Imagine if phone manufacturers asked the public like this...

My priority list goes:

People in front of me What I'm doing now Thoughts in my head Digital communication

Uhmm...she flapped around him excitedly in a half circle. That's positive (bird) consent

My theory? The Mayans were right. 2012 was the end of the cycle, and so the 12 years before and 12 years after are the transition period.

So we're in the final lap, we just have to make it to December

(I'm not coping, you're coping)

I've made a point to teach people what woke means.

It means awake, as in aware, as in you think critically about what you're told instead of believing it blindly

Conservatives are using the word correctly... They just don't realize what they're saying

Because they kill themselves. That's why we give gender affirming care - because at best it just really can mess them up not to have it. And they were killing themselves. A lot.

So we came up with a protocol to do reversible puberty blockers for 4-6 years while they and their parents work with an endocrinologist and therapist to make sure this is the right call.

Only at 16 or 17 they then get the option for hormone therapy, and if they've been on puberty blockers then they either grow (or don't grow) boobs naturally.

And unless they think there's a high risk of suicide or self-mutilation otherwise (and there's a process and a panel that needs to approve this) they can't get bottom surgery until they're at least 18 - assuming they even want it

We also do allow elective plastic surgery with parental and doctor approval - breast reduction or implants for example - at the age they're eligible for hormone therapy.

Also, we give gender affirming plastic surgery to cis male teens and preteens who have manboobs, I think it can even be covered by insurance. It's not unnatural or necessary unless they have a high risk for breast cancer, it's purely because it makes them insecure

It was - and it's not that the need has gone away or been fulfilled elsewhere, it's just that it's no longer viable.

I think paying close attention to this is important though. It's a case study that just keeps giving - every couple weeks we get an important reminder that billionaires and billion dollar companies aren't a good thing - their interests are not aligned with ours

This is alarming...

One of the things companies have started doing lately is signaling "we could do bankrupt", then jumping ahead a stage on enshittification

I don't think it caused the inflation spike - the assumption that inflation is linked to wages assumes an economic system very different from ours

We don't have the capitalism of Adam Smith. Under such a system, we'd expect prices to go back down. That is based around competition, which we barely have anymore. We now have high barriers to entry due to hostile takeovers through the stock market, shutdown of competitors through outsized influence over regulators, suppliers, and financers. It's all the hallmarks of monopolies through outright collusion or unspoken understanding that competition would kill both parties stock price for the duration of the conflict.

The payments are long over and the money mostly went to companies - this isn't traditional inflation, this is a lack of competition. Some people are terming our current system as feudal capitalism, because it's closer to rent extraction than a free market

But if you do that, even if you see few or no patients, you have to get malpractice insurance

It has something called a tail clause, so once you retire from medicine you're covered from any former patients - if you keep your license, you have to keep paying

Forced to implement is the wrong term - they were tasked with designing it. They can't just swap one person out for another - losing the lead dev or designer would be delay or kill the effort

They could've pushed back - software ethics is a required course for very good reason - but it's easy to never ask if you should do something and skip straight to how. It gets easier to skip that piece every time, and the company isn't going to respect it - we need outside pressure so they can point to us and say "this will have repercussions"

They don't deserve death threats, but trashing everything they push on GitHub is fair. Measured steady pressure - save the most extreme stuff for upper management and shareholders

For the engineers you have to make them understand they did bad and they should feel bad, they need to feel that their peers have lost respect for them, not that this is the public lashing out

I'm a software dev, I can fairly claim to be a software engineer as well

It's not just having a product owner. We have a parable...

A manager asks a senior dev how long it will take him to build a thing. He says 9 months. They ask how long if they get another couple devs on it - he says 8 months. He asks how long if they add a dozen people, and he says it will never be finished

There's plenty of variations, but it's not a joke - how many people built the Linux kernel? How many built C? How many built Apache, how many built transformers, how many built osX?

The answer to the best technologies is always 1 or 2, maybe with helpers. The more people you add, the harder it is to innovate - you can polish all day long, but 1 sharp person can build something better than a dozen equally sharp people. One brilliant person is more effective than one brilliant person with a dozen helpers

It's all about quality, quantity only weighs down the process