erikb

It's Enterprise slang for "we are big, so we assume everything we do works better at big scale, but please don't check if it's true, just trust us". (in this thread it might be true, usually it isn't though)

I was in a WeWork once for an event in Berlin, around 2015 I think. It was the weirdest experience I ever had. Objectively everything looked cool, elegant and comfortable. But it felt super fake, cold and inhuman at the same time.

Also I assume because it's a premium location that they rented or bought for that WeWork office, that their prices will also be premium. And honestly, if I can pay premium, wouldn't I just get my own office?

It all didn't really click together, so I never entered a WeWork office again. Instead it let me to wonder if the start-up world has reached it's peak.

Edit: To not just say negative things. The CEO of WeWork is a super smart business man. Another commentor posted an interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOb_ogQJWeI) and I have to say I would also want to give this guy money. He's totally able to sell his vision as something that already exists and just needs your support to get it finished up.

Why limit it to governments. Always when certain people have power over other people, they value a small advantage to themselves higher than a big disadvantage to the others or the general well being. It's not that all people are acting like this, but such people tend to compete hardest for positions of power which often leads to one such person gaining that position at some point.

Doesn't matter if government, company, NGO, newspaper, soccer club, church. Whatever offers power over other people has this disadvantage.

The political battle against Pichai made a success. So now the public support can be tuned down and Google can move on to do the only thing they could do in their current situation: building tools for the chinese gov to enter the market. They'll probably do the same thing behind closed doors and without the public Google label on the final result. Maybe baidu will suddenly provide better search results or something.

That's how this world works, and it's not like they really have a choice in that matter.

It is not news that you don't get anything back. There is a documentary (forgot the name, but should be googleble) about how China created loads of fake companies to get money from naive investors.

The problem with this whole situation since day one was: How can you be sure that you're not cheated if it's in the other side sovereign's interest when you get cheated.

So yes, there was probably never a point where you could have invested reasonably into Chinese bonds or stocks or startups.

This reads like putting 2010 knowledge about China and Trump propaganda in a shaker and then really go at it for 10 minutes. Dude, get an update. We are in 2018.

Both Western and Chinese "fictitious overlay" to real market is so big that each can lose their current leadership position through that fantasy blowing up. In some regards the trade war is like this party game where you need to step on other people's balloon with your foot that has also a balloon attached.

The good news is, once one of the bubbles burst the other one can be exchanged step by step with real markets that are overtaken from the other.

I have experienced AMP only from the user perspective and always hated it since day one. Until now I don't really understand where it came from and why people would willingly enable it on their site. The first thing I do when I see it is consider whether to go somewhere else or open the actual underlying link.

It already sounds toxic. Instead of loading your page suddenly I load a google wrapper that includes some parts of your page. Doesn't that sound like a red flags for anybody? Does it sound less toxic if I call it "free and open google wrapper build on existing technologies"?

I guess that was around 2005? What does he do now?

Is it surprising? We do the same and call this culture. A set of behaviour rules that we inherit from previous generations, don't really need to understand but can still use it to increase our survival and which slowly adapts to big time environment changes.

There are such people and they have Youtube channels. However I wouldn't underestimate the desire of geographical exploration just yet. Even if you can easily travel everywhere this ball we live on is still bigger than any single person can explore in a lifetime. Give me a single city (I'm a city person) in another country where I can stomach the food and exercise the language and I can easily spend a year before I get bored. And I bet there are more than 80 such cities on this planet.

Yeah, right? I had this experience in China. You move from being really far outside of what's happening and where things are and what people talk to almost being able to go anywhere yourself, talk to almost anybody and find out what's going on. Smartphones have changed travelling a lot. Although you must sure to get a good VPN before going to China.

And you can't even bootstrap either in some situations. The basic premise is, if you're not rich you are not free. The good thing about the modern world is that you can choose your owner and switch between them when things go sour.

