1. 9

    Yeah… No. I don’t want AMP in my emails.

    EMail already has a reduced HTML subset with most email clients blocking a large set of HTML stuff by default. Most emails are also not big unless you spam pictures in there (which you can strip out and simply not download) so I don’t really see any tangible advantage of AMP over regular HTML email (or Plaintext Mail)

    1.  

      Dear god, give me plain text emails, please!

      1.  

        I block all pure-HTML e-mails. Occasionally I check out what was blocked. It’s all spam. I suspect AMP e-mail will be the same. Regular people will send three copies of their e-mails (in text, HTML, and AMP), which I will read in plain text, and spammers (also known as marketers) will send only HTML and/or AMP.

        That being said, this attack of Google over the open Internet is the last straw that made me ditch all Google programs and services.

    1. 2

      I’ve been using the email gateway for the last six months or so and I’ve stopped visiting the site at all.

      For me, the ‘best’ threads are the ones with a lot of replies. Using mutt is pretty easy to see which threads still get replies after a couple of days and just read them at that point.

      1. 1

        What’s the email gateway?

        1. 2

          What’s the email gateway?

          It’s this feature https://lobste.rs/s/jg3eet

          The greatest part is that you can also reply by email, which is what I’m doing right now.

      1. 3

        None of which I’m aware. Then again, Lobsters moves pretty slowly–a quick jaunt through the newest page every couple of days should keep you more than up-to-date.

        Also, “best” is slippery. Most comments? Most upvotes? Most flames? Better to be not lazy and work for your intellectual nourishment. :)

        1. 1

          I’m perfectly happy to have someone exercise their editorial judgement to make my reading list easier. I’m looking for the Soylent of online self-improvement, not the ‘how to grow barley and brew my own beer’ version :)

          1. 6

            Oh well in that case the best commentary on Lobsters is probably here.

            As with Soylent, side-effects may include lethargy, allergic reaction, nausea, and death. In case of complications consult your family mortician.

        1. 3

          Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, and Mass Effect solidly call massive bullshit on this. Also, BioShock was the best example author could come up with on stories in video games? Seriously!?

          EDIT: Added Final Fantasy thanks to sotojuan. Damned memory haha.

          1. 2

            I feel like those are stories that are still more or less on rails. I think Bogost is looking for something like minecraft, or dayz or dwarf fortress, where there are mechanics, but the meaning and story is brought in by the player’s interaction with their environment.

            Like tinkertoys for story building, but on a computer.

            1. 2

              Hey now, the stories have plenty of interesting characters with emotional impact on top of it. It’s a good thing in games. Some games that is. I agree with the need for the other kind of game where story/meaning emerges from gameplay. I enjoy both. I know most others enjoy both although the proportions vary. I’m only rejecting the idea that we shouldn’t have the former.

              1. 1

                Sure, fair enough. I also like games with stories on rails (like MGS), and branching stories (like Skyrim). I might be putting too much of myself in the article, but I think the article is looking for the recognition that a game can have a story even if it doesn’t have a script.

                I suppose Eve Online is a good example of a game with a story, but no script, now that I think on it

          1. 12

            A great many words, but I have no idea what was said.

            1. 17

              Let me attempt to summarize the core argument of the article:

              Scripted narration in a medium that’s supposed to champion interactivity is a fool’s errand. Instead, narratives should be emergent via mechanics of the game that fosters discovered self-narration.

              Put more crudely, the author would like gaming to be akin to a child playing with toys. The toys offer zero narration of their own–it’s all in the player’s head!

              Though games like “Minecraft”, “Dreams” and “The Witness” are not mentioned by name, I would imagine the author very much would like to see more of these, and less of the… well, other games.

              1. 4

                My generous summary of this is:

                1. It’s a positive review of the the game What Remains of Edith Finch, which argues that this game helps show us the way forward for the medium,

                2. Secondarily, though this gets more space, headline, and attention, what some other people have argued is the way forward for the medium, the ol’ Interactive Storytelling dream of folks like Chris Crawford, Janet Murray, and David Cage, is maybe a dead-end, which we can definitively realize now that we’ve seen what the better way forward is.

                Admittedly, this is reading between the lines a bit and he doesn’t quite make this argument as I’ve reconstructed it (he seems to be hitting in various directions other than David Cage, who I personally would’ve chosen as a better foil). Bogost’s a personal friend who I’ve known for a little over a decade, and I like much of his writing, but this isn’t my favorite piece of his, even if I’m sympathetic to the form of the argument I’ve reconstructed.

