Since the housing market looks like a crowd of people just signing mortgages as fast as possible just to then turn around and charge that mortgage plus a little bit.

I shouldn't pay someone's mortgage like seriously this is just adding an unnecessary problem to the real problem of "living somewhere"

I was gonna share this report I wrote for school with a friend. I remember throughout college I kept my school files organized on Drive, but when I went to look for it nothing seemed right. The rule is that I have a folder for every class I had organized by semester and year and alot of them are gone. Classes I know I took I have no record of anything I did there.

It's kind of a bummer. I found some record of me writing this report, I wrote it in December 2020.. Has there been some files loss in Google Drive that I didn't know about? It's kind of a bummer that I can't look at these old things I did but, I'm just hoping for the best.

I have a massive terraform state I maintain for work. After learning about reusing resources using modules I adopted the same rule for terraform I have for other PLs "only call functions in the main func". Meaning I'm only allowed to declare modules that reference resources at the top level.

My problem is that I have modules calling modules all over the place, the average length of any of my resources is 8 names. I have values I want to share across multiple different kinds of modules that do different things. Currently I have a top level module called "constants" with output blocks to store every constant I need. It works to an extent.

The thing is that I had a similar problem when web developing in React. Prop drilling is a coding style in React where a component receives a prop just for the purpose of passing the prop to a child component, the receiving component doesn't actually need that prop for itself. React solves this by the context api which lets one component pass a value to any child component of any depth. How can we have something similar in Terraform? Even though every resource I have is defined once in code, it declares the same resources hundreds of times with different appropriate values.

I wish I could pass things like the dockerSecret to a kubernetes deployment 6 modules deep in such a way that that dependant component of a module waits for the docker secret to be created while other resources that don't depend on it can be scheduled to be created later. Prop drilling doesn't work all that well and it forces you to copy alot of code. Maybe modules aren't the best way to reuse resources.

I feel like HCL doesn't have syntax that would support such a thing idomatically. Maybe something like decorator syntax or a special type of block where you write a proper data, resource, or module block?

What do you guys think?

Has anyone noticed that we haven't really heard of a new app in awhile? I feel like the last time I heard about an app on the news or on Reddit(in the past) in a long time. The last big one I heard of was the Threads app.

Where are the apps? I haven't downloaded a new app since I got Boost for Lemmy.

I had a long and intresting conversation with my therapist just now. I'm not comfortable sharing exactly what we were talking about but I can rephrase it: basically I was complaining that tech companies don't want to innovate.

I've been trying to bring new technologies to my boss because I thought it would give him a better opportunity to realize value from the products I'm creating/maintaining for him. That's what I understand is my purpose in the workforce. I'm a programmer not a salesman I can't go out to the market and get him the money so he can pay me with something, I can only make things put things in his hands for him (or hire someone to) to go out and collect the money we deserve (deserve within the limits of market demands and the nature of the product, not the labor invested). But he doesn't want them... well he does when he needs them but I miss way more times than I hit which is making my professional feelings feel less valuable. And if I'm not valuable enough then I can't work doing what I love.

When I started working I went in with a plan to upgrade and modernize everything I touch. I still believe that to be the case, or like... my "purpose"(as an employee not a person). But every company I've worked for so far has been running old ass shit. Springboot apps, create-react-apps, codebases in c and c++, no kubernetes, little to no cloud. And it feels like everything that tech companies want me to do is maintain and expand old existing codebases. And I understand why, I know that its expensive to rewrite entire code bases just for a 20% efficiency boost and to make it easier to add upgrades every once in awhile. But noone is taking advantage of innovative technology anymore and that's what's concerning me.

In my therapist's opinion he thinks we as a soceity are not taking 100% advantage of technology we have. I can't go into too many details bc our conversations are private but at the end I agreed with him. I'm seeing it now in my working day but he convinced me that it's everywhere. Are people actually benefitting from technology enough such that nobody actually needs to work to maintain a long and healthy life?

Lets say that no, technology is underutilized in our soceity. Does that mean that if we use technology more we'd have enough value in the economy to pay everyone a UBI? Could we phase out the human workforce to some extent? Or do we actually need more workers to do work to make the value, in which case we can't realistically do UBI because people need to get paid competitivily to do the work.

Lets say that yes, we are taking all advantages of technology. If so than there should be enough value to pay a UBI. But we don't have a UBI, so why? If the value exists than where is it? I don't believe its being funnelled into the pockets of some shadowy deep-state private 4th branch of government. If it was than there'd be something to take, is there? Are we sure that its enough?

Basically I don't know if technology generates value.

Think about it like this

If its cheaper to use technology to grow an acre of corn than to use people, is that subsequent output of corn more valuable or less valuable because of the technology. And if you believe that scaling up corn production to make the corn just as valuable as if we didn't have technology then you agree that the corn is now less valuable. If self-checkout machines are replacing cashiers, does that mean that the cashiering work being done by the machine is more valuable to soceity or less?

This is basically end stage capitalism. We need to recognize if the work we do for soceity (whether you derive personal fulfillment or not) is actually adding to soceity or not. I'd rather not give up my job as a programmer just so I can do something more valuable, but I might have to if that's the case. And I feel like most people in the world are thinking like that too. Is soceity trying to hang on to the past, or do we just not understand the future?

Sorry for the wall of text. I feel like this might be to philosophical for this community but I couldn't find a better place to post this. If you know of a better community for this discussion to take place then I'll consider moving this post based on the comments already posted. Thank you for reading this and I'd love to answer any question you'd have about my opinions/feelings.

I feel stupid for asking this because I should just google it right? But I can't find an official website by Hamas and the only sources I can find for their charter is on the websites of American law colleges.

Example searches: Searching .edu sites, Searching .gov sites.

Wikipedia has sources but they're also American colleges and this absolutely cursed looking link you shoud actually put into your browser, like I don't feel safe clicking it so I got a VPC to do it, link is broken:

http://hamas.ps/en/post/678

I'm just supprised something this recognizable is hard? to find.

P.S. sry if this isn't the right place to post

Edit: searched google in arabic because OBVIOUSLY (why didn't I think of that). Couldn't get better results.