I think that's more "this sounds great" than "our users are developers". Google's services also aren't aimed at developers, the APIs are often very bureaucratic and not very well done (there's no way to list the available google sheets documents in the sheets api, I need the drive API and a different set of permissions? please.)
It reads exactly like what you'd expect from a "I want to be considered a thought leader" person: nothing you haven't read a hundred times but it sounds nice so you can nod along.
I think it is true, but not because you have nothing more to learn when you're experienced, but that there are fewer and fewer people on SO to answer the questions that you encounter when you get more and more experienced.
I've answered about 200 questions. I've asked two, and both remain unanswered to this day. One of them had comments from someone who clearly was out of their league but wanted to be helpful. The people who could've answered those questions are not (or were not at that time) on SO.
The more experienced I got, the subtler my questions/answers. The few times I asked a question, I would start by saying "it may look similar to this, this and that questions, but it is not", only to see my question get closed as duplicate by moderators.
If the moderators are not competent to understand if your question is a duplicate or not, and close it as duplicate when in doubt, then it contributes to the toxic atmosphere, maybe?
Germany's public transport is really not privatized though. The Deutsche Bahn AG is structured as company, but is entirely owned by the federal government. There's very, very little public transportation (e.g. private buses between major cities) that is not owned and operated by the government.
DB is only in its current state (company organization, leadership failures, organizational failures, underfunding for decades, etc) because of previous governments' failed attempts at privatization decades ago. Full actual privatization would not likely have yielded any better results - especially regarding the actual infrastructure itself. (There's enough examples worldwide)
It's also been used for cushy post-politics jobs and lots of other incompetent meddling - such as requiring and extracting profits, etc.
You're right that it's not privatized, but the root causes of current misery still are the privatization attempts and a significant neoliberal/conservative political force that caused decay and blocked progress/improvements.
On the on hand you claim that a government-run railway company is better off than a privately run (Japan tends to disagree here).
On the other hand you admit that the problems of Deutsche Bahn stem from the fact that politicians have had too much influence on it.
Guess how you can keep politicians out of companies? By keeping them private.
I will never understand why so many people think that companies are magically doing better because the government is running them. That’s just a myth.
Both the government and private entities can be good or bad at running companies. However, the huge advantage with private companies is that customers have options thanks to competition.
Anyone who still has memories of telephone companies run by the government knows what I’m talking about.
As for Deutsche Bahn, the government has full control over it meaning the company is run by the government. Whether it’s officially a German Aktiengesellschaft or not, doesn’t matter at all.
Your argument is often brought up by proponents of a government-run railway so that they don’t have to admit that Deutsche Bahn isn’t doing well despite being run by the government.
Japan isn't really disagreeing. Japan had decades of tight control and infrastructure investment led by the government. Only pretty narrow rail operations are done privately. And in a system where those companies know pretty well that if they try things that go to far, they will have political issues.
And japan is also an exception, as most other system that do work well are not like Japan at all.
> I will never understand why so many people think that companies are magically doing better because the government is running them. That’s just a myth.
That's not really the claim. The reason government running them can work well is because you can run it like an integrated system for the public good. You can actually do system wide planning and implementation and transformation. You can do targeted investment across the whole live-cycle of the system and all its components. You can drive standardization.
Sure if a single company owned everything, they could do that to. But to have a single monopoly normal private company running so much of a countries infrastructure would be patently insane. And literally nobody has or will ever run things that way.
Britain trying to privatize Network Rail is about as close to as you are going to get. And that lasted for a few years at most.
> However, the huge advantage with private companies is that customers have options thanks to competition.
In a perfect world maybe, but when we are talking about rail systems, you do not magically get many rail lines between places just because you say 'private'.
It takes 100s of years of infrastructure and investment to build up a rail network.
And to unlock the true potential of that infrastructure having competing companies run trains on it, is just one marginal potentially beneficial thing you can do. And of the things you can do, its far, far, far away from what actually impacts the consumer the most.
This is completely clear to all experts that study this topic. Complete integrated time-tabling, planning and standardization is far more important then marginal competition on few main lines.
> As for Deutsche Bahn, the government has full control over it meaning the company is run by the government. Whether it’s officially a German Aktiengesellschaft or not, doesn’t matter at all.
You are narrowly talking about legal technicalities. But you are ignoring the larger cultural and historical aspect.
The fact is, the way the German government created the DB was to be private and to make money. That lead the DB culturally to act much differently then traditional national railway companies, like SBB.
