“Pay us and watch ads” has been around a long time. That’s what cable tv was. We’ve gone full circle.

One day, something new will come along and kill streaming in the same way streaming did cable. Once things get this fragmented, something else always comes along to replace it, and the cycle will repeat.

It will be cheap, easy to use, and everyone will switch. Once enough people move over, the big corporations will get involved and the enshitification will begin. It will be adveetised to death, segmented, and people will look for an alternative.

Yeah, why learn a new skill rather than letting a machine do it for you half as well, while also destroying the environment and tanking the economy?

Source?

They are a middleman and do take a slight overhead, 1.1% last I saw, though it might have changed since then. The benefit is one of simplicity. Many people want to give to charity and aren’t sure which one. UW let’s them donate one place and it get distributed to many. They also have criteria that charities must meet to qualify. Also, like you mentioned, they do the paycheck deduction. All of what they do is about making it easier and hassle free as possible to donate, making it more likely that people will.

Me too, but it has nothing to do with Facebook. Don’t kink shame me.

Fear and caution are not the same thing.

Do you really think the US has any real concern about being attacked? There is plenty to say about US policies, both good and bad. Part of that is the nearly $1T per year spent on the military. I don’t think you’ll find many credible people who think attacking the US will be good for whoever does it.

Attacking the US has been, historically, one thing that tends to unite the country. We - Americans - like building shit and we like fighting people. We never stop building new weapons. But when there is no-one to fight, we fight each other. There is a huge social divide in the US right now. You want to fix that, attack us.

*Edit: spelling

I like some of the concepts of agile and scrum. Two week sprints rather than multi-year projects. Faster turn around on bugs. Having a prioritized backlog so we know what we are doing next. Small standups to get ahead of blockers. Spending less time documenting everything and more time developing. You don’t need a PM or scrum master in those things. A good team lead can do it. If the PM needs an update, they can look at the board.

A lot of the crap that gets add in to it is so freaking useless. There is an AVP at my company that keeps pushing everyone to sign and share team agreements so “there can accountability.” It’s so cringy. If someone is getting stuff done, do you really think having them sign something saying they will do it is going to help? If someone is getting stuff done, then it isn’t going to change anything. It’s infantalizing. So much of it is micromanagement and lack of team trust.

As manager, I have to say that is uncalled for. As a developer, I will say you are 100% accurate.