I found it pretty surprising. It would not have surprised me at all if we made fake plastic feathers and burned or buried even more real ones because it works out fractionally 'cheaper' to make new then collect and wash/treat the old.
Honestly, I’d still be surprised to learn feathers in America are produced from American poultry. Far more likely the local ones get burned and everything for sale is shipped across the ocean because cheaper.
This is what I don't get with a lot of the AI based saas projects - what is your value add? If you can build it with AI then (in theory) your customer can also build it with ai, so why do they need you? In the SaaS world you don't because the cost of development and maintenance just doesn't scale well, but if you're 99% a wrapper around an AI, your 'business' feels easily replicable to me.
But that does leave a weird gap where SaaSes that took a lot of time to make but can now be handled by an Ai won't survive either. If the business stays hand-coded it costs too much to be viable, if it moves to Ai it looses any advantage over doing it youself.
As a largely solo dev I found I can't estimate well unless it's a common task, and it's easy to find tasks grow exponentially if it touches too many layers.
Asking "how long do you want me to spend on this?" got better results, because I got more idea how important tasks were to the business and can usually tell if something is going to take longer than they want. (Or know when we need to discuss scoping it back, or just abandoning the feature)
It also helps because software is one of the rare engineering fields where code is non-destrictive and can be changed after the fact.
The carpenters trick of measure many times, cut once, can instead just be cut and re-size if wrong size, which can often be quicker.
Asking how long they want me to spend on it also let's me know how solid it needs to be engineered. Is it something that needs doing right then first time, or do we just want something rough that we can refine later with feedback.
I think that that's how you solve the estimate problem - by having an understanding of how many layers it's going to touch, and how big of a change it's going to be for each layer.
Less effectively too (depending how you travel). Most hotel rooms I'm there for a couple of days min, most normally a vacation week. I settle in, move the chair somewhere sensible, unpack clothes and charge, set up for the short term. Poster seems to be talking about very short lived instances where you can kill them at any time. I'm never able to leave a hotel room at a moments notice - that's where my stuff is...
Pets vs Cattle seems much more clear, cattle is there to be culled, you feed it, look after it, but you don't get attached. If the herd has a week member you kill it.
I'd be a heartless farmer, but that analogy radically improved my infrastructure.
It doesn't seem that confusing. The blog post says that they "proactively communicated with all impacted customers" not that they've only emailed impacted customers. Recieving an email doesn't imply you were affected, just that the lack of all email saying "you were affected" means you were not impacted by this event.
In the event you had closed your account a year ago they may have deleted your information from their systems. No way for you to be impacted, but also no way to tell you that, so the lack of the email is the message in that case.
The fact an email was sent from their system implies they kept at least the email. from there one could assume they may have kept more data than the email, I would also be confused, especially if I only was emailed after the incident
> In the event you had closed your account a year ago they may have deleted your information from their systems.
Given what I know about data life cycle implementations there is a very good chance that that data was still there unless the GP explicitly requested it be deleted.
Companies tend to hang on to all kinds of data that they shouldn't have.
The fact that they received an email is a first indication that it wasn't deleted.
hacker news, Reddit and similar have always been about following subjects or topics you like, getting the latest discussion in a field of your interest. twitter was all about following people not topics, so you'd get a wider range of topics, but you tended to focus on accounts more and give more weight to specific users than you might here.
If you followed a variety of people it was quite addictive - so many celebrities or other notable people meant you got actual "first hand news", and it was fun seeing everyone join in on silly jokes and games and whatever, that doesn't hit quite as hard when it's just random usernames not "people".
But it suffered for that success, individual voices got drowned out in favour of the big names, the main way to get noticed becoming more controversial statements, and the wildly different views becoming less free flowing discussion and more constant arguments.
It was fun for a while if you followed fun people, but I think the incentives of such systems means it was always going to collapse as people worked out how to manipulate it.
Honestly it kinda is. Ai bots scrape everything now, social media means you can go viral suddenly, or you make a post that angers someone and they launch an attack just because. I default to cloudflare, because like an umbrella I might just be carrying it around most of the time, but in the case of a sudden downpoor it's better than getting wet.
Not how the terms slavery and taxation are usually defined no.
If you choose to reduce them to such a level you ignore all their differences and focus on some carefully termed similarities you could make the case they're the same for that specific definition I suppose.
In what way? Companies drop/move on from small customers all the time as positions and analysis changes. $5 a month might make sense now, but with thin profits, a lower than predicted "upgrade rate" and maybe a higher than anticipated support cost etc and this becomes a less profitable option without price increases, which loses customers causing more increases because of none scalable costs etc.
Throw in a change of leadership or business focus and it's an easy short term boost to drop the many smaller customers and focus on the big fish who make the real money.
It's a common pattern, echoed over many industries, and while you might not see it being likely here right now, if the concept literally doesn't make sense to you, you need to look up some basic business ideas because it's a pretty valid concern.
I assume his idea was that you have to come through the enter page so you read the disclaimer. I don't think he really cares about design conventions or making it easy, it's a tiny outlet for him rather than a thing built for others
reply