They are excluded by the fact that we have minimum wages. That provides a lower bar to the required value an employee creates. As we raise this lower bar, we exclude more and more people, generally in this lower intelligence bracket.
I have several family members that would love to be able to maintain employment but can't because they get pushed out by managers who think they can do better for the wage. And they probably can.
If my brother could keep a job for $4/hr it would give him the honor of work (which he wants/needs), and it would do society good to have more of these people around for us to interact with.
> There is no argument worth addressing. Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, he has no credibility, research, or study in this domain.
Credentials don't make an argument correct. Lack of credentials doesn't make an argument wrong. It's an intellectually dishonest argument to declare something unworthy because you don't like it. If you don't want to participate, then don't, pooping in the thread isn't helpful.
Credibility is earned through a variety of means in our world. There is no true free meritocracy of ideas. A theory about the multi-dimensionality of our universe proposed by a Physics Nobel Prize winner is going to have automatically more credibility and be more worthy of deep consideration and debate, than a Physics Professor, than a new Physics PhD, than a Physics undergrad, than a non-Physics Science students, than a non-Science university student, than a high school drop out, than a homeless person on the street.
Jordan Peterson is treated by his fans as someone with explicit credibility on the domain of human society and its problems and solutions. In my analogy they treat his ideas on string theory as somewhere between a Physics Professor and a Nobel Prize winner.
When in point of fact, his ideas and credentials lie closer to a 1st year English major talking about how the "Universe vibrates" right before they tell you about the healing crystals they bought on eBay. If you squint enough that may sound like String Theory, but it's not the same.
Jordan Peterson builds his entire philosophy on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. Note, I didn't say he basis his personal ethics on these values - which would be perfectly valid, but rather he believes that this is the only possible way for society to function. That means he is fundamentally, militantly, faithfully against gay marraige, against women in the workplace (he doesn't say he's AGAINST it, but he asks questions that inherently suggest he does not believe in gender equality), and is pro societal hierarchies - within the family, and across it.
All of his other "arguments" - about wages, employment, IQ, etc, are all built on top of this foundation, that I believe is fundamentally broken.
So yes, I will absolutely challenge any idea from Jordan Peterson by default based on his lack of credibility, just as I will challenge any idea about the origins of the universe from a hippie suggesting I rub some quartz crystals on my temples to get in touch with Gaia.
> For a SW person, heck, there is always something that must be mastered, and pronto. Unless a SW person can kick back and write COBOL all day, there is much more to learn and apply to problem solutions. SW is fundamentally more demanding.
The main difference are that the constraints of EE are a lot clearer than software. From the laws of physics to the lists of available parts and processes to pick from. Then manufacturability and cost.
With software, your instruction set and available system resources/hardware APIs are your only real constraints. Everything else is an abstraction which you can question and rebuild.
Turns out the "correct" way to do things fall out more readily when you have more constraints, particular because we humans are worse at constructing constraints and abstractions than the universe. You get a lot more rope to hang yourself with to use a metaphor.
There has been growing violence and intolerance. Ignoring the issues on your own side to blame the other is part of the polarization. Such positions are symptoms of what is coming.
Neither the violence nor the rhetoric have been equal on both sides. The right wing is deliberately ignoring that fact, because it lets them continue to escalate their behavior.
I'm, unfortunately, familiar with hospitals. It's not as bad as you claim here, that anecdote seems wildly wrong.
What does happen is the hospital bills you $50 for what amounts to a bottle of Tylenol. The insurance provider says no, we only pay $8 for Tylenol, and the hospital relents and charges $8.
If you don't have insurance to call them on their inflated pricing you end up with the rather obscene bill. As an individual you have precious little pull other than, will you discount if I pay it all now? Which they usually will. This depends on having that ability, and 30% off doesn't make up for a 400%+ markup.
But hospitals have to pull a profit despite dealing with tons of regulations and non-paying patients they have to treat anyway. So as a result they bleed who they can, it's a mess.
> This doesn't explain why PWAs are still a rarity on Android though. You'd think that the ability to target both desktop (web) and Android (web/PWA) would've attracted more developer interest.
I can only guess, PWAs are like the hidden nugget of gold that devs poop on because it doesn't fit their preferred tools or experience or something.
The other reason that comes to mind is it is much easier to sneak in dark patterns of data collection and spying with native. Web is expected to degrade gracefully when denied permissions.
> PWAs/web was immediately discarded as an option because we didn't believe we could deliver the level of UX excellence we're targeting.
Seems odd. Web interfaces are very very good for pretty much any information display. They have their limits too. But unless you have a specific requirement that actually hits those limits this particular reason seems hollow to me.
> Nor did we believe that PWAs would be any easier to develop and maintain than two native apps.
This one is, frankly, deluded. Both app routes have significantly more upkeep than web. API churn and app store processes come first to mind. Not to mention three code bases vs one that could also be your website, which you need anyway.
> We're still considering React, but I feel like we're inevitability going to end up building a full native experience.
> Generally speaking, I feel that PWAs and the web have a long way to go in terms of tooling
Wow, I doubt you have any real experience with react native tooling, which is infinitely worse that web tooling. And even tries ( poorly) to replicate web tooling.
Seriously, a platform that comes with full debugging suite in "developer tools" in the browser has no equal in any systems I've built before. How many runtimes can you name that come bundled with full dev and inspection tools? Nicely separated out layout, code, and network. You can sit down to any dev, QA, or customer system and have the full inspection suite at your finger tips.
There seems to be a heavy pro native bias. Don't get me wrong, there are reasons to pick native, but I see very few people laying out good analysis behind their choices. Oh-well, competitive advantages for me.
