> I am quite surprised and a bit disappointed that almost none of them have RSS.
I think it's on purpose. It is to signal that these (those without RSS) aren't really "engineering" blogs at all, they're marketing websites aimed to help with recruiting and making the organization seem "engineering-like".
Exactly, so if the blog doesn't have RSS, you know they're probably made from marketers with no input from engineering, otherwise they'd have RSS on the blogs.
Edit: Ah, noticed I made a without/with typo, fixed that, should make about 2% more sense now for the ones who the original meaning was unclear :)
> It is to signal that these (those with RSS) aren't really "engineering" blogs at all
So now when I corrected that with/without typo, it looks like your previous comment doesn't make sense, but it kind of did, at the time. Sorry about that and thanks for making me realize the typo!
"Self-Organizing Social Learning Through the Monastery Gates" ( Rose M. Baker & David L. Passmore : The Pennsylvania State University ; 2005 )
"Abstract
An example of an emergent, self-organizing on-line social
learning system is available at the PerlMonks site at
http://perlmonks.org/. Perl is a scripting language
commonly used to as an interface between databases and
web pages. Provided in this paper is a review of principles
of emergent, self-organizing systems from a perspective
of learning systems as well as case study of PerlMonks as
self-organizing eLearning."
Consider the other perspective: how should Perl programmers feel when Google's index becomes the main criterion for what is considered important or not? This creates a circular dependency that can erase genuine technical contributions from the historical record.
This « rule » is infuriating. Google searches are tailored to serve us content that might interest us. In this case, Google search first page returns plenty of notable results for me. Might not be the case for a person interested in geology and dogs, though.
How could such a biased thing be a valid WikiPedia criteria?
I wasn't defending wikipedia or engaging on a penis fight on the internet for no reason. I added context, because it seemed you misunderstood this specific Wikipedia rule, and considering how cryptic wikipedia is, and how often i myself misunderstood rules on wikipedia (or stackoverflow) or even in general, i thought it was the same to you and adding more information would have cleared things out.
If your original post does not come from a misunderstanding but some culture war bullshit or whatever, my bad probably, but i'd rather you go on reddit or something else, i'll probably still read you, but assume it's culture war or ragebait and leave you alone.
""""Their request “was actually the first time a complaint came to my desk directly,” Martin van den Berg, a co-editor-in-chief of the journal, told Retraction Watch. The article was published long before he took over, said van den Berg, a toxicologist at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, and “it was simply not brought to my attention” until Kaurov and Oreskes’ article. The retraction “could have been done as early as 2017, but it is clearly a case of two parallel information streams not connecting earlier,” he said.""""
https://engineering.fb.com/
https://netflixtechblog.com/
https://stripe.com/blog/engineering
https://eng.uber.com
https://engineering.linkedin.com/
https://engineering.atspotify.com/
https://tailscale.com/blog
https://careersatdoordash.com/engineering-blog/
https://dropbox.tech/
--
Aggregators:( https://engineering.fyi/ ; https://diff.blog/ )
+ https://hn.algolia.com/?query=engineering%20blog
---
create a public engineering-blog SKILL.md. ( ~ collect the writing patterns that work on HN )
reply