I used to work with health inspectors, when talking about my work I would describe what they do as “ You know the guys who go into restaurants and say ‘I’m shutting you down there’re too many cockroaches in the soup’”
About 1 person in 10 notices I said too many cockroaches.
Restaurants are allowed to have a certain amount of bug parts in soup.
Before you ask your boss anything, figure out where do you want to go? And I don’t just mean in your career.
Then from that figure out, what does your ideal career trajectory look like in the next few years?
Do you want to be an L2? a sysadmin? DevOps? Do you want to keep working for an MSP, or maybe into a company with a dedicated IT team. Also consider if your tech career progression isn’t the most important thing, maybe it’s family, maybe it more time for a hobby, that’s ok too.
When you have a clear picture of what you want to do, communicate that and ask what you can do for the company that also helps move you toward that goal.
They probably won’t be moving you into your target role immediately, but any decent manager will help you move towards your goals, with training, mentoring, or other opportunities for skill building.
Some bosses are shitty and will try to keep you in roles that are the best for them, These bosses usually respond with a focus on your flaws, they will tell you why you’re not ready for whatever the next step is and offer no support or guidance to help you change whatever they cite. If you have a boss like that, start looking for another job.
Keep in mind the company has their own goals, you need to be prepared to be flexible they’re not going to move you into a role they don’t need. But as long as your manager isn’t a total dick, they’ll move you as close towards your goal as they can within the limits of the company’s goals.
Especially in this field it’s pretty common to need to move to another company to keep moving towards your goals. If you haven’t progressed to a new level within a year or two start applying for L2 role (or whatever else you want) at other companies.
I will absolutely give you that transitioning an established mature product to the subscription model is usually a terrible idea. Plenty of examples of that going horribly wrong.
As for subscriptions being a “blatant money grab” that definitely happens sometimes… notably when there’s a mature product with a dominating market share. The company already captured most of the market share, so they can’t get much more revenue from new customers, existing customers are satisfied with the version they have so they’re not buying any updates. Sales go down and someone comes along say just make it a subscription and keep milking the cash cow forever…. Yep, I admit it, that totally happens. The enshitification ensues.
But none of that’s the fault of the subscription model per se.
The same subscription model that becomes the incumbent’s downfall, is what creates a market opportunity for a new competitor.
A new competitor can coming in with a new product that was built with a subscription model from the start. The competitors product is cheap to try for a month, cheap to switch to with no big upfront costs. The newcomers can generally react much faster to customers needs than the incumbent. (Not because of the model, they can because they’re smaller)
Established software companies doing blatant money grabs happen all the time. Hell most of us are here using Lemmy because Spez attempted a blatant money grab on Reddit. Had nothing to do with the model.
Subscription model gets a lot of hate because greedy companies tried to use it as a blatant money grab exactly as you described. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
Subscription models make it easier for newcomers entering a space, which is good for consumers. It’s more compatible with agile development methodologies because you don’t need wait until you’ve bundled enough features together to market it as a new version worth upgrading to. It’s in your best interest to ship new features immediately as they’re developed.
Wow… lots of people in here bashing the subscription model, but let me point out it’s maybe not as bad as you think…
If you sell a product under a perpetual license model (I.e the one-time purchase model). Once you’ve sold the product, the manufacturer has almost no incentive to offering any support or updates to the product. At best it’s a marketing ploy, you offer support only to get word of mouth advertising of your product which is generally a losing proposition.
Since there’s little incentive to improve the experience for existing customers. Your main income comes from if you can increase your market share which generally means making products bloated often leading to a worse experience for everyone.
If the customer wants support, you need to sell them a support contract. If they want updates you have to make a new version and hope the customer sees enough additional value to be worth upgrading. Either way we’re back to a subscription model with more steps, more risk, and less upside than market expansion so it takes a backseat.
If you want to make a great product without some variation on a subscription. You need to invest heavily upfront in development (which most companies don’t have the capital to do, and investors generally won’t invest in unproven software)
From a product perspective, you don’t know if you’ve hit the mark until people start using your product. The first versions of anything but the most trivial of products is usually terrible, because no matter how good you are, half to three quarters of the ideas you build are going to be crap and not going to be what the customers need.
Perpetual licensing works for a small single purpose application with no expectation of support or updates.
It works for applications with broad market needs like office software.
For most niche applications, subscription models offer a better experience for both the customer and the manufacturer.
The customer isn’t facing a large transition cost to switch to a competitor’s product like they would if they had to buy a perpetual license of it, so you have a lot more incentive to support and improve your product. You also don’t see significant revenue if the customer that drops your service a couple months in… even more reason to focus on improving the product for existing customers.
People ought hate the idea of paying small reoccurring fees for software instead of a few big upfront costs. But from a business model perspective, businesses are way more incentivized to focus on making their products better for you under that model.
Special care is needed when interpreting the meaning of a solidus in in-line math because of the notational ambiguity in expressions such as a/bc. Whereas in many textbooks, “a/bc” is intended to denote a/(bc), taken literally or evaluated in a symbolic mathematics languages such as the Wolfram Language, it means (a/b)×c. For clarity, parentheses should therefore always be used when delineating compound denominators.
What is your source for the priority of the / operator?
i.e. why do you say 6 / 2 * 3 is unambiguous?
Every source I’ve seen states that multiplication and division are equal priority operations. And one should clarify, either with a fraction bar (preferably) or parentheses if the order would make a difference.
You state that the ambiguity comes from the implicit multiplication and not the use of the obelus.
I.e. That 6 ÷ 2 x 3 is not ambiguous
What is your source for your statement that there is an accepted convention for the priority of the iinline obelus or solidus symbol?
As far as I’m aware, every style guide states that a fraction bar (preferably) or parentheses should be used to resolve the ambiguity when there are additional operators to the right of a solidus, and that an obelus should never be used.
Which therefore would make it the division expressed with an obelus that creates the ambiguity, and not the implicit multiplication.
‘cause if there’s one demographic that couldn’t possibly have the aptitude, resourcefulness or motivation needed to defeat a scheme like this it’s horny teenagers.
Total monthly posts exploded after Spez enshitified Reddit, and is still growing steadily month over month.
That suggests that the current decline in monthly active users is primarily because lurkers who only came to lemmy after initially hearing about it on Reddit, went back to lurking Reddit.
The number of users that are contributors is still growing, and that’s what’s important.
We don’t know what Owen’s relationship with Shmi was. Maybe he left home before Cliegg remarried, and was only there when we see him in episode 2 because he came when his dad contacted him in a panic after discovering Tuscan raiders had taken step-mom captive.
I disagree with your interpretation that Cliegg “technically” bought 3PO.
We don’t know the legal rights of slaves in that universe, but presuming this is like slaves in ancient Roman times and they can own property, then 3PO was Shmi’s from the beginning. Buying a slave wouldn’t automatically give you possession of the slave’s property, therefore it was always Shmi’s droid and Cliegg never owned it.
It’s possible that in this universe, slaves can’t own property and Cliegg bought 3PO from Watto in addition to Shmi. But I think it unlikely that Anakin would have built 3PO “to help his mom” if Watto automatically owned it. If Watto owned 3PO he would’ve sold it long before Cliegg bought Shmi.
We also don’t know that Anakin stole 3PO. If it belonged to his mom, he could have simply inherited it when she died.
One could also make the argument that 3PO was always Anakin’s property, and he just left it behind when he left Tattooine.