1072
2w
224

Shout out to my engineering homies.

Lojcs - 2w

I'm stealing this

27
redsand @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2w

Raytheon would be equally accepted here.

17
jof @lemmy.world - 2w

Yea I'm an LGBTQ+ ally:

The ally they're talking about:

L ockheed Martin

G eneral Dynamics

B AE

T exas Instruments

Q inetiq

"our hiring system is even less discriminatory than our targeting system!" -their motto, probably

93
wewbull @feddit.uk - 2w

"our hiring system is even less discriminatory than our targeting system!" -their motto, probably

Bravo!

19
sudoer777 @lemmy.ml - 2w

I know TI had a history of weapons manufacturing, but haven't they stopped now?

6
Bronzebeard @lemmy.zip - 2w

How many children have they tortured with their graphing calculators?

13
Rain World: Slugcat Game - 5day

many

-1
jof @lemmy.world - 1w

I believe so. I guess a more appropriate one would be Textron since they still make helicopters?

2
Noxy - 2w

Defense industry, law enforcement, and surveillance are all instant dealbreakers for me whenever a recruiter reaches out to me. And sadly that seems like the vast majority of positions for which recruiters are looking for candidates.

That or AI shit.

I'm so tired of the tech industry.

68
crapwittyname @feddit.uk - 1w

Science grad with 10 years engineering experience. I had to turn down a lot of jobs before I found one that didn't involve killing people. It took two years. I'm paid about half of what I could get if I sold my morals. Totally worth it.

29
EndlessNightmare @reddthat.com - 1w

Depending on engineering discipline, oil & gas is another common one.

16
RubberElectrons @lemmy.world - 2w

There's positive tech stuff out here too, bud. You'll likely need to look for yourself though, the recruiter reaching out to you is better funded for some reason.

14
starlinguk @lemmy.world - 1w

When you're 60 and the choice is either a permanent contract for the army or 1 or 2 years elsewhere, you're going to choose army.

-10
Noxy - 1w

Nope

10
starlinguk @lemmy.world - 1w

Oh you will, you will. Trust me, young people.

PS I'm not talking about the US military, because I'd rather live under a bridge for the rest of my life.

-3
Zombie @feddit.uk - 1w

Just because you sold your soul to the devil doesn't mean others necessarily will.

If anything, doing it in your 60s is even more morally reprehensible because you should have enough world experience by then to understand what militaries truly are. Both the atrocities they commit regularly on behalf of politicians and vested interests, and the lies and manipulation they perform during recruitment to get young people enlisted.

3
Mandarbmax @lemmy.world - 1w

Not everyone is morally bankrupt. Stop projecting

5
starlinguk @lemmy.world - 1w

You're not a researcher depending on funding that barely exists anymore, I assume.

-1
emergencyfood @sh.itjust.works - 1w

If an army is dumb enough to offer me a permanent position when I'm 60, I'd take it too (then immediately retire and live off the pension).

1
SaharaMaleikuhm @feddit.org - 2w

I just use my skills to make gooner games. My soul is pure. To heaven I shall go. Unironically.

58
OBJECTION! - 2w

Thank you for your service.

19
QueenHawlSera @sh.itjust.works - 2w

I would like to goon to some of your games

3
wewbull @feddit.uk - 2w

This is why I focused on graphics hardware for so long.... Then some arsehole came up with running AI on GPUs.

50
underisk @lemmy.ml - 2w

series of increasingly large dominoes where the smallest is "NVIDIA releases CUDA" and the largest is "the entire global economy has become dependent on running a useless computer program that tricks stupid people into believing it can do anything worthwhile"

39
themoken @startrek.website - 2w

Yeah, I got started in silicon thinking cheaper, faster, more power efficient chips would be a net benefit to the world... Then we became a social media surveillance state and AI dogshit is just the icing on the cake.

Now I drink to forget we're boiling the oceans to ruin society. One day this capitalist hellscape will end.

16
Corngood @lemmy.ml - 2w

There's still a few of us out here using ROPs and texture units

4
it_depends_man @lemmy.world - 2w

Doing engineering is more like an any% run to do something that eventually, even just statistically, hurts people.

So. Stop enabling us, scientists :P

42
explodicle @sh.itjust.works - 2w

This is part of the reason I moved to CA. As an engineer I'm always going to have some kind of environmental impact, and I think a direct initiative is necessary for the public to consent.

This comment is known to the state of California to cause birth defects.

5
AnarchoSnowPlow @midwest.social - 2w

Some of us turned down Lockheed and Raytheon.

41
socsa - 2w

Yeah, their equity package wasn't as good as Anduril.

1
Console_Modder @sh.itjust.works - 2w

I may be an engineer, but I am still too fucking stupid to get a job at an arms company

33
ayyy @sh.itjust.works - 2w

It’s easier than you’d think. The applicant pool doesn’t tend to be the best and brightest.

29
nagaram @startrek.website - 2w

One of the guys I went to college with is an amazing programmer and had such a great understanding of C that hes why i got as far into CS as i did, couldn't get a job after grad because 1) Covid and more importantly 2) he's insufferable.

He got a job making $100k a year for I wanna say Lockheed because he quote "Wrote good looking code". That's all they needed because Tue DoD already told them that the project he was hired for was not going to be adopted, but they were still contracted for minimum 2 more years of development and Lockheed would be in breach of contract if they weren't making progress even though it was already Dead.

The Military industrial complex is JUST a grift to put tax dollars in private hands.

16
rumba @lemmy.zip - 2w

There's a monumental amount of waste in there. I've seen a department order a truckload of equipment from compUSA, a reputable vendor, and it shows up with open brown cardboard boxes of used equipment. Staff SGT rubber-stamped it. Somebody made bank. Shit like that was ALWAYS going down.

3
merc @sh.itjust.works - 2w

He got a job making $100k a year

$100k per year writing code at a defence contractor isn't very much.

2
Poem_for_your_sprog @lemmy.world - 2w

That's why I work at a legs company

6
nagaram @startrek.website - 2w

Gods, I'm considering Job hopping and I saw Lockheed was hiring for my role, less experience, less certs, full remote, and quadruple my pay.

I had to block them on indeed and LinkedIn. I hated that I was considering it.

28
mrgoosmoos @lemmy.ca - 2w

yeah they're an option in my area and I've made the decision several times to not look at any positions they have

7
lapping6596 @lemmy.world - 2w

I sometimes wonder if we all truly have a price for our souls. I felt similarly when seeing positions at health insurance companies, pay was high enough that I paused despite how much I despise them.

