They also at some point purchased Pivotal Cloud Foundry and increased the licensing costs by incredible (order of magnitude) amounts.

They are completely destroying their customer base for these products.

>The ones deeply interested in the subject would likely skip college anyway

Spoken like a true software engineer ;), there are jobs where you have to have a degree to get the job. "Real" engineers with sign-off responsibilities, Medical Doctors, etc.

>In hindsight, I would definitely declare today that we WERE winning it when we were fighting it. Now that we don't, we're getting massacred.

LOL, no, we've never even been in a winning position. Were we winning when the CIA used cocaine to finance weapons for Iran? I guess we were winning when we put a lot of black people in jail for decades for possessing crack while white wall street folks were getting slaps on the wrist for getting caught with the same amount of coke? Our country having the highest percentage of people in prison sounds like we were winning too. Lots of winning.

> they have managed to bake in more toxic features Twitter ever did in such a short timespan.

Not arguing, just curious - what toxic features are you talking about?

Quote posts (dunk feature).

Auto-tagging, which allows you to tag users based on who they follow. (shame feature)

>While I don't personally support the examples that I am aware of, I also recognize that in those specific cases the executive branch appears to be within the bounds of the law. I don't even object to the executive branch having the power to cancel the visas of political dissidents

It's my understanding that the 1st amendment applies to everyone, not just citizens. So if that's true (not 100% sure about that), how can political speech (protesting) be a valid reason to remove someone from the US?

Well obviously it can't be if that's true. But is it? What led you to that conclusion?

You can certainly be denied entry for entirely arbitrary reasons. Can you also (as a visa holder) be evicted without notice for same? I think that's generally a safe assumption for any country in the world but would be interested in learning about counterexamples.

And if everywhere they went would do the same thing, then they wouldn't be able to leave. Too bad people have been convinced that unions are bad.

They left for Mexico…

How hard do you think it is to get cheaper developers from LatAM?

All the corporations that left Georgia over unions left for Mexico?

Not all of them M&M Mars left for Mexico, Firestone left for Alabama.

>It is much cheaper to pay a small monthly fee to a SaaS company.

It's not that cut and dried - it all depends on what your company needs from SaaS and how big it is. SaaS companies like Salesforce don't charge a "small monthly fee" - they charge 10s of millions of dollars per month for large corporations. It's not hard at all to push that money towards AI development and have a better solution built in-house now. Yes, it still takes serious project management skills, but so does integrating Salesforce or other large SaaS software.

I haven't used Scala for quite a while now - but a while back they had a serious asshole problem with a lot of the community.

>It's much easier to successfully bribe/coerce/undermine a single individual running an independent newsletter like this than it is an entire newsroom.

Except the problem in the US now is that newspapers are owned by corporations that own a bunch of newspapers, or very rich individuals/families - and a single individual can dictate what an entire newsroom says.

I don't see much of a difference when it comes to corruptibility.

parent poster is saying a healthy newsroom is much better than one guy. You're disagreeing by saying one guy is not better than an unhealthy newsroom.

I don't want to nitpick, but they didn't say "healthy", and I think the current situation wrt news ownership should be called out at every opportunity, because not everyone is aware of it.

if, there are healthy newsrooms

The problem with your statement is there's no way to know - the reality is it could have been a bribe or lack of a bribe; it could have been an actual foreign policy decision based on facts; or some other reason. It's not hard to come up with reasons why it was done, but with this administration there's no way to know whatsoever unless you actually know someone on the inside.

And reporters are not allowed to ask questions of the people inside. And the voting public wouldn't care if those questions were ignored anyway.