                1. 7

                  OK. So among the games I’ve played, Doom and Bioshock, which is better? I can accede to the idea that a hypothetical Libertarian Atlantis movie would tell a better story than Bioshock. But does the addition of story elements make Bioshock worse than Doom? Would eliminating all the voiceovers from Bioshock and reducing it to “kill stuff and push buttons” like Doom make it a better game? Not inclined to agree.

                  1. 4

                    I don’t think it’s really arguing at the level of “game A is better than game B”, but more about future agendas. It argues that the holodeck “interactive narrative” dream, which views true interactive storytelling as the way to take the medium to the next level, isn’t promising, and is in favor, instead, of an alternative path forward, which it argues the game What Remains of Edith Finch embodies. Now, it’s hard for me to judge this last claim, because I haven’t played that game.

                    (The “holodeck” reference has an outsized significance in academic game studies, perhaps not obvious to the average reader, because the metaphor was used in an influential 1998 book by Janet Murray entitled Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. In addition to referring to the Star Trek holodeck, of course.)

                    1. 1

                      Ok, thanks, this helps put the article in perspective.

                  2. 2

                    Secondarily, though this gets more space, headline, and attention, what some other people have argued is the way forward for the medium, the ol’ Interactive Storytelling dream of folks like Chris Crawford, Janet Murray, and David Cage, is maybe a dead-end, which we can definitively realize now that we’ve seen what the better way forward is.

                    I’m curious what the “better way” is, in your opinion?

                    “Better” is in the eye of the beholder, as well. As much as I’d love (I don’t, actually…) to play Halo 15 and Call of Duty 26’s multiplayer portion and weave my own narrative devoid of any scripted narrative–such that no two players will experience the same arc of encounter and will each walk away with their own unique experience–I’d much rather experience the works of David Cage, et al. rather than play for play’s own sake (I, for one, cannot wait for Detroit to be released!).

                    I enjoy games the most when it makes me think and relate back to something in the real world and case me to appreciate it more, or see it in a different light.

                    Without any spoilers, the latest game I completed (Horizon: Zero Dawn), made me truly appreciate the design behind Erlang (yes, a seemingly out-of-the-left-field connection!).

                    1. 2

                      I’d really like see what connection you made there. I don’t know if we have a spoiler tag, but maybe something behind a link?

                      1. 1

                        I don’t have strong opinions on the better way personally. I actually started my academic career building AI support for interactive storytelling, with the goal of making games that were non-scripted but still heavily story-based. So I have some sympathy for the Grand Interactive Storytelling dream, enough that I spent a few years working on it (albeit on the backend tech side, since I’m not a writer or game designer), and occasionally still go back to it. But I also have some sympathy for arguments like Bogost’s that argue this is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. I suppose I should stake out a strong opinion on this, given that it’s close to my research area, but I’m somehow just very undecided about it.

                      2. 1

                        I really appreciate you adding context to the article. It sounded like something interesting, but I had a hard time making out the thesis. Clearing up the holodeck reference, in particular, helped

                    1. 2

                      Writing up how I’m using a finite state machine to drive a GUI, writing up evaluations and writing up some guides on how to run a meeting effectively

                      1. 11

                        I was in a situation where I found my software was being used to track people in Iraq. So…. Yeah, I left that gig. My payment back is to write Free Software. Pay your penance with Free Software my friend. Also don’t feel bad about not liking Capitalism. Capitalism is terrible which is why most of the people on this planet hate it.

                        1. 4

                          My payment back is to write Free Software.

                          If you write free open-source software, you still have no control over whether it gets used for bad purposes.

                          Capitalism is terrible which is why most of the people on this planet hate it.

                          Capitalism was actually decent in the 1950s and ‘60s. (This is why Trump’s message of “Make America Great Again”, as much as I can’t stomach the disrespect to the minorities for whom that period wasn’t so great, resonated with so many people.) We had 4-6 percent real GDP growth and companies took care of their people. We had low economic inequality and no one would pull the kind of shit that you see today on a regular basis.

