> Made with <3 on Planet Earth

Does anyone else gag with when companies do this (made with love)? It feels too emotional, but maybe it's really true for them?

Edit: Replace the heart character with <3 as HN doesn't seem to render it

See also Brexit

This looks really useful, thank you

Namaskaram, I don't know of many part time engineering positions, but the trend is growing, e.g. [1]. However I'm confident that you could find a position that would pay you that salary for a more common 35-40 (and balanced compared to 48 hours, 6 days per week). Are you on LinkedIn? It can be helpful in my experience. Feel free to email me, maybe I can find someone to help (no guarantee though)

[1] 4dayweek.io

If you have the opportunity to go to university, my personally small and insignificant advice - do it. If you're already established in the industry but haven't studied these things - do it.

> If you have the opportunity to go to university, my personally small and insignificant advice - do it.

I’ve attempted to look into it a few times, but it seems pretty clear they don’t want me. From the prohibitive costs, to the riding, bureaucratic admission where my high school disciplinary record is more important than my resume and where I’m a “dependent” despite what my tax returns have said for the last several years, it’s clear that universities are mostly interested in gullible HS seniors who’s parents can co-sign for insane loans. In the US at least.

Perhaps go to a state school or school with easier admissions. If you're really diligent then you can graduate at top of your class and make a good impression on your professors who are well connected in the industry. You would very likely have great prospects taking this route.

Should the mentally disabled have rights? Let the scientists study their stuff! /s

The "humane" argument is flawed because in the end - factory or pasture - the animal is killed. Live a happy life and be slaughtered or a miserable life and be slaughtered.

What is the argument you're referring to, and how is it flawed due to the fact that factory-raised and pasture-raised animals are both killed, regardless of the nature of their killing and the nature of their lives?

The argument is that pasture raised cows is better than factory farmed cows. I am saying that in both cases the cows die.

"crop deaths tho" is not a stable argument. Eating meat requires death. But there are ways to avoid killing animals when harvesting grains etc. And in any case, it's a very inflated view - you're still killing more animals by eating meat than you are by not.

> you're still killing more animals by eating meat than you are by not

Pure conjecture. All numbers I've seen show a higher quantity of deaths from crop farming per calorie.

I've seen this thoroughly debunked several times. What "numbers" are you alluding to? The most commonly cited number I've seen from a 2003 study is 7.3 billion crop deaths per year, which experts seem to agree is likely a large overestimate. Even if that were the case, that puts crop deaths at an order of magnitude smaller than the number of _land_ animals slaughtered every year; that number is further dwarfed if we included aquatic animals.

Additionally, the crops where some of the highest number of field deaths are encountered (such as soy and corn) are also primarily as animal feed.

So no. Vegans do not kill more animals.

Furthermore, most meat eaters additionally eat plants too, and the animals they eat also usually are eating industrially farmed plants, which really makes the crop deaths argument silly.

Farm animals are fed primarily crop byproduct that you can't digest and grass.

So what? If your argument is absolute number of deaths because of crop deaths, those crops would still be killing animals and thus it's still more than not eating meat.

Wave your hand, call it debunked and then pretend that we grow far more surplus crops to feed animals than we would need to of everyone switched to your disease riddled cult diet.

You've already seen sources and are even able to cite estimates. Why would I waste time linking to something that will never change your opinion?

Yes, and the sources and estimates I've referenced disagreed with you. I'm completely willing to change my opinion, but you've presented nothing substantive so far.

What you bring up is an interesting topic, and you should try to increase the explicit information and reduce the hostility.

From a strict vegan perspective, you're supporting the killing of other animals in support of your pet. Isn't that inconsistent?

Ah, I see the Hypocrisy Police are as responsive as ever. When the shelters are empty of animals, we will no longer have pets. Mull that over and you'll have your answer.

There is this popular meme that pet ownership is inherently good and makes owners morally superior. Hint: That is factually wrong. But it leads people to deceive themselves. And as long as this holds, pets will be bred to meet the demand, pet owners will give them to shelters and shelters will never get emptier. Worse: Every pet you take from the shelter will increase market pressure to resupply. The only way to get less pets in shelters is to decrease the supply. That means decreasing pet ownership overall. Make pet ownership frowned upon like smoking. Prohibit breeding altogether.

If I understand correctly, then I would say it's your choice to perpetuate owning a pet, specifically a dog. And in fact, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, with careful planning dogs can be plant based, and there are even synthesized amino acids available that normally only come from animals but can be grown from yeasts and mushrooms. So you can have your dog and not need to support killing other animals.

Hot take: if you're a mediocre dev, maybe be worried; if you're in a niche and have deep expertise you'll be fine.

This has a flywheel effect where once you start gathering critical mass in a place, the original experts lose their edge eventually. See what happened to manufacturing, where China is leaps and bounds ahead of Western nations.

You haven't seen any european factories did you? They are proper high-tech in comparison to your average chinese one.

What people might not realise that manufacturing is still going on in Europe and US. It's just that less people are working in factories. Output is 'more' than in decades before. Automation and all that.

> less people are working

i think that's kind of his point

Not in this case though as unemployment in the last decade is at its lowest in developed world.

Lot of that employment is under-employment like Uber/Doordash/Instacart contractors and nowhere close to well-paying manufacturing jobs of the prior generation

> See what happened to manufacturing, where China is leaps and bounds ahead of Western nations.

Wait, no they aren't. They do a lot of labor-intensive, non-specialized manufacturing but other countries are still way ahead where it matters.

That’s what barrel makers told the horseshoe fitters :)

From Wikipedia In some countries, such as the UK, horseshoeing is legally restricted to people with specific qualifications and experience

> That’s what barrel makers told the horseshoe fitters :)

I'm not following - can you explain the analogy?

OP said "if you're in a niche and have deep expertise you'll be fine". The analogy apparently means that deep expertise in a particular field won't guarantee your employment when that field is not in demand anymore.

I don't think it would take an unprecedented amount of coordination, because not many people would even need to know the secret. During times of mass chaos there is a collective emotional and psychological understanding that is easily influenced. At a simple level, see the "Brain Games - Social Conformity" experiment by National Geographic.