Many of the core challenges that are fundamentally about human factors and collaboration haven't changed, such as the conflict between business requirements, engineering approaches, and the desire for no-code solutions.
Ex.: People were writing about agile, no-code, and the challenges of reducing cost and complexity before we had the terminology for it and before a whole industry of consultants existed to explain it.
Tom's writeup inspired me to dig a little more. I unfortunately (for me) discovered a very simple way to solve the game on the first guess every time. My fault for reading the game's code, but I just can't look at the puzzle the same way anymore.
I liked the first half of the essay - some interesting nuggets of some possible ideas, particularly the point about schisms forming rather than continued collective action once a group becomes large enough.
The last half sounds a little bit too much like the bias towards markets and profit motives and whatnot without question and without critique. There are plenty of dysfunctional for-profit orgs that don't allocate resources well, in spite of overwhelming feedback, from the market and elsewhere. The majority of for-profit orgs also have a sales team that is out there pounding the pavement trying to drive sales: it's not all, "Build it and they will come."
I don't buy that a successful company needs to be a mission either. That's very common thinking in the startup world, but not even close to representative of the whole.
I do prefer PostgreSQL if I have a choice, but from the practicality standpoint that many people are hitting on, I'm okay with various design decisions (i.e. take a look at some of the flags for MySQL's `sql-mode` option over the years) being phased out via the normal (warn -> deprecate -> throw error -> remove) lifecycle that things like this often go through in software. Once a technology gets wide adoption, no matter how "flawed" or not earlier versions were, you start to prioritize stability and reliability over "correctness" at some point. This leads to the understandably practical approach to many bugs in many enterprise systems where the team supporting a tech stack learns to work around the rough edges, and might even depend on certain "weird" functionality because it's simply more practical in both the short and long term than not doing it.
None of the above means that I don't see MySQL as flawed in some ways. I'm in a group of developers that I suspect make up a sizable portion of the MySQL community who didn't choose MySQL, but must support it, if for no other reason than because we see ourselves as professionals, and that's what professional do: make the employer's application work reliably.
For applications that have already survived past the point of finding product/market fit, a wholesale conversion of DBMS is rarely worth it, and conversions of this type are costly/risky even if it is worth it. I do understand many of the benefits (real and theoretical) of PostgreSQL, and if I'm around at the moment when a project's DBMS is being selected I'm going to recommend _not_ MySQL, but at some level I'm also paid to make the application that my employer is running on top of their DBMS work reliably ... and the fact is even among people who get PostgreSQL - who prefer it, would choose it if they could - many of us are also pragmatic enough not to pull the rug out from under a running application for "reasons".
It can function like this, yes. There's a flag for the `sql_mode` that enables/disables this functionality, and I believe zero dates are disallowed by default in MySQL 8.0+ IIRC.
The main points made by the article are not unique to any particular job or industry. The method, if one is to get more freedom of choice in work, is to get yourself onto important projects that contribute to the bottom line.
For a broader view, years ago I read the book, "Power: Why Some People Have It—and Others Don't" by Jeffery Pfeffer, and it was an excellent object lesson in understanding how and why companies work the way they work, how decisions are made, and why you can do the same job in different organizations and yet have a totally different experience one organization to the next.
The ship has long since sailed on this point, powered on or not.
There's research that's talked about in the book, "Data and Goliath" that explains how the behavior of people specifically trying to avoid being tracked is sufficiently different from most other people that, even if you turn off your phone (sometimes ESPECIALLY if you turn off your phone) that act can be a behavioral marker used to correlate your activities with other people who do similarly, and your location can be largely deduced by process of elimination anyway.
