breeny592

Making recordings of meetings that are setting out to make decisions or even just discuss things in deep detail means people who weren't able to attend, or are just interested in the discussion had, are able to watch it on demand.

> I personally like that Apple attempts to make websites feel more like applications by making the browser disappear.

Now if they could provide a stable platform like they do for their applications versus the pain and edge cases Safari almost always introduces (especially the mobile implementations). I know its not a flashy thing but one WWDC it'd be great if they came out and said how many nearly decade old bugs have been addressed rather than a UI uplift - the cynic in me assumes a "redesigned" app is going to be less, not more stable.

It's actually become an interview question for me of "is there a bonus scheme" where I'm hoping the answer is actually no. I've yet to work in a company that has a structured bonus scheme that hasn't resulted in a worse culture for it.

The worst was in a company where your max bonus was depending on getting a "5 out of 5" performance review - however the whole business unit needed to average out to a particular number (I'm fairly sure it needed to be down the middle at 3 out of 5). What this meant was for every exceptional employee, someone else had to be under-performing in the eyes of the company. The end result was two types of teams: no one would rock the boat or have any initiative so everyone was perfectly average, or completely cut throat attitudes leading to burn out and animosity.

YMMV but to date I haven't had a good time in a company that has bonus schemes (even if I personally have financially benefited from it - the cost came at culture, stress and work life balances).

It feels like one of those things where the context of the meeting/call should be taken in: was the scheduled time of this call for an hour and you've left 10 minutes in, maybe a confirmation dialog is more useful than when you've decided to leave within a few minutes of the finish time. Doesn't cover all the edge cases etc., but just observing that "the right UX" is super contextual and not a one size fits all thing.

Epic put the prices at the same level that they already sell V-bucks for via the Epic game store. I don't buy the argument that they would jack those prices back up to the other levels when if they had the ability to process payments themselves, would then be consistent across platforms.

> I mean I still think myself the 30% are too high, but Epic lining up your kids in front of a virtual stage to make them all hate Apple? It concerns me quite a bit!

Whilst I in principal agree mostly with Epic over Apple in this case, I completely agree with you here that the whole video approach was gaudy (at best) and a bit of unfair exposition.

And to the average person who probably would just use the native app store, nothing would change. But people who are more comfortable with less polished apps that do utilities that they want to play with (or experiment with), they're missing out because of Apples restrictive policies.

> I rather give 30% of the money Epic takes for basically selling digital nothing to millions of teens to Apple. At least Apple is doing something with that money, maintaining the App Store, providing and developing tools like XCode and Swift.

Epic also would be spending some of their money on their own development, improvement to games etc. I don't quite follow the line of argument here - if things are 30% more expensive to cover Apples costs, then the consumer is the one losing out in the transaction.

Or sort by both artist, and original release date.

But they also have a pretty good API with generous limits. Really need to find the effort to restart work on my "spotify shuffle/playlist" style app that uses your collection to build out a play session. Had a lot of momentum at the start of covid and just fell off.

Yeah I definitely sit strongly in the former camp (that is, navigation should be in the same tab for anything that is your content).

When linking externally or to something that isn't yours, I feel it makes sense to go to a new tab then.

> someone did make a claim, that I was unable to verify, that modern users don’t use the back button and therefore relying on it to allow users to find their way back is unacceptable

I think this person is projecting their own experiences. Would be interesting to see the impact that mobile browser experiences have brought to these interactions, but for instance Android has a literal OS wide back button. I think that claim is a pretty far stretch.

> Complexity. This is the enemy, the second enemy is bad attempts to reduce complexity which often end up adding more complexity than they take away, just harder to find.

This is true at every level of the systems design process - often by trying to make a system "simpler" i.e. less complex for the end user, the complexity is shifted further down the stack into application code, or even to the underlying infrastructure.

It's easy for those of us with technical backgrounds to see the beauty and simplicity in well designed interfaces, but as the realm of computing and computer interaction shifts away from technical to non-technical people, we start to absorb some of that complexity into our systems design to make up for knowledge shortcomings of end users.

Your example of sed being better than the "fancy data tools" I feel is a good one - whilst sed is incredibly powerful for this use case, if the consumer of what needs to be run there only knows how to use excel, it's often required to create these abstraction layers to allow the end user to do their own primary function/role.

I get your sentiment but your reply implies online gaming really only came along after Skyrim.

Skyrim came out in 2011, the online first/focus of at least AAA games was prevalent well before that.

What if your chatting was also at a lower volume for other groups so if one group organically disbands, can pre-hear what some groups are talking about to join in. Feels like a pretty natural experience in social gatherings.

Union busting is the norm sadly in the USA. Never forget the organisations that actually led to the workers of the world achieving a better standard of living*

*until mass consumerism and racing to the bottom led to these massive organisations flouting human rights but just out of view of the average consumer

But it's the difference between building the smallest wall to completion first versus going the whole way around the outside layer by layer.

Showing one thing that is complete is better than partial progress everywhere.

And look at the companies that publicly advocate for things such as battery storage, typically they have vested interests in things such as lithium.

Nuclear gets thrown about because it's an easy pivot for mining companies - especially in Australia which has a powerful mining lobby and large amounts of both coal and uranium.

Imagine what possibilities there would be if humanity finds a way to power all its current and future needs that produces no harmful side effects rather than trying to equate science fiction with reality.

> (Energy storage isn’t advanced enough to take traditional baseload offline

Because traditional baseload isn't a concept in a fully renewable grid - distributed storage and production naturally evens out demand and production, and also makes the grid more resilient to freak weather events (the kind we see more and more thanks to climate change)

> You’re not going to factories on Mars or asteroid belt mining operations with solar.

