Fine with me. Let's call it off. It's not either a forum about netiquette or about 'how bad this word/expression hurts anonymous people'.
> Luc, you are missing the point: this isn't the forum for that > discussion regardless of how valid the points in that discussion are. > This is a _Clojure_ forum, not a 'what's wrong with the (technology) > world' forum, I would suggest this isn't even a 'how can Clojure fix > the world' forum. > > Luc, please read the various responses carefully - replying by > validating the points in your discussion/justifying your position is > missing the point, please do not reply until you understand that. > > I think we should just let this thread die, so I'm out. > > > On 26 March 2015 at 13:08, Luc Préfontaine <lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca> > wrote: > > The 'attack' word is again a manifestation of extreme political correctness. > > > > I will argue that these technologies with their inherent complexity are > > creating huge > > bureaucracies to attract and hide unqualified/unskilled/uncommited/.. aka > > 'stupid' people > > from scrutiny. > > > > These environments have the perverse effect of encouraging people not to > > think > > too much at least not publicly because of that political correctness pushed > > to the limit. > > 'You are not a team player, blablablalbla...'. > > > > 'Stupidity' is not off topic here, not at all. It's been a plague for two > > decades in this industry > > as soon as demand increased for sotfware. It started to attract people mid > > 80s because of > > the promise to get a well paid job. Not because they had above average > > skills or had a keen > > interest in it. 'I do not need to understand technology, I'll be a manager > > in three years'. > > This a real quote from a colleague when I was quite green. > > > > Meanwhile HR replaced know-how by worthless tags (add water to this pouch > > and you will get a > > Java/Ruby/... asset) and processes hoping to use a Taylor approach to > > creativity like > > if we were building cars on an assembly line. > > > > Some would argue that without this enterprise mass market, we would not > > have the technology > > we have at hand these days. True. The industry has been recycling old > > concepts > > for 30 years branding them as new. Huge costs with incremental changes. > > > > This mitigated success is limited by this assembly line model. > > And unlike a car plant, it cannot be robotized. > > You need to change wetware... Hence the 'stupidity' factor discussion -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
