Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ageofwant's commentslogin

Yes good, and now because their value is appreciated they can be paid what they will be paid in the private sector, perhaps ~180k/y instead of 60k/y. So if you fire 2/3 of the workforce and pay those that remain what they are "worth", you have saved exactly what ?


In your hypothetical scenario, it would be a no brainer to proceed.

Your key workers are now paid at market rate, and those who were unnecessary will find other jobs.


You have clearly never worked in any sizeable workforce, and I can assure you your basic presumption that large private sector workforces does not have broken processes is childishly naive. The "problem" is you, making assumptions of waste where there is none to speak off, unless you can provide some actual data to back that up. The average federal employee earns about $60k/y, they are not there for the money. Firing all federal employees will same about 7h of borrowing.

I'm sorry but the narrative you have invested in so deeply is not founded in reality, not that I expect anyone explaining facts to you will make any appreciable difference.

Enjoy the pain you elected to bring upon yourself, you deserve the government you got.


I've worked in several large federal departments, and private sector companies that are even larger by headcount.

Trust me, basic performance management processes that exist in the private sector are almost entirely absent in the public sector.


You can’t generalize about the entire public sector from a couple anecdotes. Of course there are going to be badly run groups inside an organization of that size. I can tell you there exists management inside the federal government that runs performance management and fires underperformers.

Since you fall victim to such an obvious fallacy, it makes sense that you would wind up hired into low-performing groups.


Rust is many things, "rapid development" is not one of those things.


Rust can be pretty rapid if you unwrap() and clone() everything. You are building a prototype after all. Adding error handling, traits and modules can be done later if the project has merit.


no it doesn't


They did decide. They decided they did not need one. Please respect the decision.


I flagged it because your silly clickbait title is a misinterpretation of both the contents of the article and narrates a enormous jump to a ridiculous conclusion. Its fake tiktok gosh-wow horseshit and does not belong on hacker news.


No, popular Linux distros, with default configuration, is considerably more secure than Windows, and probably more secure than MacOS. This is universally accepted and basic infosec ken. You thought very wrong, fix your ken.


Don't the others OS have varying levels of app sandboxing while Linux has basically none?


'app sandboxing' is one part, of a small part, of a subsection of a general thread model, why would you pick that when you talk about 'secure'? And LOL no, Linux has SELinux, apparmor, firejail, flatpak, snap, docker, lxc, and various hypervisors for 'app sandboxing', Linux does not have 'basically none', it has arguably to many.


Still talking about default config here


AFAIK the default config on Windows to install a program is still downloading an executable installer on Windows.

On Linux, the default config is you install most programs from the "trusted" distribution's repositories. Flatpaks and Snaps are increasingly used for apps that are not in the repository. They are not perfect, but they are improving.

I don't know how it works for macOS. You'd download a program image but I don't know what the program can do and if there's a sandbox.


No what is striking is that you don't understand what a "backdoor" is. The article does not describe what everybody agrees a "backdoor" is.


The point is, as you pointed out, that you code against the appropriate level of abstraction. You write a ML workflow appropriate language like Python in something like C++/rust, and ML flows in Python. That should really not be that hard to understand.


I absolutely have to 'like' it because I have to do it. Scrum masters and Product Owners love to inflict Agile bullshit, but they do not suffer from it. They have little understanding of the process of software development and imagine themselves to be capable of 'adding value'. Agile is a failed experiment kept alive by people who have no skill other than working the work.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: