This is complete nonsense. Moderate Democrats loudly and vigorously support all these things. Either you’re ignorant or you’re trolling from your actual far-right position.
Ah, yes, lots of ICE officers are locked up in state prisons, and Trump's empire is being dismantled out from under him. There are lots of state-level investigations involving the $4B in bribes he took this year.
- Free market economics.
If this were true, it would be possible to buy fire insurance in California, and Biden would have broken up dozens of monopolies. No spending bills would pass without provisions to do more of this because a coalition of the moderate democrats, libertarian republicans and far left democrats have more than enough votes to fillibuster and override vetos.
- Freedom of speech / privacy / assembly
California is rolling out mandatory age verification laws for operating systems this year.
Remember: I'm talking about moderate democrats. These are the ones that are more likely to vote for Trump appointees than some Republicans. These are the ones that cast the deciding votes to make sure health care would be rolled back for millions of americans this past January. There are about 10 of them in the senate, which is enough to give the republican leadership the ability to pass whatever the heck they want, even with internal consent.
Fillibustering random things because of Californian local law isn't going to fix things at the federal level. It wouldn't correct the (bipartisan!!!) manipulation of American monopolies, nor effectively combat the "think of the kids!" rhetoric that both parties love.
Free market economics and freedom of speech have been worn down for decades. The bipartisan value of this private/public sector cooperation is indeed disgusting, but very deeply entrenched.
I gave high-level and then concrete examples of state and federal problems created by moderate democrats working with conservatives to block what would be considered far-right policies anywhere else on earth.
Nothing wrong with this, it's not "work 80 hour weeks or get fired" or even particularly annoying LinkedIn-style hustleporn. It's a very realistic assessment of what it takes to go public - and a call to focus on customers.
"The only thing I would say is that anyone who tells you how cool it is to pull all-nighters on commercial software or anyone who says "I live at the office" and means it, is really someone I would not want checking code into my project. To be blunt, there is no way you can do quality work if you do not give your brain a break. Since the 1940's people have been studying the quality of work people are capable of without the proper sleep, change in environment, and exercise. There are reasons why even back during Apollo moon missions they forced the astronauts to sleep and not run on adrenaline. So working at Microsoft does not push the limits like this--it is not good for you, not good for business, and not good for the customers paying you for your software. If a company is driving you to work crazy hours like this, either because you want to or they want you to, it is just uncool."
It's been some years since I read it so perhaps my memory is hazy. This is the part I found most objectionable:
> In other words, no matter how many hours you are officially supposed to work when you are new you will put in a lot more to get those projects done. That is ok. No, that is expected because you are going through the learning phase. Your learning is not happening on a practice field but is happing in the big show. So the extra hours and effort are worth it to you and the team.
Then later:
> Microsoft will feel a lot like college in terms of the hours you put in and the environment you work in. It will be fun. It will mean late nights. It will mean "hanging out". All of those same things. That was my experience and when I look around I see the same thing happening now.
Even though your excerpt makes what I would call a more correct point, I still think the above is uncool. Reading it several years ago put me off severely and coming back to it I still think he was wrong to put it that way, even if he partially redeems himself later. I read it as "it's OK and good for low-paid college grads to overwork themselves, but later you won't want to do that."
reply