I'm confident that less than 100 of those 28.7 million developers contributed to 80% of the code that is in use today.
If this is true, then they (the 100) will be working a lot of ChatGPT and Co-pilot-assisted overtime, while the strikers starve (I don't see that elite group joining the strikers).
This could potentially lead to tech giants like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Microsoft going bankrupt.
Sadly, I believe the opposite would be true. A striker is not on the payroll while striking, so those companies' costs plummet. Not only that, but it provides them with the perfect excuse to further excise their workforce. Combine that with a few share buybacks (a practice, by the way, which I believe should be outlawed), and you have created a few trillionaires !
If politicians grew spines, and actually legislated for the benefit of their constituents, instead of for their very rich donors or masters, then perhaps socially beneficial (in the workforce and elsewhere) change might be effected.
An entertaining, inventive, article, by the way, intended, as I interpret it, to be humorous. Thank you for that.
Regrettably, I find the subject matter quite serious, and find it difficult to laugh when I see the trajectory in which our world is headed.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
If this is true, then they (the 100) will be working a lot of ChatGPT and Co-pilot-assisted overtime, while the strikers starve (I don't see that elite group joining the strikers).
Sadly, I believe the opposite would be true. A striker is not on the payroll while striking, so those companies' costs plummet. Not only that, but it provides them with the perfect excuse to further excise their workforce. Combine that with a few share buybacks (a practice, by the way, which I believe should be outlawed), and you have created a few trillionaires !
If politicians grew spines, and actually legislated for the benefit of their constituents, instead of for their very rich donors or masters, then perhaps socially beneficial (in the workforce and elsewhere) change might be effected.
An entertaining, inventive, article, by the way, intended, as I interpret it, to be humorous. Thank you for that.
Regrettably, I find the subject matter quite serious, and find it difficult to laugh when I see the trajectory in which our world is headed.