4
PugJesus - 2w

Weapons can be used for defense or offense. Just be sure that you can sleep at night with the potential consequences - and that your work may be used on the wrong side just as easily as the right side.

On the other hand, if you're working for an Israeli defense company, you can be pretty certain where your results are going to go, and should maybe just... not.

27
porous_grey_matter @lemmy.ml - 2w

If you're working for a western arms manufacturer you can be pretty certain your products will end up in Israel too.

38
rain_enjoyer @sopuli.xyz - 2w

i haven't heard that they buy from Ukrainians

4
marcos @lemmy.world - 2w

Nah, remember that Australia is "western", Chile is not... I'm pretty sure Ukraine doesn't qualify.

US people have a great handling of geography.

0
rain_enjoyer @sopuli.xyz - 2w

EU candidate and has similar enemies, this already makes them more western than, say, Turkey or Israel

or maybe you're dense on purpose

1
PugJesus - 2w

How many Eurofighters does Israel operate?

2
porous_grey_matter @lemmy.ml - 2w

Why would that matter? You think it's alright to work for a company supplying the Palestinian genocide as long as you're not working on that specific product line? British aerospace is pretty directly involved there so I'd set my standards a little higher personally.

1
porous_grey_matter @lemmy.ml - 2w

You could've just said "yes, I think that's where the ethical line is", instead of linking logical fallacies wikipedia like a fourteen year old atheist.

We haven't moved anywhere. We were at "working for companies profiting from genocide is wrong" and we've stayed right there.

2
PugJesus - 2w

You could’ve just said ā€œyes, I think that’s where the ethical line isā€, instead of linking logical fallacies wikipedia like a fourteen year old atheist.

Except what I'm pointing out is not where I think the ethical line is, I'm pointing out that you're arguing in blatant bad faith because you know your actual position isn't defensible.

We haven’t moved anywhere.

This you?

If you’re working for a western arms manufacturer you can be pretty certain your products will end up in Israel too.

Sorry that you can't remember what you said a whole comment ago.

We were at ā€œworking for companies profiting from genocide is wrongā€ and we’ve started right there.

So what you mean is "If you're working for a major Western company, period, you're in the wrong." Since the list of Western companies that don't do business with Israel is very small.

-2
porous_grey_matter @lemmy.ml - 2w

This you?

If you’re working for a western arms manufacturer you can be pretty certain your products will end up in Israel too.

Yes, that's me. Maybe the bit you're missing is that if you work at a company, the company's products are your products.

So what you mean is "If you're working for a major Western company, period, you're in the wrong." Since the list of Western companies that don't do business with Israel is very small.

No, that's not what I mean, and I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. There is a material difference between providing Israel with military equipment and with some random consumer product that is just distributed everywhere. Sure, I'd argue it's still wrong to do the latter, but it's still a huge difference.

1
ClassIsOver [he/him] - 2w

My brother in law is using his engineering degree to work for various arms companies, including DARPA. His wife justifies it by saying "He only makes things for good countries like the US".

A few years ago, he, his wife, my wife, another sister in law and his kids were in a car, and he was talking about why it's justifiable to drone-strike school buses. He said "Well, there were some really bad people on those buses." I ask "What makes them bad?", and he says "You know, they make bombs, that sort of thing."

I turned to him and said "YOU make bombs. By your rationale, this car with your entire family is every bit as much a justifiable target as those school buses."

The entire car went silent, and later, my wife thanked me for not going any further.

He's the most morally-bankrupt person I've ever met, and I hate being in the same room as him. His wife isn't much better, and is the epitome of the portion of the working class that's been tricked into thinking they're better than that. She'll handwave away the fact that in her career, she's been directly responsible for firing thousands of people "for the good of the company".

26
crapwittyname @feddit.uk - 1w

For what it's worth, I believe at the moment of death, people can no longer lie to themselves and have to face what they've done through the eyes of their inner child. Some people have these realisations at some earlier point, too. But I don't believe anyone gets away with it.
That's what "live each day like it's going to be your last" means to me. Face up to the decisions you made as if you're your own jury, because eventually you will be.

4
ragebutt @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 1w

At the moment of death you make a gurgling sound (unless you get like, splattered or whatever) and then it suddenly goes black like the end of the sopranos because your consciousness shuts off. Well it’s not really that, it’s inconceivable, it’s nothingness, it returns to the state prior to being born. Your consciousness is not magic or mystical, it’s merely an illusory byproduct of very high quality stimulus processing and extremely intricate nervous system for sensory input coupled with the capacity for short and long term memory. There is no magic moment of reconciliation unless self induced through social conditioning (eg religious guilt) and people like Trump and musk ultimately win by having a life of hedonistic excess with no repercussions while the rest of us slave away for a half day off and an aliexpress trinket here and there.

(sorry for spoiling a show that ended 18 years ago)

7
crapwittyname @feddit.uk - 1w

Meh, your guess is as good as mine.

2
ClassIsOver [he/him] - 1w

I hope you're right.

4
TheEighthDoctor @lemmy.zip - 2w

Good that I only work for Palantir then

23
StinkyFingerItchyBum - 2w

Can't go to hell if you have no soul.

*taps temple

35
CubitOom - 2w

I think this is also true for investing in war companies (its the department of war now, so no need to keep up the defense charade), even if it's just part of an index fund or ETF.

22
Nyoka @sh.itjust.works - 2w

This is literally everyone with a 401k.

10
technocrit @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2w

Yes, violence is literally all of capitalism.

10
CubitOom - 2w

Sadly, a matching 401k became the standard corporate retirement package over a pension.

However, you do still have a choice of what to invest in, even with a 401k.

2
merc @sh.itjust.works - 2w

Sometimes, sometimes not. Many 401(k)s have restrictions not that "you can't invest in X", just "you must choose from the things offered by this account".

1
HootinNHollerin @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2w

Department of War*

DBA Department of War Crimes

7
å°čŽ±å” - 2w

So basically any american with a 401k since that money is highly likely invested on these companies.

6
[鳳凰院 å‡¶ēœŸ Hououin Kyouma]|[alt: 黃家駒 Wong Ka Kui] - 2w

Not an engineer, but I have I have Asian parents, if I were an engineer and worked for a genocidal dictator, they wouldn't care, that's success anyways.

So... yea...

people value success over ethics

welcome to life

society...

20
AeonFelis @lemmy.world - 2w

Wouldn't they still be disappointed that you are an engineer and not a doctor?

