Great idea! I wonder why nobody has ever thought about that before! You must be the first! A modern day Prometheus!
The highlighted part about the fact that it takes 30 minutes to make a change, and FIVE WEEKS to get sign-off is spot on. I fucking hate bureaucracy. But you know what happens if you don't take the FIVE WEEKS to get sign-off? Nothing.
Our most esteemed economic mind wrote that businesses exist solely to maximize profit for shareholders. So that is the right business model for our economic system.
And it is not "the" right model, just a possible and I would argue short sighted one.
What they did was model up a rental business and seeded it as if it were an ownership type one.
That is predatory, depending on what experience level people are buying. They run a very real risk of not understanding what they are buying.
And that, along with better ways to value externalities, would render that model higher cost and risk, as it should be.
Anyone with sufficient experience sees those costs, risks and also sees them as external to the enterprise, and that it all comes at their own expense.
That expense renders the value proposition far less compelling.
Exactly why this bait and switch happened too.
Just because it is legal, does not make it right or ethical.
Given the rise in these trends, yeah. Time to revisit what is legal.
Yup. The current economic model encourages the path that maximises profit, ethical or otherwise. That might mean predatory behaviour and then blame shifting or just moving on to the next brand and dumping the company with the rotten reputation and its workers.
Until enough people are willing to adopt a different value system, we're stuck with this.
Pretty much. My mom's soon-to-be-former partner had been an alcoholic previous to their relationship and was clean when they met. She got him some whisky for Christmas and figured it would be fine if he drank a little, because its never been a problem for her. Big mistake.
People are very very different in their drug tolerances and really shouldn't give advice to other people, because they are not the same.
The officer didn't do anything wrong and just because police are sometimes unreasonable or unethical, it doesn't mean this officer was either. The officer has a right to do whatever he wants with his phone as well. He could be recording with it, or he can play music with it, without recourse. It's his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that protects him, not the constitution or being an officer.
If someone wants to film him, and then use the power of the Internet to amplify that video to be viewed by many, as is their current right, then they will simply have to do additional work to ensure they are not transmitting the officer's "tunes" to others. Take the time to edit the video provides a means to still publish. Not as easy as clicking submit, but still available as an option, without making a sensationalist claim that music is being "weaponized" by anyone.
People using straw man arguments to "weaponize" language and then place it online where it becomes divisive. That's more of a story than some dude using his phone in a clever way to protect from being video mobbed.
I am aware your comment may be sarcasm, so there's that.
The officer absolutely did something wrong. They intentionally abused copyright to prevent lawful free expression. They should be strung up on First Amendment charges, and the RIAA should come down hard.
A 16 year old working at McDonald's does not have the right to ignore the boss and play a gameboy (I was 16 in the 90's).
Banning music outside cop cars, or over the loud speaker, or on mobile devices while on duty does seem like something they definitely could do and would be within the law.
Nah sounds like a seasoned architect. The first thing I had to unlearn was that I had any say over my architecture.
Maybe the problem with software architects is that they only exist in bureaucratically hellish companies, and exist as a scapegoat for bad management decisions?
Your experience matches mine. I can think of twice where I stood my ground and argued with a more senior person. Both times I was shown to be right technically but that came at a big cost to my career. I would have been much better off letting the project crash and burn.
I think there are senior people that are different. Hell, there might be companies full of them. But I'd need to see first hand proof of it before doing anything harder than gentle pushback.
MBAs are the equivalent of butter bars in the military. You get a lot of fresh faced BCOM -> MBA grads who know absolutely nothing but doctrine and are put in a position of power.
CompSci -> Work in industry -> MBA usually produces the best managers.
The highlighted part about the fact that it takes 30 minutes to make a change, and FIVE WEEKS to get sign-off is spot on. I fucking hate bureaucracy. But you know what happens if you don't take the FIVE WEEKS to get sign-off? Nothing.