It is very bad. I spent the last year or so rebuilding a system with a fundamental architecture error that it would likely be fighting against for decades. My reward? The refactor was so difficult to do that I ended up getting dinged on timeline. And promotions got delayed
The incentive structures at big companies are out of whack. Instead of the original developer, who was promoted to staff engineer, gettting dinged for making the mistake, I got dinged for not fixing it fast enough, and my career slowed down as a result.
The refactor was incredibly difficult and launched without issue and I am probably back on track for a promotion, but I have started to make noise about the incentives being askew
this is excellent advice and one of the ways i have gotten back on the horse after falling off is to restrain myself from feeling guilty for easing back into it by only running 10 minutes or so on a mostly level route. running a little every day is much much better than not running at all
Imagine generalizing about any other group of people like this - ‘Myth of the good X.'
Billionaires are not going to get a lot of sympathy, but it’s repugnant to characterize entire groups of people with the same brush.
The problem with this kind of rhetoric is that it overplays your hand, and therefore ends up detracting from your core points. Most of us want wealth inequality lessened. Demonizing one group over another is not going to get us there.
I find I am so overwhelmed by getting by at work and by taking care of all the assorted tasks I need to in order to keep functioning that I have literally no energy left to socialize or find people
to hang out with. Has the world gotten more chaotic and require more
of us to stay afloat or is it just me?
Fair enough - however, what would the equivalent of this look like for invested assets? We are basically forced to sell to cover every year to pay taxes on accrued value?
I'm a little baffled why there have been all these articles of this category recently. It's not news that you don't pay taxes on invested assets you hold and don't sell. That's how it works for everyone who invests their savings. This isn't a 'tax-avoidance' tactic - it's just what owning something is. Are we really advocating for a world where you are taxed just for appreciation? Maybe we are but at least be honest about it - that this would be a radical change from the current concept of ownership.
I'm all for taxing the wealthy more, but I personally don't want to pay taxes yearly on an index fund I've held for 10 years and don't plan to sell until I retire, at which point I will pay taxes on the gains.
really dislike the doublespeak here. speaks very poorly of this man’s leadership. either blame the engineer or don’t, but don’t try to have it both ways
the truth is developers at individual companies should only have to focus on the business logic that individuate those companies. all the other concerns - logging, autoscaling, security, messaging, routing, data storage - are very similar company to company. this leads me to believe that some sort of serverless workflow engine will be the next big thing.
problem right now is that the developer story behind lambdas and step functions is horrible and leads to lock in. that will need to be solved. whoever solves it will be very rich indeed.
usually businesses use auditing tables to track this, usually by setting up triggers to insert a row into the auditing table
any time a delete, update or insert occurs on the original
I think that's probably a good heuristic but it's actually just a proxy for the underlying domain separation, which is actually why two things should go into different services.
to add to the confusion the Quadra 605 and the Performa 475 were actually the same machine. I know because i had the Performa 475 ( and performed the very after market upgrade you refer to, so I could run Infini-D and other 3d modelling packages)
He admits ‘At some point Scott would have to choose which role he wanted to play full time.’ And then immediately negates himself by saying ‘But that should have been his decision. What right did the New York Times have to make that decision for him?’ The answer is: because they are a newspaper. I dislike NYT as much as anyone (mostly because of their focus on access journalism). But The New York Times is still a newspaper. Their job is to report the news, and much of the time they do so it is against the personal or professional interests of the people they are reporting on. in many cases not reporting the news against those interests would actually be a violation of their own professional ethics. It is not their job to help someone tightrope walk the ethics of their profession in the precarious way they’ve chosen. The author here admits that the anonymous blogger at the center of this controversy is walking such a tightrope, at their own risk. Isn’t that on them? lots of people would like to remain anonymous.
would you like to live in a world where the New York times lets powerful people who are doing awful, unethical things remain anonymous as they would like to? wouldn’t that be the opposite of journalism? so what’s different here? the fact that we are ok with or even admire what the subject is doing? and why should the ny times care about that?
with respect i think it's a combination. business demands value delivery and features on a constant basis, and programmers are constantly layering crap over crap in order to deliver. nobody stops and says "hey, wait a second - let's pause, and figure out how we're going to invest now to make the changes you're asking for easier in the future." programmers need to learn to identify when this is happening (a technical skill) and demand change, and product needs to learn to listen and understand the consequences of not heeding this advice. because after 5 - 10 years of 100 different people working on a given system, the complexity becomes unmanageable, and the business grinds to a halt. and then heads start to roll. and yet the people demanding the new features now are never going to have suffer the consequences, because they'll be off to another venture in 5 - 10 years.
Yes. as the article points out there's no way to reject an event based on some criteria that keeps the events internally consistent. for instance, two people can't check out the same item of inventory = 1. you need to first validate this event on the materialized view of the commit log to make sure the item is still available. however, what happens when your validation goes out of date? For example, what if there's an event checking the last inventory in the event log but the materialized view doesn't reflect that yet? you end up checking out the same inventory twice and promising it to both customers! not good.
DBs can solve this through optimistic locking (atomically making sure my new event applies to the version number of the previous event + 1, otherwise failing) but there's no way to do this in Kafka as far as I know (however, as this is a problem i'm currently facing, please feel free to let me know if there is)
This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere. If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API?
Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters of these arguments. And beyond that the conservative majority is predisposed to treat everything as property. This is not going to end well.
Why is "be a hero and go to a US prison" not an option? Civil disobedience always has a greater impact when you accept the consequences of your actions, or as Congressman John Lewis would call it, "good trouble."
The fact that we can only cite as governments possibly willing to grant asylum to Snowden non-democratic autocracies who have terrible records on surveillance, human rights and civil liberties should be a hint as to what their motives would be for giving him protection to begin with.
Right...but at the end of the day that's what intelligence is. You are just an interconnected model of billions of neurons that has been trained on millions of facts created by other humans. Except for this model can vastly exceed the amount of factual knowledge that you could possibly absorb over your entire lifetime.
this is why intel should be scared - very scared - that the PC world seems to be converting to ARM en masse. PCs might be a relatively small fraction of intel’s total sales, but it’s the second order effects they should be worried about. if it becomes less convenient for developers on ARM machines to develop and deploy software to x86 cloud architecture, they will begin to demand that the cloud architecture be shifted to ARM as well.