Gitlab has an excellent free plan, in fact it’s so good I honestly don’t understand how they can afford it and doubt it will last (but really hope it will for individual developers). They even give you Docker registries and thousands of CI hours.
Switched to Firefox for work and home. It feels like Chrome did in the early days. No, it’s not faster than Chrome. Yes, there are a couple of dev features that I no longer find intuitive. I just mean in the sense that it is really focused on users. Chrome is focused on advertisers. The change has mostly been painless, and I’m a Web developer.
At this point I just don’t trust Google nor Chrome. All the incentives are there for Google to turn Chrome into adware. The evidence is pointing in that direction. And the trust is no longer there.
It’s funny to think about (and this is of course a gross caricature) but Chrome feels more and more like they took all the annoying adware/bloatware from the 2000s and disguised it in a browser—except they figured out how to do it without anybody noticing. Today, we are all Grandma.
Serious question: why just the executives? I know everybody needs a job to get by, but there’s an expression for getting by by getting kids hooked on harmful drugs: being a shitbum drug dealer. There should be some consequences when it comes to earning your living by damaging the health of children.
I never said 'just', but you've got to start somewhere and there is nowhere better to start than at the top. When people lower down the food chain are the first targets, there is a nasty tendency for the matter to stop there. (First rule of plumbing: shit flows downhill...)
Can’t disagree with you there. I don’t know how these people sleep at night. The taint should extend to any firm that consults for them. I don’t care how many adults really do use them as cessation devices, they are clearly intended to be used by children.
Your first point isn’t a matter of opinion. Competition and innovation have been steadily declining, and monopsony (wage-setting power) concentrating. These aren’t just the musings of some random know-it-all on some tech board, they are reality. Look it up.
Your second point is just whataboutism. Investigating Google now doesn’t mean Equifax can’t be investigated later.
This is somewhat incorrect. There are finite resources in the US justice system. Investigating Google now does hinder investigation of Equifax. Furthermore, momentum for prosecution in a class of business begets greater public support for prosecution of other businesses in that class. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial belief that tech companies deprioritize Conservative opinions and content. We should not ignore the political component to these prosecutions.
Your first point is correct, however. Competition in some fields is declining; Amazon is the dominant internet retailer by a large margin. Google has even larger dominion over the online ad space, save for walled gardens. Investigation of large tech companies is justified on its merits. It is likely that some companies have not broken any laws, but there is value to investigation.
Happy to look it up. Can you point me to some sources that measure competition and innovation? One yardstick could be the number of new businesses per year, which is increasing per this article from two years ago [0].
I am not trying to what-about around Google possibly having some skeletons in their closet - just pointing out that the company screaming "hey, I'm handling data irresponsibly" is not being investigated, but the ones that have been the target of techno-fear-mongering smear campaigns are. Makes me question that the motivation of the investigation is not actually to benefit the average consumer.
And on a larger note in terms of media distribution and delivery, I feel like we’ve regressed to something even worse and more frustrating than the 20th century model
I think this is accurate, having lived all over CA and the Northeast. Northeastern cities build shelters because otherwise homeless people would freeze to death in the winter, though. Sometimes the shelters are only available during the freezing months.
We didn't used to build shelters. There was an entire riot in the 80s when the cops removed a homeless encampment that had entirely taken over Tomkins Sq Park in the East Village.
I don't know when we started building them (I'm a transplant, circa 2008) but I know there was a qualitative difference from when I'd been to the city in the early 00s versus when I moved so I assume Bloomberg was responsible for building more.
There was a Federal lawsuit and consent decree that forced NYC to house homeless people.
It had a lot of negative impact on poor people in general. Mentally ill homeless people skipped the line for subsidized housing and had an outsized impact on crime and quality of life issues in public housing.
Recent policies to guarantee housing has made NYC something of a magnet. If you live upstate, you may need to wait a year (or more) for a Section 8 voucher, or you can show up in NYC and have interim housing in 48 hours.
Most of the visible homeless related issues are a result of the elimination of involuntary commitment. Without supervision, people won’t take the medications they need because the side effects suck. It’s an impossible problem with no solution.
> It had a lot of negative impact on poor people in general. Mentally ill homeless people skipped the line for subsidized housing and had an outsized impact on crime and quality of life issues in public housing.
I don't know much about this but there's got to be more to that story. Personally, I'm more than okay with policies that attract some additional homeless people to our city if it means that (1) those people get to sleep in a bed each night and (2) there are fewer people sleeping on NYC streets in general.
What I legitimately don't understand is why there are still so many people sleeping on the street...
Sounds like you’ve advanced in your career by undermining your teammates and sacrificing professionalism in order to win praise from people who are willing to put systems and users at risk without understanding the co sequences.
I understand your point, which basically boils down to the axiom of managing expectations. But sacrificing professionalism is not something that should be accepted as normal, let alone celebrated as clever. It’s the oldest trick in the book.