                          In the ‘60s, getting let go by your company meant that the CEO took you out to dinner, explained that you were not getting the next promotion, and that you had a year or so before the accountants would expect him to fire you. (“At absolute most, I can keep you on for two years, so I want you to take your search seriously.”) He’d offer you his Rolodex and give you an excellent reference for where-ever you wanted to go next. In the worst-case scenario where he couldn’t get you hired, he called up his friend at an MBA or PhD program of your choice and got you in. That’s what getting fired was.

                          That’s obviously not how it works today. Even people who don’t get fired get treated like garbage.

                          I agree that the 21st-century style of corporate/managerial/vampire capitalism is a disaster that must be overthrown, preferably nonviolently, but through whatever means are necessary to get the job done.

                          I don’t think capitalism is an innately terrible system. I do think that, like Soviet communism, it worked for a time and then failed. Communism managed to turn a frozen backwater into a world superpower from 1917-50. The implementation was morally reprehensible (Stalin) and the system began to collapse by the 1980s, but it worked for a time. Likewise, organizational/corporate capitalism worked for about sixty years (1914-73) and remained semi-functional for another 28 years in the West Coast tech industry, but is now in such a state where it needs to be replaced with something else… but I have no clue how one goes about that.

                          1. 10

                            In the ‘60s, getting let go by your company meant that the CEO took you out to dinner, explained that you were not getting the next promotion…

                            I call out hagiography. Things were generally better for many people (and as you noted, worse for others) but there’s never been a golden era of corporate beneficence for most people.

                            1. 2

                              Corporations were often bad for the environment and sometimes to customers, but they used to be good to their own people. That’s the difference.

                              Companies did some bad things, for sure, but once you were in, you were guaranteed support and they’d bend over backward not to hurt your career. You could go into the CEO’s office on a random Tuesday and ask to be his protege and he’d say “Yes; what department do you want to lead?” (You might have had to work until a solid 4:00, and occasionally even 5:30, to complete the workload and training that comes from being fast-tracked. But those are the sacrifices one makes.) Once they got in, it really was a lot easier for the Boomers, which is why they’re able to pay $7 million for 3BR houses.

                              The 1957 objection was “E Corp is polluting local rivers and overcharges its customers.” I don’t intend to diminish those objections. We needed the consumer and environmental protections for a reason. The 2017 objection is “G Corp uses stack ranking to disguise layoffs as firings and thereby destroys the reputations of departing employees to preserve its own.” So, these days, companies are bad for the external world and, additionally, evil toward their own people.

                              The Boomer hippie movement was literally a revolt against having to show up at a place 5 times per week for at least half a day (three-martini lunches made afternoon attendance optional) and having to wait a solid 3 years (!) before getting the VP-level job where you can fly business class and expense it. Meanwhile, as for Millennials… if it weren’t for World of Warcraft, there’d be a civil war by now.

                              1. 1

                                I thought OP was about making the world as a whole worse, without distinguishing between customers and employees. Is your notion of “vampire capitalism” only about treating employees poorly?

                                1. 5

                                  They’re related. If companies treat their workers better, then other companies have to follow suit in order to compete.

                                  For example, Henry Ford (who was not a nice person, but knew a good play when he saw it) doubled the wage of his factory workers, to $5 per day, in 1914. (That’d be about $120 per day in 2017.) Historians note that he did this in order to have buyers for his products, but it wasn’t just the first-order effect that he was after, because that wouldn’t justify the cost. He knew that his doing so would raise wages across the board, and increase his buyer base nationally. It worked.

                                  Employers can be better in all sorts of ways. They can pay more, treat workers better, or treat the environment better. It’s all connected. Right now, we have an environment where employers hold all the cards and don’t have to do jack shit for anyone. They don’t compete to be better; they just pay their executives as much as they can get away with. We need to reverse that. It’s a moral imperative.

                            2. 7

                              The 50s and 60s existed in that form because of massive government spending through the Great Depression and WWII, creating a massive, socialized infrastructure that permitted the growth of business. Private sector factories scaled up for wartime production, thanks to government investment, and then turned that excess production capacity to consumer goods (and along the way, we had to invent entirely new “needs” for consumers to fill, planned obsolescence, etc. because we had briefly hit a post-scarcity level of production for the current levels of population). Air travel was heavily regulated, utilities were heavily regulated, telecoms were heavily regulated.

                              If anything, the 50s and 60s are a sign that markets work best when they are heavily managed by the state.

                              1. 3

                                This is absolutely correct.

