Readit NewsEither way, just for the fun of things, post your (fun and wildest) guesses on how this probably happened below...
My take is someone about to post a news article, left the view and their pet (thinking a cat) ran through their keyboard and posted the article. And since the cat has gained awareness, they were able to move the article from draft to an actual post. =)
One could certainly love (or like) a corporation if that company provides some meaningful semblance to one's life.
For example, if you are that company's employee and you have been well-provided with means to live a comfortable life while also being aligned with your values, I can't even think how you will have an ounce of contempt for that organization.
If the company provides you with products or services that enhances your way of living, then definitely there would be room for adoring them due to the positive impact that they have.
In the case of the OPs example, the company will be enforcing actions that have different repercussions depending on where you are on the side of the fence.
If you are from the outside where you publish products or services that needs to live within the company's digital ecosystem, then surely that additional tax is an impact that will hurt your finances overall. Anything that hurt your finances will a chain effect that can hurt your business, your decision making, and to some degree, your well being.
Its different when you are within the walls of that company. That additional margin would likely translate to increase compensation (if you are an employee) or better profit (if you are an investor).
The thing here is that, loving or liking or adoring a company hinges on how it impacts your personal bottom line. At the end of the day, the rationality of the decision is based on what each entity perceives as what is best for them. What's best for someone may not be the best for everyone. And that's reality.
Corporations will always mark an employee simply as an entry on their ledger. When the time comes to get new hires on similar work level, they know they need to up their game in terms of how much they can generously pay while still maintaining the bottom line of the organization.
React should start by a simple initialization: -> Setup React -> CSS library -> State management
And then, other packages or libraries can be considered to be added whenever the current needs of the application exceeds what the bare minimum setup has provided.
While in the end the set of packages and configurations performed may tantamount to what a framework already provides easily, the cognitive load starts on a piece that is well understood and grows alongside the evolution of the software product being delivered.
This can be considered great if they made advancements in engine / combustion design that increased the distance traveled on a per liter (or gallon) of fuel.
While we can acknowledge that a lot of negative reviews will also stem from employees who were terminated / laid off / dismissed as the company may be undergoing financial / economic challenges, there can also be a lot of valid ones.
But then again, each individual (who will do a review) knows the adage to _never burn the bridges_, hence, either they use Glassdoor as a venting platform, or have the courage to stand up and speak their minds.
Unless there's a net benefit upside to the individual providing a negative (albeit constructive) criticism, it'll really be hard to weed out what's really helpful from what is written out of anger and desperation.
Enterprise software is always *enter-pricey*.
Lots of $$$ poured into consultants and very little to the folks who actually do the work and implementation.
And of course, a project (or program in corporate speak) of this magnitude will have a lot of meetings involving a lot of people that usually ends up in very meaningless decisions.
Looks shiny and most of the very vocal devs are harping about it - maybe worth a try.
At the end of the day, in the absence of buzzwords and hype, I sit back and come to the conclusion that tried and tested technology will still be able to do the work 99.9999% of the time.
I hold the .00001% for those possibilities where you are doing something breakthrough that in itself merits to be associated as a buzzword.
Until then, always proceed with caution and rationalize whether it is only hype or it is something worth adding to your arsenal.
For one, are you really saving costs when you're losing some individuals with deep knowledge of the job for which you would need to re-train a new individual to come up to the same speed and productivity as with the previous person doing the job?
Doesn't this also make productive / talented / hardworking people shy away from your job posting when they know that your company recently laid off employees?
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pr...