19
SkaveRat - 2w

what are engineers, if not machine doctors?

12
Chippys_mittens @lemmy.world - 1w

I told my doctor friend I'm basically a doctor for my power plant(mechanical engineer/power plant operator). He told me I'm a certified nursing assistant at best. Lmao

3
emergencyfood @sh.itjust.works - 1w

Doctors don't get to turn their patients off during repairs.

1
SkaveRat - 1w

I mean... Anesthesia is close enough

1
[鳳凰院 å‡¶ēœŸ Hououin Kyouma]|[alt: 黃家駒 Wong Ka Kui] - 2w

šŸ’€

7
NauticalNoodle @lemmy.ml - 2w

Do you think your Taiwanese background plays into that kind of thinking?

5
[鳳凰院 å‡¶ēœŸ Hououin Kyouma]|[alt: 黃家駒 Wong Ka Kui] - 2w

Also if you have any disabilities, like if you have depression. Oh your parents are gonna be so cruel to you. You are a "useless eater".

What the fuck is this life. Why?

I wasn't even supposed to be born. Why the fuck am I here. This fucking suffering.

12
Avorn @sh.itjust.works - 2w

Is there any chance to move out from your parents, and surround yourself with people with different ideals?

8
[鳳凰院 å‡¶ēœŸ Hououin Kyouma]|[alt: 黃家駒 Wong Ka Kui] - 2w

No chance. My brain is fucked.

I literally felt so much anxiety when I tried to live on campus so I ended up withdrawing from college altogether.

I'm just feeling so ashamed of myself for being such a failure I kinda think about killing myself all the time. Depression is so hard, I don't have the energy to do anything.

It was already bad enough before, now I feel so anxious going outside because of ICE.

I have trouble dealing with other people. I don't think I can handle roomates... I mean I did had roommates in college, and I kinda... everyone hated me. Well they didn't say it, but I feel like I was unwelcomed.

I have a lot of health issues. I snore when I sleep and it annoys everyone.

Rent is so expensive these days you can't be by yourself, but roomates is also a... no no.

I'd probably just get stabbed to death since I have no social skills (well not like zero, but I never really made friends in school, so... there... I doubt I'd get along with randos as roomates in like the adult world no-less)

I mean, I even have trouble finding psychaitric help and feel anxious af trying to schedule an appointment.

I need my parents' money to even afford health related stuff. Y'all know how it is in the US. They say "seek professional help" but nobody ever mentions the money aspect.

This is years of emotional abuse and neglect.

They destroyed my ability to be independent.

I mean even my older brother 5 years older than me probably has problems being independent. He's still at home with us.

I know I sound pathetic af

Our family is just a bunch of failures

Shitty parenting destroyed us

Thanks a lot, Confucious and your "filial piety" tiger parenting bullshit.

10
SeptugenarianSenate @leminal.space - 2w

even just your awareness and ability to articulate yourself,as well as the capacity for consequential reasoning and your willingness to empathize with your brother all seem like priceless artifacts of your humanity which will become more precious and respected as we all start continue recognizing and discussing the realities we have seen throughout our twisted and tumultuous lives, and we are able to gracefully ā€œlive (well enough) and let die (or let go without bitterness)ā€ the mistakes of these past few generations and all the shit they have been cooking for themselves and others all around them, to justify how they have been making it by, through all the thick and thin that they had all been making up and giving to each other.

12
[鳳凰院 å‡¶ēœŸ Hououin Kyouma]|[alt: 黃家駒 Wong Ka Kui] - 2w

I'm from mainland China (currently residing in the US), profile pic is because I hate the 5-Star Red Flag and the politics it represents.

Probably something with Asian cultures's obsession with the idea of "success". Like... my parents literally wouldn't care if I became some corrupt government official as long as I don't get caught. Success is worshipped, failure is shamed. I talk shit about trump, and like my mom said "at least he became president, can you do that?"

I'm like: "naturalized citizens can't be president"

omg immediately less than 1 second later, mom goes: "but Gary Locke became Governor" (Gary Locke is a Chinese American)

And like you know Mamdani won, immedialy after, she told me "an immigrant managed to become Mayor, you are an immigrant just like him, why can't you do the same?" bruh... maybe I could if I didn't get so much emotional damage, mom.

Like they worship success, regardless of if they are "good" or "bad" people.

If you try to be a good person and you "fail" in life, you are considered worse than the bad person in power making a lot of money.

I'm like just so close to killing myself, even though I really wanna live, this is too painful, depression is too painful.

My parents are slowly killing my ethics and empathy, like one day I might just not care.

Either you die young with your morals intact, or you seek success and survival, and you corrupt your soul...

This world is cruel. The world wants you to be cruel to be able to even live a comfortable life.

11
NauticalNoodle @lemmy.ml - 2w

I'm not asian but that bsounds like a lot of what i've heard called Asian Guilt. I've heard American Asians get a lot of flak for not measuring up to the likes of Jonny Kim. --personally, i'm finding it easier to deal with familial disappointment while living an ethical life as oppose to living an unethical life while still dealing with familial disappointment because i'm not gonna measure up to someone elses standards. Anyways, be good to yourself, there's no guarantee anyone else will. Have you gone for a walk lately?

9
trolololol @lemmy.world - 2w

Mate I hope you get hold of your depression and find a way to sort or ignore your problems in a healthy, guilt free way.

Look I'm from South America and I get what you're saying. Many parallels although to a lesser degree. Probably because South America has had tough life but not as tough as South East Asia.

5
HugeNerd @lemmy.ca - 2w

I don't think anyone with an engineering degree would believe there's a hell. Neither should you.

19
chunes @lemmy.world - 1w

Leave it to an engineer to think that this meme is literally claiming there's a hell.

13
HugeNerd @lemmy.ca - 1w

Leave it to whatever your condition is to think that my reply was literally claiming that the meme was literally claiming there's a hell.

0
trolololol @lemmy.world - 2w

Although I can imagine what hell would look like: commuting for 1h to sit in an office that has more people than desks to have a zoom meeting over VPN with flaky wifi and AC that is set to overheat whoever sits under the vent and under heat everyone further.

Oh did I tell you that meeting could have been an email? And the coffee machine broke yesterday. And there's a bathroom queue.

12
HugeNerd @lemmy.ca - 2w

Well, tomorrow morning, commuting hell will be sitting next to me. I don't know what those samosas had in them but I sound like a WWII machine gun nest and smell like aisle 3 at the spice store.

