1,324 karma · joined July 21, 2014
As someone else pointed out, "what about proprietary HTML and CSS?"
Stallman has no ability to recognize the need for others to protect their own work, he only wants his free access to the fruits of others' labor.
Don't want to run proprietary JavaScript? Then bite the f'ing bullet and don't visit websites that have it. Don't expect everyone else to conform to your wants.
> This knowledge can be applied to improve start-up performance for web apps that ship large JSON-like configuration object literals
Third paragraph...
> A good rule of thumb is to apply this technique for objects of 10 kB or larger — but as always with performance advice, measure the actual impact before making any changes.
I'd fire people who don't RTFM
The sprites would have to be hardcoded, instead of being interpreted from images. You would also have to be extra smart about what you're calculating/rendering, but keep in mind that your screen is probably only 40 characters wide, so the amount to render is exponentially smaller.
You'd be amazed what can be done on those older computers when the developer understands how the processors work on the ground level.
At the very least it'd be an impressive tech demo for something like the Commander X16[0], a new 6502 based computer running at 8mhz.
The Nokia KaiOS devices come with built in Google services, which instantly disqualify them for me. I don't trust that information from those phones aren't being seeded to Google.
He has a long history of using forums meant for technology discussion to promote borderline (and that's generous) social opinions, and of being openly hostile to people who don't tow his line. In this instance he ridiculously downplayed the most egregious instances of sex trafficking of minors, by a horridly evil individual... who happened to donate almost a million dollars to him!
His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein.
For all of us that don't worship Stallman - I consider him a net negative to the FOSS movement - this has been a long time coming. It would have been a deserved resignation in a normal social environment.
If you can knowingly continue to buy products from a regime that is so evil it preserves and dissects political dissidents, then sends them around the world as "human body exhibits" then that's on you. I've decided to do everything within my power to not support that evil, only buying a Chinese made product if there is absolutely no other option, and if I absolutely need the product.
* With the introduction of a market economy in the 70s and 80s, but retaining full party control of that economy, they fulfilled the economic definition of fascism.
* With their oppression of the Uighur and Tibetan people they have met the ethno-nationalist definition.
We continue to economically support them at our own peril. If you're watching what's happening in Hong Kong and continue to buy Chinese products, when alternatives are available, you're knowingly funding evil.
Who cares what the CIA did 60 years ago? Why isn't NPR reporting on what they may be doing now?
That type of wording belies a destructive approach to the problem. What I'm told is "lack of competence" is often someone not being trained properly, or leadership that decided to make a deadline no matter what, or a junior dev that got called a senior dev to fill a seat at a cheaper rate, or someone who knew they didn't have the skills but didn't want to admit it and lose their job.
The other thing I often find is that regular complaining about other people's code is usually projection. The less forgiving someone is the more likely that their code and architectural decisions suck even more than the people they're complaining about.
There's a senior dev at my job who openly craps on other dev teams as incompetent - to the point that he literally says, "those guys are fucking stupid and their code sucks". This guy never documents his own work, makes inflexible architectural decisions that don't take anyone else into account, and generally causes hours worth of workaround code for me every month.
I can't help but feel that having such an extremist as the face of the FSF has greatly hindered it in its mission.
These are the same activists posing as journalists that label someone like Joe Rogan "alt-right adjacent" because he's willing to have a conversation with people right of center.
That in itself is a false assumption and generalization.
Are we talking product or culture? Because, if it's culture, then startup vs. established company doesn't matter anymore. Either can have good or crap culture, and what is good/crap is wholly subjective, and usually more dependent on where the employee is in their life than the company.
For example, I could care less what amenities I have and how nice everyone is if I don't get to go home and put my kids to bed except once in a blue moon. I could care less about working from home if I'm expected to crawl out of bed in the middle of the night and work during fire drills that always seem to happen.
The question is, are you in programming primarily because you love the art, are you in it to stroke your ego, because it's bleeding edge, or a combo of both?
Startups convince low-level employees with minuscule equity that they should care as much about the company as the founders through stroking of egos. I'm not making the argument that you shouldn't work for a startup, I'm making the argument that working as a everyday software engineer at a startup is almost always a bad, long-term career investment for experienced engineers.
Some of the most gratifying work I've done is on extremely tedious problems for majorly boring products. The fact that the product is boring and technical lowers the amount of drama around it, allowing you to focus on the programming you love.
The most stressful and least gratifying work I've ever done was on the multiple "sexy" and "ground breaking" products I've worked on. Those products attract snake oil salesmen and shady execs looking to make a quick buck, and who make daily life at the company a nightmare.
Another thing is the $250k/$150k numbers you give. That shows a very valley-centric view. There are parts of the US where you can work for tier 1-2 companies and where that same $150k is the equivalent of $300k in the valley.
The equity piece is just percentages. If I go to a "startup" in series D and get 0.01% of the company, it better be a frickin' unicorn, because it'd have to sell for $1B for me to make $100k, at best. If I'm a cofounder and have 25% of the company, it only needs to sell for $400k for me to make the same amount.
Never mind that you'd make that $100k difference within a few years, being paid market rate at an established company, and probably get to go home at 5. Now imagine what happens if you put that extra $25-30k you're making into the company's matching 401k, because they actually have one. And you get real raises instead of more stock options that may wind up worthless. And if things go sour you just go to another company, because your investments aren't based on the success of the dysfunctional company you're currently working for.
You're much better off either finding a VP or C-level position at a much smaller startup, or doing your own side project. At least when you're working at 3am, because the only client wants something by tomorrow, you'll know that all the net will go into your own bank account.
I don't buy it - at least not fully. There are too many stories of totally random stuff talked about showing up in feeds to make this excuse totally plausible.
Hell, it was less than a year ago that you'd get brushed off with, "no, people aren't listening to the things you're saying to your home device, it's only run through NLP."
Because Microsoft realizes that the only people who actively use LinkedIn are recruiters and foreign outsourcing salespeople (posing as hot girls) trying to weasel into the networks of people they don't know. Monetizing what used to be unacceptable behavior on the network is the only way for them to make it profitable.