There are many cases of market failure and inefficiencies, rentiers, useless 'BS jobs' and unchecked monopolies in a market economy. Why would the people criticizing it be wrong? It's not like it's rare.
A landlord or a holder of IP can and will arrange deals that have negative value for society because of the fact it attracts monetary value for them.
A client paying for a service, is this done 'willingly' when it is needed and no other choice exists? If someone wants to compete, can they navigate the moats companies are so fond of?
I think the concept of BS jobs is BS. That's because the fulfillment people get from jobs isn't tied to the value the economic value they provide to the firm or even the social value they may or may not provide. Some people may hate teaching because they feel it is soul crushing to them (especially if they are not supported and the school isn't in good shape) despite it being socially useful someone else may enjoy being an elderly greeter because it lets them continue working and they may feel they are providing some social value even if most people don't care another person may be happy working at the shrinkwrap factory because it provides money for their family
I assure you this motivation does not exist in a vacuum, and many will quite rightly find achievement more important than generating capital for someone else.
I agree wholeheartedly. There are many benefits still to be reaped from making this regulation more paperless and automated, while keeping it as a check against unsupervised growth.
The amount of pain caused by HTML not having a "client-side include" is ridiculous. Server-side include is very old, but for various reasons having it client side would be easier for use cases like this.
Welcome to 2024 when JavaScript is indeed everywhere. It's not hostility. It's reality. Aside from two people here and Stallman, absolutely no one cares about disabling JS any more.
I almost always run websites with Javascript (sometimes I turn it off to get out of illegal cookie walls). I don't really care about the website requiring Javascript (even though it doesn't for this specific page), I care about the explicit hostility against someone whose browser doesn't load JS.
The website would've been fine if they hadn't added anything, yet they went out of their way to insult a small minority of their visitors using a <noscript> element, and took the time to write a weird rant about how you should really enable Javascript for some reason (I guess they only know frontend stuff and don't know how to run a backend server?).
To me, this degrades the website to the level of "personal blog of someone with a grudge" as much as websites that'll redirect you to a rant for leaving Javascript on. For a personal blog, that's just a weird quirk, but for a supposedly scientific, academic space to publish research, that's just bad vibes.
> Welcome to 2024 when JavaScript is indeed everywhere. It's not hostility. It's reality. Aside from two people here and Stallman, absolutely no one cares about disabling JS any more.
This is an irrelevant diversion, and materially untrue - "> What a lovely hat\nIs it made out of tin foil?" is absolutely hostile, and that fact is not contingent on the number of people who disable Javascript.
And also missing the point entirely. Websites working without JS is not only a matter of security. It's security + accessibility + SEO + usability on older or quirky devices + usability via the likes of curl...
Yes, a textual site which requires Javascript - or any other active component really - for the text to be read is a bit like a book which requires a decoder ring to read. Just present a text-only or pre-rendered site if the visitor can not or does not want to enable scripting, Maybe add a reminder that the site has some functionality which only works when scripting is enabled.
Tech workers here are paid so much less than they should be; there's tons of unemployment only to earn 15k/yr when theyre at work. Salaries like this are a joke and should rise
No, your avg tech worker is not going to be making 15k/yr. Maybe around 40k/yr and that would be an "average" salary for a non-senior position.
Both of you are wrong for different reasons. The truth is more nuanced.
First, Madrid is very different from the rest of the country. Salaries are higher, still half of what our neighbors of the north have. 15k/20k sounds like a rest-of-the-country average.
Even in Madrid 40k€ is far from average, that it's more likely 28k.
40 is the salary for a very senior o very specialized programmer/analyst.
But there's a caveat that makes you closer to reality for Madrid and it's if you add forced pension and health insurance that the employer pays. It's around 40% on top of the raw salary, so someone earning 30k is really costing 42k to the employer.
What a weird take to defend tech salaries in Spain, I'd love to move but the very top salaries for my level cap around 80-90k EUR so it'd be quite a big drop even compared to the UK
Where do you read a defense of anything? This is not a "weird take", just a statement of a fact (may it be true or false): that the average is ~40k and not ~15k (it is currently illegal to pay less than 15.876 euros per year).
But be aware that the London salaries upper tail is wider, possibly brought up by the quant firms (which are a different kind of company than most are accustomed)
levels.fyi gives 112kE as the median and 200kE/90% for London vs around 60kE for the median and 90kE/90% (pretax for both)
A landlord or a holder of IP can and will arrange deals that have negative value for society because of the fact it attracts monetary value for them.
A client paying for a service, is this done 'willingly' when it is needed and no other choice exists? If someone wants to compete, can they navigate the moats companies are so fond of?