                                You need a strong public sector to keep the private sector honest. Even if you’re a money-hungry capitalist who would never work in a government job, you should still care about what government jobs exist, because that will heavily influence the wages and conditions that are available to you.

                                For example, when research jobs are easy to get because of ample public funding, the private world has to compete for talent. You get Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. When the research job market is in the shitter and has been for over 30 years, you get business-driven development and “Agile” shovelware.

                              2. 4

                                Capitalism was actually decent in the 1950s and ‘60s. (This is why Trump’s message of “Make America Great Again”, as much as I can’t stomach the disrespect to the minorities for whom that period wasn’t so great, resonated with so many people.) We had 4-6 percent real GDP growth and companies took care of their people. We had low economic inequality and no one would pull the kind of shit that you see today on a regular basis.

                                …iff you were a white dude.

                                1. 5

                                  Though you did mention that minorites didn’t have it so great, though that’s kind of an understatement :)

                                  1. 5

                                    It wasn’t capitalism’s fault that minorities had it bad in the 1950s and ‘60s. Capitalism is not the only cause of human awfulness, as Jews persecuted by Communist Russia– and, of course, black Americans who suffered in pre-capitalistic slavery– can attest. The extreme racism that afflicted, and continues to afflict, our society runs deeper than our economic system.

                                    Society is better in 2017 than it was in 1960, insofar as we’ve made a lot of progress toward racial and gender equality. Capitalism itself is a lot worse.

                                    1. 2

                                      I concur.

                                      1. 1

                                        I know it’s not your main point, but what part of treating people as owned assets as in slavery in the Americas is pre-capitalistic?

                                        1. 4

                                          People with real expertise would probably disagree or put it better, but:

                                          We’ve had slavery in the America’s since about 1500. Neither England, France or Spain were a capitalistic society until sometime in the 18th or 19th century. They were feudal societies that later turned into mercantile societies.

                                          My understanding is that the difference has to do with who can participate in markets, as well as whether there are markets. In feudal societies everything is down to the king. The king decides whether there are markets and what type of people may participate. The king issues charters to companies to allow people to act collectively. Colonial America was quasi-governmental, even if they called it “the Virginia Company”. It also took a royal writ to create.

                                          As the industrial revolution went on we got to recognizable modern capitalism, but there was a mercantile stop off, where trade is recognized as good, but only within a country. External trade was viewed as harmful. The government had a much larger role in defining who could participate and what markets were allowed than it does today.

                                          My understanding is a little shaky, though I’ll admit

                                          As to your point about slaves, they are capital, and very expensive capital at that. I’m not sure I’d call any slave owning society capitalist though, because even with massive inequalities in a capitalist society, the lowest can still own things and trade things. Slaves can’t do that. Everything a slave has belongs to their master, everything a slave creates belongs to their master. A slave’s offspring belongs to their master. A slave’s ability to have offspring belongs to their master

                                    2. 3

                                      It depends on where you were. Contrary to what’s portrayed in Hidden Figures, NASA was never segregated. Mad Men makes 1960s office life look terrible and sexist, but advertising in 1965 was analogous to investment banking in 2007: a macho career with long hours and a lot of unsavory characters in it, that people only did because you could be a millionaire before 30 if you played your cards right (and stole a few clients, a la Season 3).

                                      Professional life, if you could get an office job, was a lot better in the ‘50 and '60s than it is today. You were a trusted professional, not a suspect held under constant surveillance and expected to show daily progress according to bullshit metrics (“story points”).

                                      It was, unfortunately, astronomically harder for women and minorities to get into professional life in the first place, and of course they had to deal with all kinds of other garbage (lynching, poll taxes) that arguably makes the decline in office conditions trivial by comparison. Your boss might be more likely to be a decent human being, but if psychopaths are burning crosses in your neighborhood, there’s not much comfort there.

                                      No one with an understanding of history can say with a clear conscience that the 1950s-60s were better. They weren’t. However, some things were better. Economic growth was 5% per year instead of 2% per year, economic inequality was nothing like what exists today, and once you were inside a corporation, you were treated with a lot more respect than is typical these days.

                                      1. 3

                                        At least post some statistics before you do the lazy “hurr durr white cis men oppressing everybody amirite”.

                                        1. 5

                                          Please point to any data or conclusion presented in the link you posted that says anything but, “hurr durr white cis men oppressing everybody amirite”. The claim was that economic inequality was lower in the 50s and 60s, but that is true only when comparing across uniform demographics.

