electric_sheep

I remember listening to Charity Majors[1] talk about this on a podcast -- in the case of Honeycomb they have a "dogfood" cluster than monitors production, and a "kibble" cluster that monitors the dogfood.

Cute, but it gets the point across: watchmen for the watchmen, with each layer slightly less mission-critical than the last.

[1] https://changelog.com/shipit/11#transcript-98

I'll also plug https://www.protocols.io/ and https://codeocean.com/ here --- might be interesting platforms for folks concerned about reproducibility to have on their radar.

Way I see it is it's more than OK to not know things -- it's a necessary optimization. Engineering is all about tradeoffs, and skills development is no exception. Follow one path, forego another; dive deep, sacrifice breadth (and vice versa).

So consider that maybe, just maybe, for a developer working full-time on a SPA framework, not knowing Docker or Bash scripting might not be a real impediment to working effectively or delivering quality product. If it were, perhaps React & Redux wouldn't be as great as they are. And since they are great, maybe we should consider that fact not as a celebrity get-out-of-jail-free card, but as counterevidence to your implication that these topics all constitute a universal educational imperative, and that someone lacking in any of these areas is by definition not a professional in the software field.

What's your favored language? Because odds are good that it can compile to JS: https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/list-of-langu...

Surely there must already exist some legal protections? I seem to recall certain professional (football? basketball?) players successfully suing EA Games over unauthorized use of their likeness.

Most webdevs that I know do. JS stack for sure appears to favor it.

Nope, our legal dept gave us the OK on the original license.

I would also hope for and expect this to be communicated ASAP from the NPM org to its users.

@seldo, I understand that you don't want to disseminate misleading info, but an abundance of caution seems warranted in this case as my understanding of the incident lines up with what @yashap has said. If we're wrong, straighten us out --- if we're not, please sound an advisory, because this is major.

Haha, this has been a well-trod rant of mine for years. Don't forget scorpions, vampire bats, great white sharks, and the world's top 4 deadliest jellyfish!

Are you speaking purely with regard to the swatting, and not to the scores of bomb threats? Regardless of the issues around policing, surely we can agree that this individual has caused tremendous societal cost, not just due to the disruption of valuable services or the resources wasted investigating his claims but also due to the fear he's created and the doubt he's cast over such claims in the future, which could lead to slower and less effective responses to true threats. He's also been to jail for this before, and appears to have gone right back to work when he got out. He's a serial offender, without much apparent motive besides pure misanthropy. Again, regardless of what you think about policing in America, can we please agree that this is the kind of person who belongs in prison? Perhaps you do, in which case apologies for the long response -- just thought it was worth clarifying given the thread's focus on the police reaction.

Why on Earth should people of conscience not be concerned with a self-perpetuating inheritance of power? That seems to be exactly what affirmative action programs are designed to counter-balance, so not understanding your criticism of them here.

It would be, wouldn't it. Silly I didn't realize that right off the bat.

Can't imagine putting forward a proposal that wouldn't in essence be what you're doing, i.e. wrapping in JSX delimiters. Because attempting anything fancier than that would probably have edge cases for days, plenty of material for you to poke holes in.

I'm guessing it's because JSX is XML-like and so parsers may require a single root element for each JSX "document". It's a good question though, hopefully someone from the React team might be able to comment.

Yeah, it seems like the decision to make the fragment a first-class JSX concept has a lot to do with portability between renderers. The post makes it clear you all have given this a lot of thought and care, and I appreciate that (even if it will take me awhile to get used to seeing empty tags, haha).

As others have noted, you're assuming a natural optimization in labor markets that is unproven. It seems like you're arguing that the value proposition of paying 0.9x wages for an employee of 1.0x talent would cause companies to snatch up all such disadvantaged workers, which in turn would result in their market price equalizing. But that's a circular argument. The whole point that diversity proponents are arguing is that organizations and their hiring managers aren't rational economic actors, and that their biases have in fact distorted the market. So not exactly the invisible hand of balance you're talking about.

Also, for goodness sake, stop saying "SJW." Whether you're trying to win hearts and minds or just trololol, it doesn't matter; you'll do better without it. Because when I read it, I just feel a little sad and embarrassed for the person writing it.

Skipping the third beer is easy. Just jump straight into number four.

Yeah, what I can't fathom is what they even stand to gain by such a brazen move. They want to be a services company, not hardware. So why are they discriminating between $30 dongles rather than just making their streaming work on every type of device? That's what they want out there, not Fire Sticks.

I see a few problems with this argument.

1. Market share matters, for what should be obvious reasons. Amazon is, in that regard, a far cry from your sole proprietorship fruit stand.

2. Amazon is much closer to Walmart than it is to Apple or Ford; Amazon didn't do retail to support their product line, they rolled out a product line once they dominated in retail.

3. Sure, consumers can go order a Chromecast from somewhere else; just like how users could always download Netscape on Windows. That didn't stop antitrust claims from being brought against Microsoft for their practice of tying, because they were fundamentally abusing a dominant position in one market to assure their dominance in others despite weaker product offerings. And here we are, with everyone subscribed to Prime for the free shipping, and getting an unasked-for set of streaming services bundled with. Which aren't compatible with Chromecast. Which Amazon uses to justify banning Chromecast from its store. It makes the tying of MS years past look amateurish by comparison.

The React and Redux devs engage in more self-critique, and are more honest and open in the shortcomings of their approaches, than just about anyone I know of in web development.

From the author of Redux: https://medium.com/@dan_abramov/you-might-not-need-redux-be4...

From the official React docs: https://facebook.github.io/react/contributing/design-princip...

Many of those patterns that you list aren't actually trends resulting from received wisdom -- they're dark patterns, known to be actively hostile to the user. Common wisdom regarding UX would vigorously contraindicate their use, but they continue to be used because people either don't know or, more likely, don't care.

Good timing on this post! I just got a new card and was baffled by how Netflix was able to update my account details before I was. Maybe I should be creeped out? But damn if it isn't convenient. (Who else finds themselves uttering this phrase with increasing regularity these days?)

As a fellow tech worker in MA, I'm curious what you mean. Can you elaborate on your "second class citizens" statement?

So, to sum up, "I have no regrets, except for the ruinous consequences of my actions." Well, okay. I'm amazed that he still gets to play like he's the smartest guy in the room, having so comically overplayed his hand.

I thought it was accepted wisdom at this point that software is people. Caring about people doesn't strike me as incompatible with caring about software --- indeed, for projects which demand collaboration between individuals (i.e. non-trivial complexity), I'd think it would be essential.

Doesn't sound like a play against Uber -- seems more like a companion concept to self-driving cars, which would naturally be good candidates for commuter ride-sharing.

Indeed.

> ...allows users to share rides to work and back

I'm not sure how many people take Uber to and from work every day. I'd imagine it doesn't contribute to the bulk of ridership, though.