3
OBJECTION! - 2w

True, these people will not face justice through any natural force of the universe, only by people holding them accountable for the harm they cause.

11
SeptugenarianSenate @leminal.space - 2w

there’s probably an infinite number of paths, and an even greater number of perspectives to be considered across each moment and position along each of them. or absolutely nothing at all. most other possibilities seem so unlikely, they probably aren’t worth considering

2
molave - 2w

Instructions unclear, I work at a prosthetics company.

19
Unimalion - 1w

Im currently in school and trying to get into the prosthetic industry after I get my engineering degree. Any recommendations on projects that could help me flesh out my skills?

1
technocrit @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2w

The groomers in the MIC have claimed soooo many kids who just wanted to make video games. Gross and sad.

18
edinbruh @feddit.it - 2w

For my computer science internship I just dodged a drone-shaped bullet... I'm working on abstract verification of access policies instead

17
BaroqueInMind - 2w

I’m working on abstract verification of access policies instead

šŸ˜… Here's an article on how that contributes to killing people: https://arxiv.org/html/2508.17043v1

14
edinbruh @feddit.it - 2w

Noooooo 😭

It's not the kind of validation I do tho šŸ¤“šŸ˜‰

3
I_Has_A_Hat @lemmy.world - 2w

To quote Casually Explained:

"The only real question engineering students and new grads need to know the answer to is 'When is it ok to violate your moral principles?'

...

Exactly. It has to be at least 6 figures."

14
for_some_delta @beehaw.org - 2w

I have no ethical qualms with those who make weapons. Horizontal communities need the means to defend themselves against external domination. The dilemma is, under capitalism, dominators employ weapons against those unable to defend themselves thereby realizing the idea of Hell on Earth.

12
prole @lemmy.blahaj.zone - 1w

Right, and we live in a capitalist world, so I feel like it shouldn't be a dilemma. Seems pretty clear cut.

It's like you're basing your ethical judgment of it on a world that you admit doesn't exist

1
Pearl - 2w

People talking about morality when space Jesus explicitly told us to EXTERMINATE all the XENOS

11
explodicle @sh.itjust.works - 2w

Engineers are rich, right? So let's blame the working class in this one particular case. /s

10
chgxvjh [he/him, comrade/them] - 2w

Valid military targets šŸŽÆ

10
socsa - 2w

Look man, making missile killing lasers is just way more interesting than building another pointless SUV to a price target.

10
RubberElectrons @lemmy.world - 2w

Then they become human ablating lasers as the tech keeps shrinking...

5
OBJECTION! - 2w

Building the SUV would be more ethical though.

3
ExLisper @lemmy.curiana.net - 2w

Here's a great idea: let's not produce any weapons and disarm unilaterally. What could go wrong?

9
UnspecificGravity @infosec.pub - 2w

The US could cut its arsenal by 90% and still have nothing to fear from anyone. That shit isn't for defense it's to threaten the rest of the world.

15
OBJECTION! - 2w

How about we split the difference and only cut two thirds of all military spending? We would still be pouring more money into it than any country on earth.

6
ExLisper @lemmy.curiana.net - 2w

There will still be people working for arms companies. All of them will deserve hell?

2
OBJECTION! - 2w

If we cut back that much, then we wouldn't be able to fuel nearly as much death and destruction around the globe. But, not to worry, I'm sure we could still find enough evil to do to both satisfy your desire for blood and to earn the people responsible a cozy little spot in Hell, yes.

1
ExLisper @lemmy.curiana.net - 2w

Where did you get my desire for blood from? All I'm saying is that the same arms companies make weapons that fall in Gaza and that protect Europe. You can't have one but not the other. It's up to politicians to decide how to use those weapons, not engineers.

1
OBJECTION! - 2w

It’s up to politicians to decide how to use those weapons, not engineers.

Exactly how far does this extend? Because a lot of people involved in supporting the Nazi war effort said the exact same thing.

If you go around solving every problem you're asked to with no concern for who's asking or why, that's how you wind up developing Zyklon B.

Giving a gun to a murderer is the same as pulling the trigger. Giving artillery to a murderer is too.

4
ExLisper @lemmy.curiana.net - 2w

Great, so let's disarm unilaterally. I'm sure Russia and China will do the same.

Such a childish take...

-2
OBJECTION! - 2w

Why should we demand countries that are only spending 1/3 of what we spend disarm? No, let's focus on having the most militaristic country in the world, the one that spends as much as the next 9 countries combined, on having that country reduce spending and stop trying to dominate the entire world through military force.

And then we can spend some of that money on giving me healthcare! Everybody wins! Well, except for the corporate executives, corrupt politicians, and their chauvanistic bootlickers.

4
ExLisper @lemmy.curiana.net - 2w

The good guys. Define them as you like.

-2
Semester3383 @lemmy.world - 2w

I desperately wanted to get a degree in mechanical engineering so I could go to work for an arms company (like Heckler & Kock, FN Herstal, etc.). Never happened, got an art degree instead. Then I met a guy that owns a very small firearms company, and, well, yeesh. It's a brutally hard business. He makes a good product, he has good morals and ethics, but the market is so saturated that anyone smaller than the largest arms companies are hemorrhaging money. Glad I didn't try to live my dream now.

I may not like what governments do with arms, but good goddamn, the arms themselves are neat.

7
ragebutt @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 1w

ā€œHe has good morals and ethicsā€

How could he possibly if he has devoted his life to creating weapons? What’s his response if and when his guns are used for violence, be it murder, suicide, armed robbery, etc? Even if he is ā€œsmall timeā€ for ā€œenthusiastsā€ of the ā€œsportā€ it is only a matter of time until this occurs. How does he reconcile this? That it’s not the guns fault? Just the glamorization of them, the obscene amount of them, the fact that they are readily available, pushing it onto ā€œmental healthā€, or some other scapegoat that allows him to escape accountability for facilitating mortal violence.

I hope your friend goes out business and his entire industry collapses.

7
Semester3383 @lemmy.world - 1w

His response, as is mine, is that what people use his guns for simply isn't his business. If people used Stanley hammers to beat people to death, would it mean that Stanley was an immoral company? Or would it mean that people used the product in an unlawful and immoral way?

I happen to very, very strongly believe in 2A, and I think that the US is in the shitstorm it is currently in in no small part because liberals--but not leftists--have been working their asses off to disarm themselves. And I will note that the person in question has consistently employed furries--he loves their work ethic--and strongly supports the rights of LGBTQ+ people to arm themselves.

