[flagged]
I don't get it, the code is going into maintenance mode. It's still usable and forkable, isn't it? Is Google obligated to pay people to work on it forever?
In Google's case, they often will create an open source project in license, but not community. They take the reigns and hold them so tightly that if they let go, nobody is there to pick them up. Compare this to projects created by a single individual: for those to grow in contributors, diversification happens automatically. Transitioning a project in a healthy way requires others to already be actively contributing, and probably in a minor leadership role.
The thing here isn't that Google is obligated to spend engineering resources on this forever. It's that the systemic risk of choosing a major Google product at first appears low because Google is one of the most successful companies in existence. However, it's actually very high because they have a history of the above behavior.
The last example of this was the Marc Rebillet performance at Google I/O. The mother of all cringe.
If it was just one employee having fun - whatever! Who cares! My point should be taken in context with the rest of Google’s juvenile image problems, even as they play with fire.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wwk1QIDswcQ&pp=ygUVTWFyYyBSZWJ...
Edit: Also, for those still not following me on the profile image, it’s because it’s kink: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40791195
>"When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
― C.S. Lewis
But seriously, Lewis was not a fan of immaturity. “Childish” endeavors is one thing like fairy tales - but do you think even children would like the Google IO performance?
You're complaining about the warmup entertainment at a tech conference???
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40791158
I wouldn’t trust the person who made the above to drive me to the gas station.
Who green lights garbage like that?
This is extremely sensible for for-profit corporation and institutional practices. But it makes hosting a website from home far, far more complex, fragile and gives all websites a very short lifetime (just months) without continued active mantainence. Normal HTTP+HTTPS websites are visitable forever without doing anything. And that's ignoring the problems of CA centralization and censorship. Having to ask permission from a corporation to host a website is absurd. It is not required in HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/2.
HTTP+HTTPS is the most robust and accepted solution to CA TLS problems but HTTP/3 doesn't allow it.
And wearing a collar is not performkng anything kinky.
I see nothing explicit in that necklace.
Maybe to you it does have some additional meanings, hell maybe it does to her as well, but so do wedding rings, and I’m going to go out on a limb and say you aren’t critiquing people for having profile pics with those.
I guess people with this knowledge are probably part of that subculture, not sure why would they be pothered by that fact. For others, like me it looks like random necklet.
You may not think it's appropriate for a workplace, but their employer clearly does or they wouldn't be employed.
Why does it matter that it has a significance beyond "it's pretty"? As long as it's not obviously discriminatory in nature (like a necklace full of swastikas), then why does it have to pass your "decency" tests?
I literally just see a normal person’s profile pic? Are they meant to be corporate/employer logos or something?
I need you to be super clear here because her profile pic looks like pretty much anyone else’s so I’m trying to give you the opportunity to explain what is wrong with it, rather than making any assumptions about what you think is wrong.