cinericius

Sad to see that they don't seem to have made it commercially viable. My hope is that the codebase will find a second life now that it is open source.

Looking at Dane's career history on LinkedIn, it appears that he has only ever been in product and some variety of manager, and his degree is in 'Engineering Management System'. It's an odd choice given that the previous two CTOs (Lee and John) were extremely technical and how core technology is to Cloudflare.

As with any organisation where the CTO is not technical, there will be someone who the 'CTO' has to ask to understand technical situations. In my opinion, that person being asked is the real CTO, for any given situation.

Is it hard to pull off? Give people a cut of the revenue from new paying customers who first visit by clicking their referral link. Everyone else does the work for you, but you lose control of the brand as people who only care about making a quick buck use your name to spam low-quality videos and medium articles.

They want to have control over where their code lives, and not have their code subject to the terms of the service of the platform they use.

For example, I might want to host my code privately on GitHub and not have Microsoft use it to train their LLMs. That doesn't seem to be possible:

https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/135400

https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/171080

I argue that the natural winner-take-all dynamics of the marketplace are not beneficial to the the mission of free and open source software. In fact, having no safeguard against large organisations making money this way is actually hugely detrimental to the mission by enabling these companies to ensnare unsuspecting users in a web of both their own proprietary software as well as all that free and open source software has to offer.

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is there is a strong feeling that AGPL can be roughly ignored if a service provider provides some level of indirection (e.g. a proxy) between the user and the software. Then, the software is somehow not being accessed over a network and thus they are not required to release the source.

As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source, and they'll get very upset at you if you claim it is.

I'd like to see some recognition from this crowd of the "free-ride competition" problem as this author puts it. What Herman is doing is a service to us all, and we should find a term (better than 'source-available', which is cold and doesn't capture community projects accurately) that people can promote themselves under without much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

EDIT from a comment in a thread way down, that summarises my point:

I argue that the natural winner-take-all dynamics of the marketplace are not beneficial to the the mission of free and open source software. In fact, having no safeguard against large organisations making money this way is actually hugely detrimental to the mission by enabling these companies to ensnare unsuspecting users in a web of both their own proprietary software as well as all that free and open source software has to offer.

Your GitHub profile is stellar, I can't imagine interviewers see one like yours very often.

Having problems with receiving push-related webhooks as well.

If it did exist, there's some delicious irony in an original paper on replicating data in a highly-available manner being lost.

Since the author mentions at the end that they were motivated to write and publish this as a part of a writing group, I'd like to say that this was a very pleasant read. Tightly-scoped but insightful and informative!

This is barely ever the case anymore but the quality can be very high. Especially if the people who are eligible to receive it is restricted. If you take the view that the value of standing out and snagging a top student is somewhere in the 6-7 figures, spending $100 a head on swag isn't at all unreasonable - most companies just don't see it that way.

> You seem to be saying that the lack of focus is caused by the perception of a permanent easy revenue stream. But I think the causation is actually the reverse of that. The lack of focus is more like a breadth first search for additional sustainable revenue streams undertaken because they know the golden goose can't lay eggs forever.

I think the difference is urgency. They probably do know that the golden eggs will stop coming at some point, but they don't believe it'll happen for a long while. Perhaps as a consequence of this, they very rarely commit to projects in a life-or-death way. At this point it's a HN trope to state this, but I do believe the reputational damage done by this lack of commitment to any of its fledgling projects is doing massive harm to Google's ability to find new revenue streams.

I love the main part of the foldout. I have no interest in art or watercolour painting but it really makes me want to give it a go.

What's the ballpark figure for the payments for this side project? $200 seems extreme unless your side project is charging $10,000~ per payment.

You could refer to Java as a "little known programming language" and use this as a defence.

Does an adblocker not solve this problem for you? I see very few advertisements day to day, but I go out of my way to not watch TV live and turn up to the cinema late because I dislike ads as much as it seems you do.

This isn't true. I've been banned and then unbanned in this exact scenario - they re-enabled my account after 2 days. I had my messages flagged as spam for a further 6 weeks, but it was eventually resolved. My only contact with Discord was emailing support@.

One of the reasons for this is probably that all (minus Stadia, it seems) of the products you've mentioned might have had bad starts but ended up gigantic successes:

>PS3

performed extremely well, beating Xbox 360 by a fairly thin margin.

>Gaikai

sold for $380M USD to Sony (most people consider this a success, even if you think it should have been more.)

>Xbox One

lost to the PS4 by a factor of two but was still successful (50 million est. lifetime sales)

Even if every single thing he was in charge of failed catastrophically, anyone who isn't looking closely is going to see someone with a huge amount of industry expertise working on some of the largest and most successful products to ever exist full stop (not just in gaming.)

I think you're right but that it's not necessarily a bad thing. Rust's truly killer features probably won't appeal to you on a visceral level until you've been on the wrong end of a thorny problem like a race condition. Otherwise you might think it's a needlessly strict C++ clone.

I wonder if a legal discovery will ever find internal status dashboards that reflect reality rather than fictitious SLA liability-aware status pages.

Essentially a promise to back you up in meetings and emails if/when someone else complains that OP is stepping on toes in their efforts to fix problems.

I would have a hard time telling an impressionable young person that it's their fault, though certainly buying any product through an advertisement encourages further advertisement.

In an ideal world we would all have the mental fortitude to dismiss such things but who hasn't had a moment where they felt inferior to others, especially at a young age?

>Citing his perspective as a parent, Mr. Zuckerberg pledged in his Facebook post his commitment to continuing to research and prioritize the welfare of children, framing their exposure to his products as inevitable. “The reality is that young people use technology,” he wrote. “Rather than ignoring this, technology companies should build experiences that meet their needs while also keeping them safe.”

Without a commitment to screening advertisements and paid partnerships (which are arguably more damaging) for selling ridiculous psuedo-science like 'detox tea' to young women and girls this rings empty. While social media companies remain in the business of selling advertisement space, they can't be trusted to not tell anyone of any age that they aren't good enough in some way; there's simply too much money in it.

I agree with you on the importance of non-productive time but I've found having my own infrastructure makes my life smoother day to day in exchange for some upfront cost. It's a tricky balance, and as many other commenters have mentioned that initial cost can end up not being so initial - though I think most people who engage in this 'hobby' generally find both the process and the product rewarding.

I don't even think the user who posted the comment was in support of violence against journalists, much less the author as others have said.

Additionally, journalists are just journalists. Sometimes, knowingly or unknowingly, the things they publish work in favour of fascists and fascism.

It's hard to ignore that there are very few prizes/awards/incentives for those who enjoy understanding what others have thought up in comparison (though I think it is it's own reward as you say, and that those who do deep thinking enjoy understanding the products of others' deep thinking and are better deep thinkers for it.)

Do you think it is the responsibility of academia to teach "industry relevant stuff"? I agree that courses generally don't teach judgement well, but I do think that it is the workplace/industry's responsbility to train their engineers and not expect fresh grads to be fully equipped to work on something that specific.