And like an actual company they started to invest widely in all sorts of stuff while not focusing on their core business.
So legally it might not matter, but historically it for sure this. It actually makes a difference if your railway company is primary a national instrument to bring affordable public transportation to the people, or if its designed to be a profit making company.
> Your argument is often brought up by proponents of a government-run railway so that they don’t have to admit that Deutsche Bahn isn’t doing well despite being run by the government.
Everybody knows that government ownerships isn't a magic pill. And most people admit that DB isn't doing well and that its government owned. What people dislike is how DB is organized and set up and how politics and DB interacts.
For all its existence it has been 100% state-owned and state-controlled, yet because it's a failure, it's still somehow "not state, but actually privatized", even though not "full actual privatization" (but only imagined privatization).
I understand the desire to have a scapegoat for failure, and to externalize it in some abstract capitalists/neoliberals/conservatives, but abandoning reality to create your own world has no predictive power and is not a long-term strategy.
Please read again and don't put your own ideological spin on my words, please. I fully blame governments and politicians for all failures. I did not write that it's "actually" or otherwise privatized, in fact I wrote "you're right that it's not privatized".
The root cause is still privatization attempts and politicians that don't like well run public infrastructure and sabotage it through underfunding and bad requirements/structure. These are the same people that always claim that infrastructure will work perfectly well when just sold off to the private sector for maximum profit extraction. The working long term strategy is to get these out of position of power - however as is common, people like to vote against their own interests for ideological and emotional reasons.
No need to abandon reality, austerity and idiotic state underfunding of basic infrastructure (not just rail) have been the norm in Germany for decades. This isn't some crackpot conspiracy, but well accepted reality.
We don't usually think of the board of directors as controlling a company, nor the shareholders. They appoint a CEO, and then are hands-off unless the CEO really fucks up. This principle still remains true when the shareholders are a state.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but the fact remains that the German government has full control over Deutsche Bahn and any mismanagement can be blamed 100% on the German government.
Monopolizing the work doesn't work unless you have the power to suppress anyone else joining the competition, i.e. "certified developers only".
Otherwise people would have realized they can charge 3x as much by being 5x as productive with better tools while you're writing your code in notepad for maximum ROI, and you would have either adjusted or gone out of business.
Increased productivity isn't a choice, it's a result of competition. And that's a good thing overall, even if it sucks for some developers who now have to actually work for the first time in decades. But it's good for society at large, because more things can be done.
Sure - I agree with that, and I agree its good for society but as you state probably not as good for the SWE who has to work harder for the same which was my point and I think you agree. Other professions have done what you have stated (i.e. certification) and seen higher wages than otherwise which also proves my point. They see this as the "street smart" thing to do, and generally society respects them for it putting their profession on a higher pedestal as a result. People respect people who take care of themselves first generally I find as well. Personally I think there should be a balance between the two (i.e. a fair go for all parties; a fair day's work with some job security over a standard career lifetime but not extortionary).
Also your notion of "better tools" may of not happened, or happened more slowly without open source, AI, etc which would of meant higher salaries for longer most probably. That's where I disagree with the parent poster's claim of higher salaries - AI seems to be a great recent example of "better tools" disrupting the premium SWE's enjoy rather than improving their salaries. Whether that's fair or not is a different debate.
I was just doubting the notion of the parent comment that "open source software" and "automated testing" create higher salaries. Usually efficiency economically (some exceptional cases) creates lower salaries for the people who are made more efficient all else being equal - and the value shifts from them to either consumers or employers.
> Other professions have done what you have stated (i.e. certification) and seen higher wages than otherwise which also proves my point.
I'd generally agree with that if it regards to safety (e.g. industrial control systems), but we manage that by certifying the manufacturer, not the individual developer.
But otherwise I think it's harmful to society, even if beneficial to the individuals - but there's a lot of things falling in that bucket, and it's usually not the things we strive for at a societal level.
In my experience, getting better and faster has always translated into being paid more. I don't know that there's a direct relationship to specific tools, but I'm pretty sure that the mainstreaming of software development has caused the huge inflation of total comp that you see in many companies. If it was slow and there's only this handful of people that can do it, but they're not really adding a huge amount of value, you wouldn't be seeing that kind of multiplier vs the average job.