2
prole @lemmy.blahaj.zone - 1w

Hammers are tools used to build things that someone can decide to use as a weapon. Firearms, specifically handguns and semi automatic AR-style long guns, are literally designed for the sole purpose of ending a human life. Not at all a valid comparison.

5
Semester3383 @lemmy.world - 1w

What it was designed for, and what it's used for, are two different things, as you already agreed. Even if you truly, absolutely believe that the only purpose of a handgun or removable-magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle is to kill other people, then you would also have to admit that the overwhelming majority of them never are used to fulfill their purpose; the number that do are, compared to the number that exist, practically a rounding error. There are literally more guns in non-police/non-military hands in the US than there are people. There are far, far more defensive gun uses annually--regardless of who measures it and how--than there are gun homicides.

And bluntly, I absolutely DO NOT trust the gov't to be the only ones with access to firearms. If you can look at Trump, ICE, Hegseth's DoD, cops in general, and say, oh, yeah, I shouldn't be armed, but those guys are cool, well, I don't know what to tell you. And I don't trust ANY gov't to not harm the people, because there's no way to prevent fascists from taking control without also becoming authoritarian.

1
Auli @lemmy.ca - 1w

For civilians I would assume guns are used more for hunting and target practice. But then again America could be different you guys are crazy with your guns.

0
ShinkanTrain @lemmy.ml - 1w

Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun

2
Semester3383 @lemmy.world - 1w

Who is responsible for the death? The person that intentionally drives a van into a crowd of peaceful protestors, the rental company that didn't do a full psychological screening and criminal background check before they rented a van to the person that committed the murders, or Ford for making the Econoline van with steel body panels instead of covered in 5' of closed-cell foam?

1
ragebutt @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 1w

I’m torn on the idea of arming leftists in the current climate. I don’t disagree with you there. I live in a somewhat rural area that is heavy Trump and the right wingers are heavily armed. I don’t blame a trans person for arming themselves to defend themselves in an area like this, and my post history reflects as much.

That said there is a difference between arming yourself and actively contributing to increasing the amount of arms in the world. And what made it interesting is you claimed this is an ethical and moral issue. If your friend worked to only arm leftists that would be an interesting take. I doubt this is the case though. I am assuming they are like any capitalist based on your first line - anyone’s money is good enough.

To answer your question as others have said the hammer has a utilitarian purpose, as do knives, as does dynamite. With the exception of something like skeet shooting guns sole purpose is to rob the consciousness of a living being. I do not believe that the sport outweighs the risk. There are far less dangerous ways to hunt, we’ve banned things like lawn darts for less when the danger outweighs the utility. America just has a raging hard on for guns because of military fetishism

1
Semester3383 @lemmy.world - 1w

TBH, many of the people that buy his products at this time are leftists. Or at least anti-authoritarian, and deeply suspicious of gov't control over individual liberties. His position that civil rights are for EVERYONE has meant that many people on the political right have no interest in doing business with him. And he's absolutely right; if rights aren't for everyone, then they aren't rights.

It shouldn't be a radical position to say that all people in the US should have the rights that they are promised by the US Constitution, and yet we currently have a gov't that is doing their best to wipe their ass with the constitution and flush it down the toilet.

1
Chippys_mittens @lemmy.world - 1w

Are you thinking mental health is just a scapegoat and the mental state of shooters has nothing to do with the reason they commited the crime?

0
ragebutt @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 1w

No, I think systemic issues need to be addressed of course. But I think in America, as someone who has worked in mental health for decades, the use of ā€œmental healthā€ in the wake of large scale violence is exclusively a scapegoat because there has almost never been meaningful action behind it. Overwhelmingly in almost (if not) all states since 2008 mental health programs have seen massive budgetary cuts year after year after year.

And this begets the point that ā€œmental healthā€ is a weasel word for treating systemic issues. Frankly even if you increased the budgets of Medicaid and community mental health programs 10 fold I don’t believe mass shootings would be impacted much in terms of rate. The systemic issues that create these conditions - wealth inequality, racism, quality education access, quality healthcare access, etc would essentially all remain and take generations to resolve even if you forced fixes tonight. The rot goes deep. Almost any therapist who works in community mental health programs will tell you that most of their clientele suffer more from lack of resources than mental health disorders

1
Chippys_mittens @lemmy.world - 1w

You didn't adress my question/statement at all.

1
ragebutt @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 1w

I think whether mass shooters are mentally ill is debatable on a case by case basis, some obviously yes, some less obviously.

But what I’m saying is this point is moot because even if 100% of mass shooters are ā€œmentally illā€ and that is the driving force behind their culpability the individuals saying ā€œwe need better mental health care in this countryā€ in the wake of gun violence are so full of shit and obviously using the topic for misdirection with no intention for meaningful change. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that mental health services have been systematically defunded year after year for decades, very often by the same individuals who clamor the same.

1
Chippys_mittens @lemmy.world - 1w

Mental health facilities and systems losing funding is an absolute travesty. I still don't believe the mental health side of these horrific crimes is a moot point though. With more dedication to early intervention and treatment a decline would have to happen. Its not the tools fault its the individual using it. Remember that guy who drove through a crowd a few Christmas back? He had a slew of mental health issues that were never addressed properly. He perpetrated a mass casualty event without issue. Almost half of mass shooters tell SOMEONE some part of their plan before carrying it out. If we did as many "warning signs" trainings as we do "active shooter" trainings I'd be willing to bet we'd prevent many of these incidents. I say this because even though I work in an isolated power plant, we have an annual online training and in person drill for active shooter situations (run,hide,fight). At the same time, I've never seen an early warning sign type training.

0
Auli @lemmy.ca - 1w

So then we get ride of knives and bows and pointy sticks and then rocks. People are going to kill we have been doing it forever. Getting rid of guns does not solve the problem.

-1
ragebutt @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 1w

what a stupid mindset. Show me a time someone managed to kill 20-50 people in a span of 15-30 minutes with a bow, let alone a knife, let alone a laymen that didn’t have military training.

As an aside the goal does not have to be to solve the problem definitively. It can be to make the problem markedly better. If mass shootings with body counts in the above turned into mass stabbings, which are obviously traumatic and horrible but typically have fatalities in the single digits (often only 1-2), is that not a tremendous improvement? It is of course still very worthwhile to address systemic factors that lead to violence, but making violence less severe is worthwhile as well.

4
rami @ani.social - 1w

I find that there's a lot of overlap between people who like engines, clocks, and guns. They're all machines with a concrete goal, harnessing an incredible force in a very controlled way, through precise, complex mechanisms and allow near complete freedom on how exactly you achieve that goal. There's a beauty to it that's hard to find anywhere else.