You're not doing them with anything at the moment so whats the point of conjecture. You really think that energy is the biggest concern over, you know, the colonisation of space?

> Renewables will not get us there in time, even if they might be viable at some point.

Construction of new nuclear plants takes on average 7.5 years, and are extremely prone to cost overruns and delays. Renewables are a much faster and cheaper option to come online, be profitable and allow for shutdown of legacy infrastructure in the same period of time.

And they are viable now - several countries have run for days and weeks on renewables alone. Several regions of Germany are also fully renewable powered.

Nuclear gets pointed to because the mining companies still have a large role to play in digging material out of the ground for nuclear energy. Lobbyists gon' lobby.

As an asset, much like coal power stations, they require huge Government subsidies to be profitable to run.

Renewables are the only way forward - they've proven to be far more efficient, stable, and infinitely cheaper when mixed across multiple mediums.

> Too much of the "new" stuff is not just a good natural evolution of people solving problems

I guess it depends on what you're lumping in with "new stuff". I've experience the opposite quite a lot of refusal to acknowledge that a new constraint or condition has modified the parameters of what a solution is trying to solve, dismissed as one off events or something to monitor, then 6 months later when the problem was isolated becoming the new norm, and monkey patches being required because of refusal to acknowledge that the environment has become more complex.

Smells of bad UX/design process - some senior "wants" this particular solution, despite their users showing direct feedback that it doesn't work for their needs.

I'd be curious to see the download numbers of Atom since VS Code's meteoric rise a few years ago. As an ex-atom user, I was initially hesitant to move over as I found VSCode "awkward", but many quality of life patches sold me on it and haven't been back

Failure to standardise is a sign of a disfunctioning organisation - effectively the embodiment of Conway's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law)

Have worked in organisations where they would rather build something from the ground up every 1-2 years because the organisation has shifted so heavily on what it wants to do/achieve with the same product, and engineering wasn't given the time to properly architect the solution to be adaptable. But the business would insist on having X feature from before and often the easiest way to achieve that was to build micro front ends.

The solution to that wasn't "building them right", it was making them as bad and horrible as possible to point out that the business, their culture and organisation was the problem, not the technology. And when that didn't work, resigning.

> Today, Unix powers iOS and Android

How about the vast majority of the web? Have we hit the tipping point of technology ubiquity where people identify their phone more than the sheer size of the internet that actually enables this devices to function? Maybe "back in my day" syndrome has finally come for me too.

This falls back to the classic thing - if your market is commoditised, then your product needs to be an experience to drive your revenue. And in all likely-hood, dog walking is not an industry "ripe for disruption" with enhanced experiences. Ride sharing took off because the experience of cabs was (in my experience) pretty much universally abysmal across the globe, and Uber/Lyft etc. actually provided a service that gave you a better experience.

The reality, as the commenters said in the linked reddit discussion, is that Wag has no real way to enforce this. Unsure on laws in the USA, but that provision would be highly illegal under Australian competition laws as exclusive sourcing is a finable offence, so have to assume similar provisions exist over there too in one way or another.

Great work from the React team on this release - it's exciting to see some big enabling features like suspense and lazy being baked into the library (rather than falling back on solutions like react-loadable).

Because there's standardisation beyond just where the app/server/whatever is going to run in production - having a standard way to spin up, describe and control applications & their dependencies that works cross OS lets developers & devops speak the same language, with the same commands.

Is docker the silver bullet for this? No, there's tons of other options. But "everyone should use Debian and Fedora" isn't a realistic standardisation.

One thing looking at this (and other solutions like CSS modules etc.) is how to automate E2E testing when you don't have predictable CSS names.

Seems like the discussions some communities (like with Cypress) where dedicated unchanging test attributes should be used, which makes sense to decouple visual selectors from test based selectors.

Yep - the main thing that Jest gives out of the box is jsdom, so allows for dom based testing without needing phantom (or more modern now, headless browser).

I also find it's faster and has better features than Mocha (for instance, coverage out of the box).

I think tooling is coming a long way to help with these - take for instance BEM. CSS modules is a great way to avoid needing BEM, as the bundler is handling the uniqueness of the classname for you (during minification etc.).

This is just the nature of web development - almost every tech in the stack is flawed, but tools and best practices make some sanity out of the chaos.

>Your interpretation of the quote is that middle managers don't provide value, but I think that may be too broad. I understood it as "highly formalized process often rewards middle managers", which I do think is true.

I agree, but I don't think that's a bad thing - I think something that rewards management, rewards the team as a whole. If the PO/PM overcommits, it's the team as a whole who suffers. Likewise, if targets are smashed, the team gets recognition.

As such my interpretation wasn't that middle management is bad, but that formalised development processes are bad, which is what I fundamentally disagree with.

Businesses as they grow end up having abstractions on abstractions. Formalising development processes allows for the business to actually be aware of what it's doing, how effectively it's being done, and where opportunities lay for improvements.

Don't get me wrong - too much management creates warrantless red tape and frustrations, however standardising the development process through things like Jira (which the author was complaining about) doesn't fall into that bucket (in my opinion), especially when the author compares that the same can be done with a blank sheet of paper - if senior management want a rough understanding of the roadmap for the next 12 months, why would you "forecast" with some guessing on paper, over actual proven data of this is roughly how this team performs, this is the rough estimates on these initiatives, ergo, we can commit to these X projects.