> But otherwise I think it's harmful to society, even if beneficial to the individuals
I disagree a little in that stability/predictability to people also adds some benefit to society - constant disruption/change for the sake of efficiency I believe at extreme levels would be bad for mental health at the very least and probably cause some level of outrage and dysfunction. I know as an SWE tbh I'm feeling a bit of it - can't imagine if it was everyone.
I personally think there is a tradeoff; people on average have limits to adaptability in their lifetimes and so it needs to be worth it for people to invest and enter in a given profession (some level of economic profit that makes their limited time worth spending in it). It shouldn't be excessive though - it should be where both client and producer get fair/equal value for the time/effort they both need to put in.
> "AI" (and don't get me wrong I use these LLM systems constantly) is off the charts compared to normal data centre use for ads serving.
It wasn't only about serving those ads though, traditional machine-learning (just not LLMs) has always been computationally expensive and was and is used extensively to optimize ads for higher margins, not for some greater good.
Obviously, back then and still today, nobody is being wasteful because they want to. If you go to OpenAI today and offer them a way to cut their compute usage in half, they'll praise you and give you a very large bonus for the same reason it was recognized & incentivized at Google: it also cuts the costs.
> Everyone seeks career growth, but pushing for it too quickly often just leads to inflated titles without real substance.
That's why I'm not a big fan of recommending people to often and quickly change jobs to increase titles and pay. Their skills don't level up the same way, and they end up with a title of senior/lead developer and can't actually build maintainable systems or solve problems that nobody tells them the solution to.
If one is unable to work alone but manages to join a new company with an inflated title, people will notice. They're gonna have to keep job-hopping until they find a place that doesn't notice the bad performance anymore.
This is demonstrable by the amount of CVs with "12 jobs in the last 6 years" in my reject pile.
It might just as well have been something that was supposed to sound young and fun ("I don't want to do that") and ends up leaving too much room for interpretation.
If you have the power to do something, saying you might do it but that you don't want to makes people imagine you'd do it. If you have a knife and talk about how you "might stab people, but don't want to", that's a very different message than having a knife and saying "obviously I'm not going to stab people, violence is not an option".
The latter reassures, the former depends heavily on what the recipient of the message thinks of you, and whether they can imagine you stabbing people.
If that quote was accurate, then either he just said something and wanted to wing it, or they should reconsider their communication strategists.
> I am not sure that I really understand what they did.
They checked where the VPN exit nodes are physically located. A lot of them are only setting a country in the whois data for the IP, but do not actually put the exit node in that country.
Yes, I don't understand the advantage or disadvantage of this. Let's say I need a Colombian IP address, I would figure it out pretty quickly it this was not genuine, except if the geo-block protection would be fooled too.
Most of the "problem" countries are tiny places. Monaco, Andorra etc. It might be tough to rent a server there. And your list of clients should be minimal.
You can easily test this, of course -- the problem isn't that you, the user, cannot find out, it's that you pay for being able to use an endpoint in those countries and can't, because they don't exist.
It's not only small countries either, it affects much of Latin America, including Brazil (PIA's servers were in Miami for BR as well last time I checked). I've occasionally seen it also affect US states where e.g. Massachusetts would be served from Trenton, NJ.
> I would figure it out pretty quickly it this was not genuine, except if the geo-block protection would be fooled too.
It would (unless the blockers use this company's database I guess):
> The IP registry data also says “Country X” — because the provider self-declared it that way.
That could be good or bad depending on what you're using the VPN for. E.g. if you only care about evading stupid local laws like the UK's recent Think of the Children Act, then it's actually great because you can convince websites you're in Mauritius while actually getting London data centre speeds.
But if you want to legally be sending your traffic from another country then it's less great because you actually aren't. To be honest I can't really think of many situations where this would really make a difference since the exit point of your network traffic doesn't really matter legally. E.g. if a Chinese person insults their dear leader from a VPN exit node in the UK, the Chinese authorities are going to sentence them to just as much slavery as if they did it from a local exit point.
If the government is using the same fake data as the rest of the Internet you want to be using that fake data too. You want to be precise, not accurate. If the FBI records your endpoint as Iran and you say "I wasn't actually sending traffic from Iran, where there are sanctions, I was sending from London but my VPN provider lied on their WHOIS record", you will be in just as much trouble as if you were actually sending data from Iran.
Except that Americans pay far more for these services than places where they aren't profit oriented. Try again. Reality does not support your assertion.
It reads exactly like what you'd expect from a "I want to be considered a thought leader" person: nothing you haven't read a hundred times but it sounds nice so you can nod along.
reply