> I can only guess, PWAs are like the hidden nugget of gold that devs poop on because it doesn't fit their preferred tools or experience or something.
PWAs also fit in a niche that is difficult for most organizations to digest. It's fundamentally front end tech, but service workers are non-trivial and also are decidedly outside of the typical front end dev's experience. They resemble backend, but the life cycle is somewhat complex and difficult.
Out of the box frameworks can provide basic service workers, but that doesn't make a PWA really shine.
It's a powerful but unusual tool that's slotted into a strange place. They are rarely used even though they can significantly improve user experience without going full PWA.
Been working in back end and front end for years. The number of front end devs I've met in the wild who understand service workers, their use cases, and how to build one, I can count on one hand.
> The majority of traffic is mobile and apps still rule that platform due to both a superior experience and better interfaces.
There is no evidence of your second claim in the link. Only that mobile, as a platform, is more popular than desktop. Nothing about "native apps" being the preferred way to interact with the platform. This is an oft proffered point with no solid backing. Rather the opposite. Users rarely, if ever, install apps, but they go to websites.
You're subtly conflating "native app" vs "app" by using slightly different terminology. For the purposes of being exact, I'll assume you mean "app" - regardless if it's a hybrid with a webview or pure native apis.
> Users rarely, if ever, install apps
My local car wash now has an app and my wife promptly installed it, because of some vague rewards tracking.
The vast majority of mobile usage is through apps. That's a fact. This is primarily because of the low bar to adoption (click a link from a QR code/click an icon) paired with the expectation that the experience will be better than a website. If the previous website experience was bad, it's almost an instant conversion (hence the prompts to "install the app" before the user might find the web UI too problematic).
Mobile users prefer apps (and probably trust them more) than the browser, on a mobile platform. You can say it's baseless supposition, but that's ignoring the existing evidence that companies have done (and continue to do) over the last decade. Find any company or data that contradicts that and a lot of people would be interested to see it, because nobody has for almost a decade. I can't be sure why you think that someone would consider the web to have a better experience/UI, but it doesn't matter.
> You're subtly conflating "native app" vs "app" by using slightly different terminology. For the purposes of being exact, I'll assume you mean "app" - regardless if it's a hybrid with a webview or pure native apis.
It's not a conflation, it's intentional because it is what the parent poster claimed. I agree that there is more to it.
> My local car wash now has an app and my wife promptly installed it, because of some vague rewards tracking.
Your wife's anecdote doesn't match industry trends
I can also match with anecdotes of users intentionally avoiding the app in favor of the mobile site for linked in, Reddit, etc, despite the constant intentionally of crippling the mobile web experience simply because the app is so invasive. Can I have access to your contacts for no good reason? Btw, we also snoop your clipboard. Basically, I want to take over your phone so you can see a message...
App store conversion rates are low. If you do get it installed many users only use it once. Most people just won't pay for apps, various reasons but the race to the bottom and feeding off user data and eyeballs has pretty much had a full cycle now.
If you are a company trying to get off the ground with a software product these are tough trends to fight.
It is. You used slightly different phrasing, trying to broaden the conversation to act like it's part of a refutation of points being brought by who you respond to.
> > Users rarely, if ever, install apps
> I can also match with anecdotes of users intentionally avoiding the app in favor of the mobile site for
This is derailing..again. I was bringing up an experience that is familiar to anyone who has friends & family (someone who install every app they can). Matching anecdotes adds nothing, as you just want to argue rather than try to understand how your perceptions are biased against reality.
App usage dwarfs web usage because someone installed the app. You're just wrong and I can't tell if it's disingenuous. This discussion is not worth working around your constant attempts to avoid the points at hand and I will have to assume you're just another unintentional luddite.
> The majority of traffic is mobile and apps still rule that platform due to both a superior experience and better interfaces.
To the point of UI superiority (you know, the original contention between us), it's trivial to account for trying to put a url in to a mobile device vs an icon for an app. That alone is a superior UI. The app gives a better experience, on average.
I'm very senior these days. Most of my job appears to be unsticking people. But even I get stuck plenty, and while I can quickly unstick most problems the other devs face I can't solve all of them.
Getting stuck still happens. The real difference between what I face now and early in my career is that I have developed a sense for when to plow through, when someone else might know the answer, and when to route around.
Plowing through usually means it's not worth interrupting someone else. Or when the business itself, or other teams are in the way.
Asking questions because you don't know requires humility and it's best to have it even as a senior. Just ask, and do it sooner rather than later. You will learn faster than banging your head on the wall - there will be plenty of other problems to do that for.
Some problems aren't worth the pain. I could solve this, but should I? It saves the business lots of money to occasionally route around the problem.
I often talk about a type of pattern recognition with this sort of stuff.
Over time you start to develop a sort of automatic pattern recognition skill that separates problems to "I've never seen this before" and "oh, this looks very similar to x". Also it becomes much easier to know what's hard and what's easy, like you said.
You still obviously make the wrong call here and there. More often if you're in a completely new field, like the OP.
I have several family members that would love to be able to maintain employment but can't because they get pushed out by managers who think they can do better for the wage. And they probably can.
If my brother could keep a job for $4/hr it would give him the honor of work (which he wants/needs), and it would do society good to have more of these people around for us to interact with.
> There is no argument worth addressing. Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, he has no credibility, research, or study in this domain.
Credentials don't make an argument correct. Lack of credentials doesn't make an argument wrong. It's an intellectually dishonest argument to declare something unworthy because you don't like it. If you don't want to participate, then don't, pooping in the thread isn't helpful.