and there's always some fresh meat on the shelves of the job market) than to pay the current (experienced) employee more. And in the short term, they're probably right. But in the medium to long term, this approach tends to have a cumulative effect resulting in high employee churn rate.
The problem? Software development is not fast food industry. You can't have high employee churn rates without it manifesting somewhere. But pointing out exactly where and how is not easy (linking causation and effect in a discipline involving multiple people across multiple years is not trivial), especially when you need to link it to the bottom line (the market state and marketing efficiency will mess with your analysis... not that you typically even have access to the financials as a run-of-the-mill employee) and even if you do, there is no reason to expect that you would be able to effectively bring these findings to the management (such work would probably be seen as you overstepping the bounds) or that the management would change the processes responsible (that would be expensive). It's an uphill battle. When you are in a company with high employee turnover, there's typically not much you can do other than to start looking elsewhere. These types of companies will have problems (lower level of respect/loyalty, higher level of product defects, lower productivity, higher technical debt), it's best to leave them as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
People who hire contractors are usually not developers. I've had my fair bit of working with contractors, let's just say that if you get them to work in domain logic without very strict oversight, you are going to have a bad time. Tooling, purely technical matters - that's more like something you can give them to work on.