                                          1. 5

                                            The reading I had of the quote you were replying to was that capitalism was “actually decent”, in that it was providing returns for a broader section of people. If you look at the data, the 50s-60s clearly didn’t solely benefit white dudes–women’s wages went up, men’s wages went up, blacks and whites both made more money than they used to.

                                            Everybody’s wages went up. You suggested “if and only if”, and you’re wrong, as shown by data.

                                            The period after the 70s clearly had a more unequal tenor to it. The “Return to Stagnation in Relative Income” summarizes it nicely:

                                            The years from 1979 to 1989 saw the return of stagnation in black relative incomes. Part of this stagnation may reflect the reversal of the shifts in wage distribution that occurred during the 1940s. In the late 1970s and especially in the 1980s, the US wage distribution grew more unequal. Individuals with less education, particularly those with no college education, saw their pay decline relative to the better-educated. Workers in blue-collar manufacturing jobs were particularly hard hit. The concentration of black workers, especially black men, in these categories meant that their pay suffered relative to that of whites. Another possible factor in the stagnation of black relative pay in the 1980s was weakened enforcement of antidiscrimination policies at this time.

                                            ~

                                            You made a cutesy little comment and are just being told “Hey, it’s more complicated than you’re representing”. Try to elevate the level of discourse instead of playing to the crowds.

                                            1. 6

                                              As I clarified, I was referring to the statement that economic inequality was low, which is true if and only if you are comparing across uniform demographics. I made no statements regarding increased wages across the board.

                                              Try to argue to the point instead of feeling butt-hurt that someone suggested there are structural inequalities that benefited white men more than anyone else.

                                              1. 6

                                                However, economic inequality was lower in the 1950s to ‘60s. It’s a well-studied fact. You can debate social inequality, which is subjective and qualitative to a large degree, but economic inequality is numerical. Measured by the Gini coefficient, we’re at a level of inequality that we haven’t seen since the 1920s. Look here for some data on it. For example, in 1964, the 0.1% had 2% of the national gross income, whereas now it’s 8.8% (or 88x an equal share).

                                                The only measure on which we seem to be doing better is the poverty rate, but that’s largely because the official poverty line is rarely moved (it would be politically disadvantageous, just as including discouraged workers and the prison population in unemployment statistics would make this country look like a shitshow).

                                                1. 2

                                                  Fair!

                                                2. 2

                                                  As I clarified, I was referring to the statement that economic inequality was low, which is true if and only if you are comparing across uniform demographics. I made no statements regarding increased wages across the board.

                                                  Your original post–the one I replied to–lumped in several distinct statements.

                                                  Try to argue to the point instead of feeling butt-hurt that someone suggested there are structural inequalities that benefited white men more than anyone else.

                                                  I did–you’re the one who has failed to bring any evidence into this. I’m not “butt-hurt” that you are asserting white males enjoy a structural advantage: I’m annoyed that you didn’t substantiate your point.

                                                  There are lots of structural inequalities that you should be able to point to–use some numbers, reference some papers.

                                        2. 1

                                          What I think we have here is a case of the body snatchers. Will the real Michael please stand up?

                                          You know full well that when you say something was good at any time you must qualify with ‘for whom’. I implied that for the majority of people capitalism was NEVER good. Yes, was it good for millions of white American men in the 50s? Sure. My message does not contest this.

                                          Not sure why you want to defend Capitalism for that tiny minority of people. You also do realize critics of Capitalism called the Soviet Union a state capitalist system. To the average worker , working at an America firm is indistinguishable from a Soviet one in all the important ways.

                                          Now in regards to Free Software, I didn’t say it was a big penance. Thinking more about it I would say Venture Communism as stated by Dmytri Kleiner is a better approach.

                                          1. 0

                                            Whether industrial capitalism is good is somewhat of a value judgment. I think we can agree that it was morally better to the slave-powered economy and that preceded it. I would also argue that, for a time, it worked. We had 4-6 percent annual economic growth (3 times more than is normal today) in the 1940s-70s. Whatever one thinks of an economic system, the fact is that it did produce wealth. I think it’s also clear that capitalism is ceasing to work well and that we may have to move to something else. Certainly, it will look more like welfare-state socialism as see in Scandinavia than the psychotic, mean-spirited capitalism of the U.S. circa 2017.

