The article is a statistic. What’s been uttered here is just a bunch of anecdotes.

The title is a bit reductionist, but labour in the sense of getting paid to perform tasks for a ruthless entity isn’t exactly the only way to organize work.

There were, for example, quite successful anarcho-syndicalist worker collectives in civil-war Spain. Of course Franco dismantled them and even the communists back then hated them, but for a time they were successful.

Now, whether this is the best, or even a functioning, approach I don’t know. But if you look at the state of the current system, it’s not exactly working either.

Just in terms of efficiency, it’s incredibly bad. Look at all the completely wasted work due to the sheer existence of the management class. That can’t be the best system.

Again, you’re looking at the situation from a completely wrong angle.

Seriously guys, are you unable to understand that your own position is not that of the current youth?

Yes, having a house taken away is bad, but let’s be realistic here: how many people did that really affect and how did the kids look at it? For most kids, in 2010 this whole thing was over. And they were seen as something fixable, and people ostensibly worked on fixing them. There was (and this is important!) a clear, realistic path out of the pit.

We don’t have that today. What is the path out of a looming fascist revival? What is the path out of a full blown climate crisis? What is the path out of a society ruled over by rich old men?

The youth has no self efficacy left. We don’t have it either, but we just throw a bunch of copium every day and ignore the problems.

No, it doesn’t, if the point of the study and the experience here have no relation.

The study compares the happiness of youth over time. Nothing more. Whether some bloke had a bad youth and a great adulthood has absolutely zero relation to that.

In fact, I would argue that this complete blindness for the actual problems the youth faces today, is the reason why they are so miserable.

You’re basically on a similar path like the “just walk into the office and greet the manager with a firm handshake, then you’ll get a job” folks. You overemphasize past experiences because you don’t want to or are unable to understand that the world you grew up in is gone.

Look back at all these events. Which of them seemed permanent?

A recession is bad, but there’s a very real hope that it’s going away soon. The pandemic was a once in a lifetime event, but even that had hope very very soon - the first rumors of a vaccine made rounds literally within days after the first lockdown.

Today’s crises are different. Look at the climate. What you see as a young person is, that the entire world is acknowledging that the world is burning - but nobody is doing anything about it.

Look at the economy. In large parts of the Western world the promise of “work hard and you’ll have a good life” simply isn’t true anymore. And that’s not a fluke, recession, bubble. It’s systemic and people know that.

I’m literally in the top 10% income wise here in Germany. And even I would have to pay loans back for 20 years with my partner to afford a house here, and even then it’s a thin margin. My parents’ generation could buy a house, go on vacations, and have a good life in general with two regular worker’s salaries. That’s nothing that will blow over in a year or two.

…and the study says that youths today are less happy than before. Those are two different things. That’s really not that hard.

Maybe a shocker to you, but you’re not a young adult anymore.

This study is specifically about people in their 20s. Usually in that age you’re supposed to be happy and full of hope for the future. Sure, your time maybe sucked, but you’re not the average.

Today’s youth grows increasingly frustrated and hopeless, because if you look around, there’s nothing to hope for. The future is bleak. That wasn’t the case 20 years ago.

Isn’t that what sovereign citizens believe already happened?

That’s decades of legacy for you…

I bet each step/arrow/decision had a good reason at some point, but most of them probably back when computers lived in caves and hunted their tapes using spears and rocks.

I feel like we’re slowly reaching a point where the complexity is collapsing in on itself - just look at the absolute chaos a modern web app is.

Prudes…

Java’s Duke just stands there, fully nude and is giving NullPointerException fucks.

Stupid idea. Obviously 8 data laptops and one clock laptop would be the better solution. Parallel interfaces are inherently superior.

It’s already starting to deflate somewhat.

Businesses realize that you actually can’t make that much money using AI and investors should realize that their fancy AI companies can’t recoup their expenses any time soon.

I feel really bad about my old MacBook. It was my trusty companion for 10 years, but now it’s kind of forgotten and useless.

I tried to revive it a while ago, but it’s too slow/hot to be useful for anything worthwhile and it’s a real shame. It’s still working fine, otherwise!

Glad that he’s taken advantage of.

Half an Apple a day keeps the IDF away!

Or requires a timestamp with zone offset, but ignores the zone offset, so you have to send the timestamp itself with a zone offset of zero relative to the systems timezone, but can’t just omit the zone offset, because it’s required.

Again, did you actually read the comments?

Is SQL an API contract using JSON? I hardly think so.

Java does not distinguish between null and non-existence within an API contract. Neither does Python. JS is the weird one here for having two different identifiers.

Why are you so hellbent on proving something universal that doesn’t apply for the case specified above? Seriously, you’re the “well, ackshually” meme in person. You are unable or unwilling to distinguish between abstract and concrete. And that makes you pretty bad engineers.

Did you read the comments above?

You can’t just ignore context and proclaim some universal truth, which just happens to be your opinion.

Nope.

If there’s a clear definition that there can be something, implicit and explicit omission are equivalent. And that’s exactly the case we’re talking about here.

That’s exactly not the thing, because nobody broke the contract, they simply interpret it differently in details.

Having a null reference is perfectly valid json, as long as it’s not explicitly prohibited. Null just says “nothing in here” and that’s exactly what an omission also communicates.

The difference is just whether you treat implicit and explicit non-existence differently. And neither interpretation is wrong per contract.