400 karma · joined October 18, 2013
> While there’s no display, the illuminated ring behind the grip does provide a visual indicator of what the iron is doing: solid blue means it has power but the heating element is off, a pulsing blue indicates the iron is heating, and orange means it has reached the desired temperature. If you flick the heater switch off, the ring pulses purple until it cools back off and returns to blue.
However, the client is going to want to know (A) how much it’s going to cost, and (B) how long it’s going to take. These are extremely reasonable questions in most cases/industries. To answer these questions with a shrug is a nonstarter. The client is working with a time budget and a financial budget, and they need to have some sense of the numbers.
If the Waterfall and Agile methods are opposite ends of a spectrum, somewhere in between is where I’ve found an acceptable middle ground for both developers and clients.
This is not correct, it pulses blue indicating the iron is heating, and when turned off, pulses purple while cooling.
Edit: as other commenters have mentioned, an on-prem version would certainly ease concerns a bit.
The way I put it to my clients, and staff, is simply that security comes at the cost of convenience.
Just a small note, on safari mobile if I expand the Edit and then Convert sections, they open on top of each other.
Indeed. We use Google Chat which is roughly a Slack clone in terms of structure. A discussion will start at the root level, and then branch into a thread after a few comments, but some users will miss this and continue to use the root level, which of course gets mixed into unrelated comments. It’s easy to create a mess, and it’s even worse when a discussion has multiple threads.
This “thread-based” style of space/channel was forced upon Google Chat users late last year. Prior to that, we had the option of “topic-based” channels, where every discussion had its own thread and there was no root level. Any reply to a topic would bump the topic into view. These were great for some use cases (one topic for each software issue, one topic for each support case, etc), and were easy to understand for non-technical people, because you could explain it like “each topic is like an email chain”. We got into the habit of summarizing the first comment of each topic, which always remained visible, so you could browse the list of discussions, again, much like email.
Anything that you can relate to email is great for the non-tech crowd.
I don’t know much about Heroku, or if it’s been enshittified (yet?), but a company that offers a free product and somewhere down the line starts charging for it sounds fine to me.
And anyone who believed a product produced by real people working at a real company could be free forever was kidding themselves.
(In general though I agree with the sentiment of the article.)
Perhaps I could rig up an internal webapp where a user could submit/post a file from an html form and it would download the resulting image, but that'd be a bit of a clunky process for the user.
Of course, I agree that if we want computers to “think on their own“ or otherwise “be more human“ (whatever that means) we should expect a downgrade in correctness, because humans are wrong all the time.
PS I remember now someone (Scaevolous? WolfLord? Rkiver? Zaptan?) had written an irc bot in python, and it was the first time I’d ever contributed to an open source project :)
However, too much abstraction, on a long enough timeline, where does it end? The blob-humans in Wall-E, where no one knows anything and everything is done for us?
I’ve definitely felt in the last ~10 years of my career that the tools and libraries I use in development contain “too much magic”.