You took his first statement out of context which made it worse than it sounds. Hell, I thought the author was an a-hole because I read your comment prior to reading the article.
He says human rights are important and treating other people well is the right thing to do and that's non-negotiable. Which is a fair statement. What decent human being would disagree with that?
He's right about having a diverse set of eyes and opinions on a team being a positive thing. But most people see the word "diversity" and think about the forced diversity quota of 'we need 1 black person, 1 gay person, 2 woman, one Latino and one Indian' kind of diversity, which speaking as someone from a minority, I too am against it.
> Human rights are fundamentally important. Treating other people well is the right thing to do. All of this is of paramount priority, whatever you do. If you don't agree with this, I have no hope for you.
He actually says that treating people well is morally right thing to do and the highest priority. That’s different from human rights which is the minimum that people should be treated. So I don’t think the “if you don’t agree” relates to the idea of human rights but rather that you should treat everyone as best as you can and consider that your highest priority. And if you disagree then he has no hope for you.
And this is the point. What if you believe that you should treat people “okay” not as best as you can, or not as your highest priority? What if you instead believe that you should give people freedom to do what they want no matter what the outcome is and not interfere in one way or another? Basically don’t treat anyone anyway and leave them alone?
That would produce unfettered success but also unfettered failure. What if you’re okay with some people utterly failing as long as some people have unparalleled success?
What if you’re okay with the idea of treating those who work hard very well, but ignore and don’t help anyone who is lazy or doesn’t work hard? Does that go counter to his idea that people should be treated well?
I don’t subscribe to these arguments but my point is that just because they don’t think treating everyone equally doesn’t mean that they are evil, they just have different priorities. A ceo like Steve Jobs would fire unproductive employees and reward productive employees, does that run counter to his argument of treating people well with the highest priority? And does he accept this diversity in thought or does he reject it?
iOS user and a developer here. I actually feel the opposite. With native apps, there are OS level restrictions to accessing certain resources and sensors on the device so I feel safer in a native app than a browser.
I joined a company in 2021 as a tech lead after working as a IC for almost a decade. I thought it was going to be a technical role but it slowly turned into a more engineering management one. The were aspects about it that I liked and actually good at. But I really missed programming and building things on my own. Plus the stress was bad. Few months ago, I went back to an engineering job.
Steve Jobs must be rolling in his grave lol. iPhones have been getting bigger and you still want more screen space? Why not just get a iPad with an external keyboard at this point if you're such a "content creator"?
