It's written from the perspective of one of the masters.

> The role of the head coachman was well defined. Toward his superiors, he was deferential and obedient.

So the chauffeurs and typists are not as deferential and obedient as the author would like.

The author never lived in that era, and is making some of that shit up. "Ran roughshod" is overkill, I suspect, for the fact that the mechanic/chauffeurs did not come from a servant background, where the slightest failure to observe decorum could result in dismissal (or worse, being made an indentured servant for several years - in slightly earlier years).

> The author never lived in that era, and is making some of that shit up.

Lienhard cites Borg [0], who is writes "Between 1903 and 1912 howls of protest arose over chauffeurs’ arrogance and insubordination and the pages of the automotive trade press overflowed with letters, articles, and editorials describing, complaining about, and offering solutions to the 'chauffeur problem.'" [1]

One might quibble about a specific subjective characterization or if the description should use the norms of the period or today, but that is a far cry from "making some of that shit up."

0. Borg, K., The "Chauffeur Problem" in the Early Auto Era: Structuration Theory and the Users of Technology. Technology and Culture, Vol. 40, No. 4, October 1999, pp. 797-832.

1. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/33428

I stand corrected.

Cheers.

Lienhard is a Houston institution (warts and all, some people can't stand listening to his voice) and having listened to his show forever, some "don't you neg that nice John Lienhard" energy really came out.

Kind of like how programmers today refuse to wear suits: roughshod in the minds of the elite.

Don't they force you to sign up for a Google account to be able to gate access to a Google Drive file?

No. As long as the sharing permission is “Anyone with the link”, then anyone can download from that link with wget or whatever.

Is that the permission they use? Who knows? But it’s at least possible.

That's an interesting topic you might meditate on. Microsoft would never hold such a vote. Would you be better off with their OS? Debian is one of the more free-as-in-speech distributions; would you rather run your VMs on one that had tighter integration with for-profit groups?

The article appeared to state both the facts and the assumptions being made off of them pretty clearly.

> Insurance was illegal at different times in history because it was considered gambling.

And it was, in fact, gambling. You could take out a life insurance policy on anyone without any relationship with them.

I want the setting to steal YOUR focus

In my experience, ORMs save a little bit of writing SQL and then cost an unbounded quantity of time in debugging mysterious problems because knowing why a query is slow now requires understanding the DB, your own code, and also the ORM.

In my experience ORM doesn’t save anything on writing queries. You still have to write somewhat same code that looks like sql query. You still need to know joins, you still need to know DB structure.

Getting rid of SQL queries is not the job of ORM.

ORM saves you time on object mapping boilerplate THAT IS THE JOB of an ORM it is right there in the name „object relational mapper”.

And also more loc than SQL usually. It's not even a deferred cost, it's at least slightly worse upfront

Thanks, that's what I was going for.

Developer community. "Open source" historically implied that an interested developer might hack on the code and submit their changes. But if the entire code-base is rewritten by the maintainer every year, then there's no developer community.

An easy example: you need 5 minutes of planned downtime (which is entirely within SLAs) to execute a major upgrade, but the system is also used by Sales for demos to major new clients. "We're going to take 5 minutes of downtime on Wednesday evening for an upgrade. Contact me ASAP if this is a problem for you." If you don't hear from the team, then it's OK to go.

You know the "no response" happens all the time.

OK. I'm your pointy haired boss Thursday morning.

> Hey, @waisbrot. You didn't mention anything in your note whether you got a response from the Sales team. I got a call from the VP Sales. He's pissed. You know they're at [big sales conference] and busy. The system outage impacted two Top 10 customer account demos. Why didn't you call me if you thought it was important or ask for an affirmative confirmation from the sales team before rolling out changes? Sorry, but I can't trust you. Bring all similar changes to me for approval from now on.

Of course there are routine things or items in your competency that allow for your boss to prioritize supervision elsewhere.

The prospect of going rogue, lighting a fuse, and then potentially setting off fireworks is the nuance being argued here by me and @slowcache.

Poor management will find a stick to beat you with whatever you do.

That's part of my point.

I'm assuming you don't disagree that this "lighting a fuse" approach on something you're unsure about without manager approval (and you think you need their permission -- which is said in the article) is way riskier for your corporate career. You're just taking asymmetric risk.

That's the main point.