                                            At my core, I’m a pragmatist. There was a time when industrial capitalism, despite its flaws, worked very well. It is now working very poorly and probably needs to be replaced.

                                            1. 5

                                              I would just like to clarify your value judgement here. When you say it “worked” in the 1940s-1970s you are specifically talking about the USA and white men right? You are certainly not talking about the child laborers that mined the ore for minerals in Africa? The important thing to keep in mind is that all systems have global consequence now and even then. Also important to note is that there are many different modes of production happening at the same time. While there was some capitalism in th 1940s-70s USA, there was also some socialism, some communism, some welfare state. They worked at various levels and fed off one another. The reason the capitalism computer explosion happened in the 80s was built on huge government funded research and expenditure in prior decades.

                                              So there is no totality of Capitalism then and even now. It was a interplay of many many systems. There is no ROOT cause for why “capitalism” worked then and doesn’t work now. We live in a complex adaptive system.

                                              1. 2

                                                When you say it “worked” in the 1940s-1970s you are specifically talking about the USA and white men right?

                                                More than that. The US prospered, but US prosperity allowed us to rebuild Europe and Japan (Marshall Plan) and make the world more peaceful in general.

                                                The reason Eastern Europe is poor and Western Europe is rich is the Marshall Plan. If the US hadn’t rebuilt W. Europe and Japan, they’d still be poor. We did this because the punitive handling of Germany after World War I led to Hitler and we didn’t want to see that again. After that mistake, we realized that our enemies were governments, not countries, and that rebuilding our formal adversaries was a way to prevent them from going bad in the future.

                                                I don’t love capitalism. Pure capitalism is atrocious. However, I think it’s important to pay attention to what works and what doesn’t. Restrained capitalism seems to be better than command-economy socialism, as the latter has failed every time.

                                                While there was some capitalism in th 1940s-70s USA, there was also some socialism, some communism, some welfare state.

                                                Absolutely. Pure capitalism is bad, no question. Capitalism when tempered with 30-50% socialism (and the proportion of socialism that we’ll need will increase, as technological unemployment mounts) is much more humane and also works better. Pure capitalism will never fund the R&D that you absolutely need if you want to get back to 4-6% economic growth instead of the shitty 1-2% we’ve got going on now.

                                                The reason the capitalism computer explosion happened in the 80s was built on huge government funded research and expenditure in prior decades.

                                                100 percent correct. And the lack of research funding (and the attendant three decades of low economic growth) is the main reason why this country is going into decline.

                                                So there is no totality of Capitalism then and even now. It was a interplay of many many systems. There is no ROOT cause for why “capitalism” worked then and doesn’t work now.

                                                I can agree with that.

                                                1. 6

                                                  Restrained capitalism seems to be better than command-economy socialism, as the latter has failed every time.

                                                  I think I found the source of our disagreement. It is often that people use the term capitalism to mean free market and private ownership. I mean it as a select few owning the means of production. The way Marx meant it. To me capitalism IS command and control.

                                                  If you look at most capitalist corporations, they are command and control. Tiny fiefdoms. I suspect when you say capitalism you mean private ownership and markets.

                                                  I guess I am using the term as it meant by the people who coined it. A derogatory term to hark back to feudal times.

                                                  In other words as you move from the spectrum of Capitalism->Socialism->Communism you move from command and control to democratic to social ownership.

                                                  This is why it is perfectly sane to me to call the Soviet Union state capitalism. Because the social relations are capitalist in nature (in other words, few own the means of production).

                                                  When you think communism you think command and control. When I think communism, I think everyone owning their production. When you think capitalism, you think markets and private ownership. When I think capitalism, I think command and control.

                                                  In other words, if you take the idea of capital ownership to the extreme, where everyone is their own company and own their own production, that’s communism to me. Oh and of course communism doesn’t even have money, because money is another command and control tool created by the state. And communism is stateless.

                                      1. 1

                                        It might depend on your definition of bad guy, but there is plenty of programming work in government that does good things and is even with good team. There’s the weather, or managing fisheries, or sending stuff to space, or any number of things, really.

                                        I mean, they aren’t hiring, and a lot of the programming jobs are contracted out or involve the DOD or NSA, but when hiring starts up again they’re out there. Lots of social good happening via government

                                        1. 1

                                          Refactoring an email batch job to run as a daemon