5
Sculptus Poe - 2w

I offered to leave my senior design group and find another when they were going to build a system for the military as their project. They were nice enough to change it to an automated feeder.

6
CookieOfFortune @lemmy.world - 2w

The feeder will be used to force feed prisoners.

5
Sculptus Poe - 2w

dagnabbit

6
Spacehooks @reddthat.com - 2w

Sadly the job security in weapon manufacturer is pretty good. Least it was when I worked in one 15 years back. Pay was shite though.

6
BootLoop @sh.itjust.works - 2w

think it's hot today?

No

5
sudoer777 @lemmy.ml - 2w

My university is practically owned by weapons manufacturers which sucks. Idk if that's the norm or not

4
mtpender - 2w

Sounds like something an architect would say...

Shame

Shame

Shame

3
TheJesusaurus @sh.itjust.works - 2w

Hey!Ā  Thanks bro. I'll be nice and cool by my pond. Im Canadian and I was working for a US defence contractor. I was in their industrial sector and worked in Europe, never touched a defence product and wouldn't be allowed to. But every time the quarterly numbers came out and number went up. I couldn't help but feel responsible for steering them profits.

I'm unemployed and the happiest I've ever been

3
Krono @lemmy.today - 2w

Do you ever imagine your pond is colored red, symbolizing the blood of millions of innocent lives taken by your industry?

Do you wonder how many of your industry's victims dreamed of having a nice, quiet, peaceful life by a pond?

-1
TheJesusaurus @sh.itjust.works - 2w

The aerial work platform industry? Yeah I mean people do die working at height, I was there actually to help specifically prevent that, as I was a product safety engineer.

So yeah sometimes I think about the people who went home to their families at the end of the day because of that.

I literally said I wasn't in the defence division, never touched a defence product, and literally didn't even work in North America.

Then I told you I quit my job because I couldn't do it anymore.

And you're gonna come here and give me a bunch of shit for it?

I don't even have to guess, you're pretty obviously a rabid leftist. Which is fine, I am too. But don't you think it's funny how I know that just because of how absolutely fucking unhinged your comment was

0
NewSocialWhoDis @lemmy.zip - 2w

Was the person you're responding to sincere? Fuck. I thought it was heavy sarcasm.

Sigh. The Internet has killed satire.

2
TigerAce @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2w

It's almost winter, I thinks it's freaking cold today.

3
Ryanmiller70 @lemmy.zip - 2w

Almost? Tell that to the snowstorm that attacked me yesterday.

1
TigerAce @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2w

It's still autumn for 18 more days, unless you're on the southern hemisphere.

0
HobbitFoot - 2w

That's why I design targets.

2
atomicorange @lemmy.world - 2w

I just wanted to build scientific instruments on satellites. Sucks when the company you worked at for 18 years gets sold to an arms dealer.

2
diablomnky666 @lemmy.wtf - 1w

Hell would be an upgrade! Where do I get my blood monies plz?

1
RedFrank24 @lemmy.world - 2w

I'll be honest, I'd rather the best engineers be there to create weapons that are extremely precise. The weapons are gonna be made regardless, but I've seen photos of what happens to cities when bombers are dropping unguided munitions. Back during WW2, if you wanted to hit a factory in London, you didn't just drop 1-2 bombs, you dropped hundreds of bombs, you flattened absolutely everything in the area because that was the only way you were gonna hit your target.

At least with precision munitions, if you're doing war 'nicely', you only hit what you intend to hit, not your target + everything else even remotely close to said target. With precision munitions, you can't 'accidentally' bomb a hospital, so when you inevitably do bomb a hospital, you don't get to go "Oh oops no it's not my fault it's the bombs' fault!". The sights are crystal clear, the plane/drone moves exactly where you want it to, there's nothing interfering with the guidance, the bomb locked onto the target you wanted to hit, and you dropped it, all thanks to engineers making those systems. You had everything going for you as a bomber to know exactly what that target was, and you dropped the bomb anyway.

-4
srestegosaurio @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2w

I don't think, specially with current events unfolding before our eyes, of war as a precise thing.

We have precise enough weapons already.

3
NewSocialWhoDis @lemmy.zip - 2w

Israel's primary weapon is starvation via blockade. Yea, it's not very precise.

1
Tiempo @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2w

Points israel

2
RedFrank24 @lemmy.world - 2w

Yeah, and Israel can't pretend they aren't choosing to bomb hospitals. It's almost never "Oops we didn't intend to do that", it's "Well there was a Hamas bunker under that. They were using those playing children as sandbags, we simply had to blast through them!"

1
OBJECTION! - 1w

This is the most this clip thing I have ever read in my life.

1
Darkness343 @lemmy.world - 2w

Tools don't kill. It's the ones wielding the tools that do.

A black home bomb is harmless until someone uses it to wipe out an entire solar system.

-6
2FortGaming @lemmy.world - 2w

Yeah, but we all know what those bombs do, so many don't participate in building them.

7
Darkness343 @lemmy.world - 2w

I dunno. I would love to make things go boom.

Fire is cool af. It's our signature weapon.

-1
electric_nan @lemmy.ml - 2w

But you are fully aware who's wielding the tools you build...

4
OBJECTION! - 2w

Ok, Mr. Hitler, I'll give you this truckload of bombs, but you have to pinky promise that you won't drop them on Britain.

Dangit, he dropped them on Britain, didn't he? Oh well, not my fault. Guess I'll go get him another truckload of bombs, he'll be needing them now.

-The average day of a Lockheed Martin employee

3
Darkness343 @lemmy.world - 1w

Oh well, it's just Britain. Nothing of value will be lost

0
rumba @lemmy.zip - 2w

I don't work for them because I chose not to, but honestly, work for them, don't work for them, it's not like they'll lack for employees. If you write that line of code that eventually blows up a hospital or someone else does, it will still happen. You're not going to stop them by turning down job offers. You're going to need to change politics.

-7
crapwittyname @feddit.uk - 2w

This argument is deeply flawed, and I've heard engineers working on arms projects using it to justify what they're doing. That, and the "I just build it, it's not me pulling the trigger" are trotted out to soothe dying moral consciences all the time. There are far too many bright minds being used to create death and suffering.
The fact that by partaking in this industry, you form a critical part of the decision and event chain that leads to bad people killing innocent people is important, morally, and completely unchanged by whether it not someone else will do it. So it does matter if you turn that job down, and not just for your own conscience. If enough people turn down these jobs then that will change politics. And those that do choose to take them need to face up to their responsibility in enabling and perpetuating horror.

