this is an argument much like min wage: that it's BETTER for poor people to not be allowed to get X at all (where X is "a job" or "a lawyer") unless it can get one that meets some 3rd party's standard
I'm sympathetic to @WhippleMarc's desire to make a living, but not this arghttps://twitter.com/WhippleMarc/status/1166189576546848768 …
-
-
3/ I'm out there in the cut throat world of unlicensed / unrestricted competition (in software), and, yeah, it's harsh at times, but (a) the customer gets the benefit of competition without sinecures, (b) I put on my big boy pants and compete. Go and do likewise.pic.twitter.com/6XnBSjWdX9
Show this thread -
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I am not arguing that if we don't have slide rules, we shouldn't have mechanical engineers. I am arguing that the fact that we need mechanical engineers doesn't mean we need slide rules.
-
and what I was trying to argue was that your use of "creative destruction is ok in the realm of slide rules" means that you're willing to sacrifice the jobs of the guys who design and make them ...which is fine! I'm also willing to make them compete fiercely to survive!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.