> It's a totally unavoidable problem with our industry.

It's the pay.

> People get bored working on one domain, one product and one codebase.

Yeah bullshit. It's the pay.

Send me a single job employment posting that is fair

You don't solve the problem by "humbling the workers".

The solution is rewarding people when a company is successful and more importantly not punishing hard workers. Right now people are under the impression that slacking and working hard will be equally rewarded, because that is the truth. Hard workers also get laid off so that CEOs can make a few extra bucks.

Not in comparison to the value they provide.

A grocery store I worked at tracked finances and they were available to all employees. The grocery store made $270 per worker per hour. New hires were paid less than 1/10 of the value they provided.

I can only imagine how much more exploitative tech is

Thats not reality though.

I didn't get laid off 3 times because I have a bad attitude. I got laid off because:

1) it was cheaper for the company to move the software department over seas

2) The business got sold to Amazon and as part of that process they had to downsize

3) Company collapsed due to leadership failure

I had a good attitude until I saw how disposable I was to these companies. You're an asset until you aren't.

Product finished? downsizing. Financial crisis that doesn't effect our industry? downsizing. Company about to IPO? downsizing.

Companies have no loyalty, you shouldn't either.

And? Part of the toxicity is coming from a misunderstanding that for some reason the company is morally obligated to keep offering you employment ad infinitum.

If the work runs out, find another job. Nothing wrong with that.

It is not toxicity if they are expressing pragmatic reality of how employment works. It is just being respectful and direct.

qu'ils mangent de la brioche?

> And?

It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy like claimed above.

I remember the last time Kristi Noem "fired" something

For those out of the loop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristi_Noem#No_Going_Back

I disagree with v_____.

"He didn't send the letter. The lawsuit was dropped."

"He didn't send the letter therefore the lawsuit was dropped."

Two very different examples. "therefore" in the second example communicates a causal effect from the independent clause that isn't present in the first example.

I'm sure one could argue that context clues could imply that same connection and therefore "therefore" is redundant but I just don't agree with the premise.

Therefore is reasonable in that case, though it still reads a bit clumsy. "The lawsuit was dropped" seems like the most important part of that blurb, so leading with it flows better. "The lawsuit was dropped after he didn't send the letter" is so much nicer. You get to the point and explain it immediately after instead of giving the reader information you have to contextualize after. "Therefore" just reads as pedantic and overbearing in most situations in my opinion (and I guess my teacher's opinion too).

Therefore isn't empty verbiage. It's just communication, it's a conjunctive adverb. Therefore implies causation or at least some connection between clauses.

I could see arguing that starting a sentence or paragraph with "Therefore, " repeatedly in one essay is empty but tbh your teacher just sounds jaded.

Ok, so are airplane accidents transmissible as well?

> Increased mortality risk for male neurosurgeons was seen from leukemia, nervous system disease (particularly Alzheimer disease), and aircraft accidents

Feels like cherry-picking

Do we have a suspected mechanism by which this could occur?

I don't think this correlation implies a causation, same with alzheimer's.

I think you're incorrectly attributing to viral/bacterial infection what can more likely be explained by a difference in lifestyles. Nearly 80% of people who die from Leukemia are over the age of 65. People who die in airplane accidents are usually flying private and that is not a lifestyle all of us can afford.

I think it's more likely that doctors die of specific causes because they have more money than the average person, the knowledge to do their best to avoid heart disease and smoking (and other hazardous activities except apparently for flying private), or perhaps because they're exposed to chemicals through their work environment

Well obviously the answer here is “we don’t know.” But this is not the only piece of evidence pointing toward a viral theory of Alzheimer’s. There’s also higher prevalence of viral DNA in AD patients’ brains, especially near the amyloid plaques, people with severe HSV infections have much higher rates of AD, we know of many viruses that cause similar neurological issues as AD, VZV (chicken pox) can cause proliferation of AD-linked proteins, and we see evidence that antiretrovirals might have some preventative power against AD.

It’s certainly not conclusive, but this is not nearly as crazy a hypothesis as people (for some reason) reflexively assume it to be.

p-hacking

> Also, apparently some of these issues exist for over a decade. That alone tells you how serious the problem is

The "serious problem" is that they've known about bugs for 20 years and not committed resources to fix it. The problem is the money.

> The "serious problem" is that they've known about bugs for 20 years and not committed resources to fix it. The problem is the money.

Who is "they"? Project maintainers? Project users? You?

> The problem is the money.

So this is a project that didn't require any funding for decades in order to exist. Explain exactly why you believe money is an issue.

I misunderstood and thought this was a google sponsored project and not an open bug bounty.

Even still, you're responding in a thread about someone who is trying to do legitimate work on this project and google is not honoring the bug bounty system.

A problem google could fix if they just assigned someone to manually review the case, it would take like 15 minutes.