6
NewSocialWhoDis @lemmy.zip - 2w

I think the issue is that there are people for whom it is necessary and proper to use military violence against, and when you don't continually invest in it, you find yourself subject to those who have (see: Europe vs Russia and/or the US).

Further the decision and event chain that you mention has been used just as frequently by the US military to head-off and prevent escalation of violence.

As I pointed out elsewhere, putting psychopaths in charge can make most things dangerous. The Trump administration is currently weaponizing financial fraud against all of us so the billionaires can feast on the remnants of the middle class. Now obviously, military tools are made to be dangerous, which is not in line with a pacifist morality. But most people aren't pacifists, and sociopath leaders will always find a cornucopia of tools to murder their opposition.

It was immoral to hand these tools to Trump. It was immoral to hand these tools to Netanyahu. But that's a problem with these systems of government, not with the creation of militaries and their equipment.

2
crapwittyname @feddit.uk - 2w

Yet psychopathic megalomaniacal leaders are a feature of the human race further back than recorded history, where remote mass destruction of estranged populations is a very recent development. Therefore it is immoral to develop, create and deploy weaponry like this and, "we will be the victims of it if we do not", is a similarly weak moral argument to the one above. Just because we expect someone else to do the immoral thing does not render us any more moral for having done it. I don't think. Yes, you can argue necessity, but how far does that go? If a pacifist somehow held in their hands a button which would kill every non-pacifist in the world, should they push it? And, in creating any new technology, we do need to ask, "is introducing this worth the risk of it falling into the wrong hands?" . Similar to how anti privacy laws creep in. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, until the next government gets in and you need to hide being gay, or brown, or a woman. It's not a question of whether or not "the good guys" get the weapon, it's a question of what happens when the bad guys do, because they certainly will, because that's what bad guys do.

2
NewSocialWhoDis @lemmy.zip - 2w

If a pacifist somehow held in their hands a button which would kill every non-pacifist in the world, should they push it?

Did you intend this to be paradoxical? If a pacifist pushed a button to kill non-pacifists, he would obviously die from it too.

Yet psychopathic megalomaniacal leaders are a feature of the human race further back than recorded history, where remote mass destruction of estranged populations is a very recent development

This is likely wrong. In Sapiens, Yuval Harari discusses at length how genocide is as old as humanity. Some of us would brutally murder each other with sticks and stones if they had nothing better.

And, in creating any new technology, we do need to ask, ā€œis introducing this worth the risk of it falling into the wrong hands?ā€

I guess I can more or less agree with this question. But most defense work is not creating the atomic bomb. Most of it is incremental improvements aimed at more effectively engaging a military target. Which is why the US did so poorly against guerilla warfare in Afghanistan.... But that's beside the point. Excuse my tangent. I am a defense contractor, I have left programs I was uncomfortable with existing.

Anyway, we agree that psychopathic megalomaniacs are a feature of the human creature. And whether or not they are flying drones, driving tanks, or a leading a hoard of mounted Visigoths at your village, I think most of us would rather remove them as a threat from a safe distance... Like with a missile.

1
crapwittyname @feddit.uk - 1w

Did you intend this to be paradoxical?

A bit, yes. There's an inherent paradox in the argument about necessity. Put it another way: if the next technology turns all of your enemies into steam, but as a side effect, also does the same to their families, are you forced to develop it, because the people on the other side of the world will just get there first if you don't? What if the one after that is super low resource yet it also kills anyone who has ever shaken hands with your enemy? etc etc. I would argue that creating a new weapon, or developing existing ones further is not made more or less moral on the basis that your enemy might be doing it, because if you know your enemy's mind that well, you could easily defeat them using a slingshot.

This is likely wrong...Some of us would brutally murder each other with sticks and stones if they had nothing better.

Not sure I follow, this seems to be what I was saying. Read it back. The difference is that now we have technology capable of remotely erasing huge populations, and no means whatsoever of keeping it out of the hands of the freaks that invariably take power. It's therefore immoral to develop weapons because if you are clever enough to know how to do that, you should be clever enough to know how the resulting products will end up being used.

most defense work is not creating the atomic bomb. Most of it is incremental improvements

So the difference between them then is just one of scale. Oppenheimer probably never got a good night's sleep again in his life, but it's easy to persuade a thousand people to each do a thousandth of what he did. Then each person is only a thousandth as responsible as Oppenheimer. But each increment is still an evil deed, just a smaller one.
"Concern for man himself and his fate must always constitute the chief objective of all technological endeavors...in order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations." People working on weapons are ignoring, forgetting or equivocating over this simple fact. Good people don't make bombs and sleep well at night. Find another job, where you can look back at your life's work and honestly believe you made the world a better place.

Anyway, we agree that psychopathic megalomaniacs are a feature of the human creature. And whether or not they are flying drones, driving tanks, or a leading a hoard of mounted Visigoths at your village, I think most of us would rather remove them as a threat from a safe distance... Like with a missile.

Most of us would prefer our enemies killed at range, without having to look then in the eye, sure. But look at what you're mixing up here: the psychopathic megalomaniacs who are sitting barking orders a world away from the lethality radii, and the grunts and (invariably) innocent collateral who are atomised inside them.

2
NewSocialWhoDis @lemmy.zip - 1w

Not sure I follow, this seems to be what I was saying. Read it back. The difference is that now we have technology capable of remotely erasing huge populations, and no means whatsoever of keeping it out of the hands of the freaks that invariably take power.

Were you initially arguing then that today's weapons are worse because they make murder further removed from oneself or because the scale of death is larger? Or both?

If the first argument, I disagree. Murder is no more moral for being gritty and physical. Tasting the blood of your victim doesn't redeem the act. Perhaps you would argue that it is worse to allow the murderer to obfuscate the brutality of his actions from himself. But either way, he is a murderer just the same, with the same suffering resulting from his actions. Others should not be held accountable because he found a way to lie to himself. Removing the killing from immediate vicinity of other allows it to be more targeted and involve fewer innocents, and that far outweighs the mental gymnastics it enables for the murderer.

If the second argument, I agree the scale of death, especially the scale of imprecise killing, affects the morality of a weapon, hence why I mentioned nuclear weapons. I kind of thought you did NOT agree with that though, based on this argument:

So the difference between them then is just one of scale.

