One thing that gives me comfort is that there is a difference between what they say on a poll, and what they actually do.
Plenty of people are willing to say "I am willing to commit violence" on social media. My gut feeling is that if 4% say they will shoot someone, < 0.4% will actually do it.
Can you lay out the conditions under which you'll accept references? I've had a lot of issues before where I provide this sort of evidence and the counterparty relentlessly and tediously explains why every single source is either wrong or doesn't meet their arbitrary standards, so I want to be sure this won't be turned into one of those situations.
I'm genuinely interested in how that perspective came to be since it is, to my world view, a shocking and hard to believe claim. But, my surprise isn't worth anything. I'm unable to find search term that gives something relevant, so anything would help.
But, I think it's a bit unfair to make, what appears to be, a very bold assertion, without explaining it or allowing criticism. I have no interest (or qualification) to criticize your sources, but I would hope that someone would criticize mine.
I've only heard of evidence against, that interviews of US soldiers post WWII found only 1/4 had shot to kill. I've never really looked into it; the claim is somewhat disputed, I think.
Soldiers? Many wars are fought for unjust reasons, and soldiers just obey orders without considering if the orders are justified (e.g. Russians in Ukrainian, US in Irak, Dutch soldiers in Indonesia after WW2)
edit: for an example, the entire US military is around 0.45% of the population. Only a small fraction of that is not purely support. Around 0.2% of the population are police. The vast majority never kill anyone.
Millions of soldiers is significant, even if it is low in percentages.
There are more people in the army then there are women having abortions, so if abortions is a big enough issue to address, people killing in the name of should also be considered an issue.
I live in NYC so many of my friends and colleagues have had tech jobs in the well known banks. Here are some of the data points I've collected.
Person 1 says there is a lot of politics, ass-covering, and throwing under the bus
Persons 2 and 3 says back in the 80s and 90s there were a lot of exciting projects, but now it's all maintenance work and making sure money train does not stop.
Person 4 says at his company they tracked how much money your bugs cost the firm, and at the end of the year if that number is too high, you're fired.
Person 5 corroborates what Person 4 said, adding that no one is allowed to touch production -- you touch production and you might cause an outage in some part of the company you never heard of, next thing that happens is Security shows up at your desk with cardboard boxes telling you to pack your stuff.
Person 6 says for the same reasons no one is allowed to touch the base classes you inherit from -- people just make their own copy of the base class and make their changes to it. The code base is littered with many copies of the same file each different in its own way.
Person 7 flat out told me "you are too nice, you will get eaten alive at a financial services firm"
Person 8 says he was not allowed to talk to or collaborate with a colleague because they worked for competing managers, they had to leave the office to collaborate
> Person 4 says at his company they tracked how much money your bugs cost the firm, and at the end of the year if that number is too high, you're fired.
As someone who almost never ships a bug but is a bit slower because of that, I would love it ;)
Anecdotally, 80-90% of my bugs are business logic “errors” that came about because either 1) the client didn’t tell us about the special edge case that is now happening, or 2) the person who wrote the requirements didn’t capture the business logic quite right (usually the reason is because of #1, but not always).
Very few of my tickets are directly from programming mistakes, but I do own up to them when they happen.
I voted Mostly Good -- I feel valued at work, and employer puts an emphasis on work life balance, which lets me spend time with my family, deal with things like doctor appointments. Took a vacation day today and trying to crack open a book about Galois Theory.
I tend to be "stubbornly optimistic" about the future, and I keep telling myself that on a long timescale (compared to 50-100 years ago) qualities of life are much better, but recent events have made me very concerned about my family's safety, and from there I started worrying about social media echo chambers and global warming.
