And then your teammate then takes a week to build an API that's only compatible with your hacked out code you wrote in twenty minutes. Now you've wasted both your time and her time when both need to be re-written.
Yes, consider what has happened here carefully. Maybe she shouldn't be allowed to, and should consider that 20 minute code as not existing. (Because on day 1 of her week, she could have written it properly.) That does not make it technical debt of 1 day. It means it didn't actually exist.
Maybe this is really a variation of the sunk cost fallacy or something similar, where if something seems to exist in some form, then people can't get their minds around the fact htat only 20 minutes of it actually exists and the rest simply doesn't and needs to be written if they want it to.
EDIT: all these downvoters are wrong. You say "now you have both wasted time" but the 20 minutes wasn't debt. It was the cost of the call option. For example in the other poster's example where a salesperson sold some code that didn't exist, his non-programming version of it wasn't debt toward the final thing: it was the cost he paid for the call option of being able to sell the whole thing. Hopefully he sold the option under cost :) his payment on the option has nothing to do with it.
Maybe she shouldn't be allowed to, and should consider that 20 minute code as not existing. (Because on day 1 of her week, she could have written it properly.)
Completely agree with this, and I wish it was said more often.
Prototypes are a valuable tool for testing hypotheses, but you have to discard them when testing is no longer all you're doing.
That means the key to responsible use of prototypes is to make sure you remain able to discard them! This is why shipping the prototype is so dangerous - because now you're locked into either maintaining the prototype, or a rewrite followed by a tricky, risky live migration.
I really don't buy this. Attribution of anyone is incredibly difficult. It's easy for the US to officially point fingers and turn it into a geopolitical play. There is every incentive to do so: it's plausible, the media buys it, and it buys major points in the Us vs. Them narrative.
This sends shivers down my spine. We already have net neutrality to worry about, no doubt the far right will be using this event to fear monger that kind of legislation.
I think the actual confusion is about a centralized distributed system vs a peer-to-peer distributed system, which is probably what (still totally wrong) PhD student meant.
I agree with you in that this is an excellent and demonstrably valuable use case for Bitcoin - we saw the same thing happen in Cyprus with the protests there.
I don't think I agree about this meaning there will be a bright future for it. Venezuela and Cyprus are unstable, extremely corrupt governments. Bitcoin thrives in that environment. A bet on Bitcoin seems to be a bet that those kinds of environments will endure and are inevitable, which is vaguely reminiscent of 2nd Amendmenters and the way they want their guns because it'll help them defend against the "corrupt, evil police state".
The problem is that America isn't actually a corrupt, evil police state and neither is it truly on the verge of imploding. I would bet against Bitcoin, at least in America, for this reason.
I haven't tried Boundary in a while, but I think they are focused on metrics. This indexes the transactions, so you can later search and do analytics on them.
The output looks a lot like what New Relic does, but the capture process is entirely different: This seems to sniff network traffic, while NR wraps your application code.
Actually Paperpile saves the files on Google Drive so you can always have a backup on your harddisk. You also can export your library as RIS or BibTeX so you are always in control of your data.
Getting the master password, itself, need not be trivial. Mine is in my head and in my wallet. And, even if you happen to stumble across one of my passwords, you can't derive any other passwords from it.
Well, the difference is that if I compromise any of the sites you use, I now know all your passwords. If I compromise any of the sites you use when you use a password manager properly, I'll only know one password that'll be fairly useless to me.
Compromising one of these passwords does not at all mean that all the other passwords are compromised. You can't figure out the original master password from a hashed, compromised password.
All I have to do is figure out what you named the site that I compromised, then do exactly what I'd usually do to recover your password, and, voila, I can now access all sites you use it for. Compare this to the password manager example where each password has been generated at random--one password communicates no information whatsoever about the other.
Ok, so you know that "facebook" is part of the original hash. Not following how you can also derive "mypassword" from it. If you have a good strong master password, rainbow tables won't be able to crack the hash.