The amount of innocent deaths enabled by a fusion bomb in a single instance far outstrips that of a conventional bomb. And I would argue it is a weapon that could not be used in any way that would not involve millions of innocent deaths. This inability to be harnessed in any productive way (besides as a threat I suppose) is where it clearly falls into the realm of immoral weapons, and this is fundamentally different than (e.g.) designing sensors that enable us to better monitor the activities of our adversaries. You are making an argument about the cumulative effects of people's actions, but still the net effects of the people who worked on these two examples are very different.

the next technology turns all of your enemies into steam, but as a side effect, also does the same to their families...I would argue that creating a new weapon, or developing existing ones further is not made more or less moral on the basis that your enemy might be doing it,

I argued that arming yourself was moral based on the fact that psychopaths would likely attack you. I am not trying to justify absolutely every type of weapon in existence, but the post is saying ALL weapons and their production is immoral which I do disagree with. And again, I would largely view a weapon that cannot be effective without harming innocents as immoral (another example: chemical warfare that cannot be removed from the environment). I do not think the morality of any object is based on whether it can be used to harm innocents though, because as previously argued, that is every facet of existence in the hands of a psychopath. One facet of military development is development of CONOPS (Concept of Operations - how the weapon is used), and there are absolutely immoral CONOPS of weapons (like carpet bombing).

But look at what you’re mixing up here: the psychopathic megalomaniacs who are sitting barking orders a world away from the lethality radii, and the grunts and (invariably) innocent collateral who are atomised inside them.

I feel like you are arguing that because grunts are being exploited (I can agree with this) that they are innocent. But if you are hired to kill others on behalf of a psychopath, even if you really need the money, you are still accountable for carrying out the orders to kill on behalf of the psychopath. They are not innocents for having been duped. They are tools of destruction in the hands of the psychopath and must be disabled as much as a bomb or drone.

Find another job, where you can look back at your life’s work and honestly believe you made the world a better place.

I think it is a tall order to demand everyone dedicate all of their energies only to improving the world. Most people do a job they think is fine (especially since ideological work usually doesn't pay) and contribute to the world and their communities as they can. My husband and I went around and around about this with Trump's most recent election. We settled on working programs we don't think to be actively harmful, donating generously with time and money, and political activism as it seems useful. The issues I worry most about require collective action (climate change, the malevolence of the current US administration), and I have never been one skilled are persuading others.

1
rumba @lemmy.zip - 2w

deeply flawed

Direct me to the flaw.

Will someone passing them up make ANY difference to what they're doing?

0
crapwittyname @feddit.uk - 2w

The flaw is explained in what I just said.

  1. If you turn them down, that reduces their talent pool.
  2. If you turn them down you are no longer responsible for the suffering caused by their products.
  3. If enough people turn them down they will have to reassess their approach.

Ultimately, doing something evil just because you decide someone else would do it if you didn't, so you might as well benefit doesn't make it any less evil of you to do that thing. In fact, it makes it worse.

4
rumba @lemmy.zip - 2w
  1. Their talent pool is 10,000% what od needed
  2. That does not affect them, as I said.
  3. That is impossible because of #1

I didn't say it was personally good for you, I said it wont affect that job getting filled. And it won't

1
crapwittyname @feddit.uk - 1w

No, what you said was that it didn't matter whether or not you took the job, because it would get done anyway. And that is a flawed argument.

1
rumba @lemmy.zip - 1w

I don’t work for them because I chose not to, but honestly, work for them, don’t work for them, it’s not like they’ll lack for employees. If you write that line of code that eventually blows up a hospital or someone else does, it will still happen. You’re not going to stop them by turning down job offers. You’re going to need to change politics.

No, I certainly did not. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.

1
crapwittyname @feddit.uk - 1w

Oh do fuck off. That's the gist of what you said. I purposefully didn't put it in quotes because I was paraphrasing.

1
JimmyMcGill @lemmy.world - 2w

It will still happen is a bit of a fallacy. It’s one less person doing that job but I agree that one person won’t make a meaningful change

However the thing that changes is that if you reject that job you reduced by 100% your direct contribution to people killing missiles. Someone else will design that missile but at least you won’t have to live with the guilt that you did

Now, if it’s between that and a much worse life, I won’t blame anyone. But it’s a choice that everyone has to make for themselves. Personally I have possibility to reject those offers, and so I do.

4
MathiasTCK - 2w

They aren't immune to supply and demand, the job market is the agreegate of us all deciding what we will put up with to stay alive.

4
rumba @lemmy.zip - 2w

I totally agree, not taking the job can mean a HUGE thing to you. It just won't affect the company whatsoever.

I don't do it because I don't like it. I worked for DOD years ago, on non-dangerous stuff but it wasn't something I wanted to personally support.

0
m0darn @lemmy.ca - 2w

It just won't affect the company whatsoever.

When does a company decide to recruit? It's when current employees can't handle the workload and/or move projects ahead on schedule.

Not being recruited increases the hiring cycle time and means the development falls further behind schedule.

It's not nothing.

3
rumba @lemmy.zip - 2w

When does a company decide to recruit?

  1. New contract
  2. Constantly to backfill

If anyone will take the job, there is zero difference to them. Humans are not statistically morale enough to hinder them more than paying well.

0
m0darn @lemmy.ca - 1w

The sooner they hire someone the less time they spend understaffed and the more they have to pay whoever the hire. It's not a huge difference but it is also not zero.

1
rumba @lemmy.zip - 1w

The sooner they hire someone The market is absolutely full of out-of-work developers. There's no sooner right now, it's a human smorgasboard.

1
Auli @lemmy.ca - 1w

I'm at the point who cares. Someone is going to do it. You might as well make money doing it.

-18
OBJECTION! - 1w

Yeah, this is why I became a hitman. Who cares? Other than the victims' friends and families, obviously.

But you really think they wouldn't just hire someone else? Murdering people for the mob is morally neutral.

13
SeptugenarianSenate @leminal.space - 1w

This logic is why I began recording and posting my domestic abuse nights to 18+ sites. It’s amazing how much more traffic the fringe sexual interest communities can get, even just for my low quality hate-bate material. It’s like printing money (and bruises heal)

4
OBJECTION! - 1w

"Look, I don't like this any more than you do, but as long as billionaire perverts exist, there's going to be demand for secret pedophile islands, and somebody's gonna have to traffic kids to them. I'm just trying to get that bag.

I feel like you're being very childish about this."

7
presoak @lazysoci.al - 1w

Wait, immature childish or sexy childish?

1
baltakatei - 1w

Actual hot take.

2