You can of course say no, but nowadays it's so common that you are unlikely to find someone who would make a deal without it. Basically it goes to show that the people who have the money are the ones who have the power, not the CEOs of start-ups.

I work in a big corp myself. If you worked on cloud foundry you probably worked with some of my colleagues. ;-) Please don't mention the name though, so I can speak openly.

I see this in my corp every day. Very smart people, super interested in actual feedback, and super interested in really providing great software. But in the end they still fail. I'm not 100% sure about the reasons, but I have a guess.

Usually people who move up the ranks and get into positions where they can make decisions, tend to build relationships with other such people. So more and more they change from "why the hack is dns not working on server-13 anymore?" to "this is the big problem the market has, let's attack that". And slowly that thought croaches in that you should only think about the big picture problems and not worry about the nitty-gritty details of every day getting-things-to-run.

And that's probably the problem. While it's clear that you can't solve all the details and work on big picture problems at the same time, you should not devaluate the details. Great solutions solve big picture problems BY SOLVING THE DETAILS.

That's why K8S for instance is a mediocre solution. Sure they have great big picture ideas, but usually people spend their time with having DNS not working, having servers hanging, having etcd nodes not talking to each other without explaining why, having deployments say "SUCCESS" while actually not running. K8S provides a standardized API for every detail and every use-case, cool. But in the end you need to be an expert in everything to make it run around 50% of the time (outside of AWS and GCP). Nobody really wants to develop on k8s when the underlying platform is only available 50% of the time. And that's the current experience.

So please, if you are one of these people who is really interested in creating great software, consider finding solutions to the detailed low-level problems an important part of the goals and tasks you define. Usually the core low-level problems are not a big amount. For instance with k8s it usually is networking, dynamic storage or security related. Have one person in your team really become an expert in one of these areas (by checking out problems and solutions that exist, not just by making up ppt slides with plans that have nothing to do with the real world) and allow them to influence your task planning.

> We are now starting to do some of our infrastructure on Kubernetes, much less headache.

I bet you do it on AWS or GCP, right? Try on-prem, then check your headackes again. ;-)

Why is it so hard to understand?

a) re FaaS. Of course if you have an on-prem component, someone needs to take care of it. That's why it's on-prem. But still you can separate administration of that from the developers and have the additional new feature that you as admin don't need to care which software runs in these clusters. (In reality it's never that simple since specific hardware for the task outperforms the standard hardware by more than a margin, but at least you have to worry less about getting from cool-product:v1.0 to cool-product:v2.0 as admin anymore.

b) This dream of cross cloud portability needs to die

Well, you are either a cloud provider or a software/hardware provider that is not a cloud provider. If you are the latter of course you need a way to attack the cloud providers when everybody moves to the cloud. It's a common and traditional idea.

And at least for me it also makes sense to use such a solution. I would always go for Openshift (not working for Red Hat) since they are much better at getting on-prem to work than k8s, and you have the almost same setup and interaction experience throughout all your clouds. I hope so much that they can also find a way to more seemlessly work on arm and ppc now that IBM has bought them. Then it's truly hybrid.

PS: That said I also wouldn't trust any of these quickly assembled hybrid cloud solutions from companies who are not well known for their software achievements. It's probably only the marketing aspect that's driving these efforts and IBM has already shown that they don't trust their own solution themselves even.

How can you protect against such kind of scam on such kind of platform?

An airplane can reduce the risk of falling down, but if you want to be protected(!) against falling down from the sky you shouldn't enter a big piece of metal that lifts off from the ground.

If it was "moved" then that might mean the $460k are included in the $806k. Don't ask me how that "moving" could be done, but they explicitely said "move" and explicitely said that it collected $800k altogether. That would be surprising if it actually made the sum of both.

Honestly it's a nightmare in every language. And I found in comparison to most other languages I've worked with (Java, Ruby, PHP, Golang) I actually feel it's done quite well.

It's a super complex topic, it needs leadership support so that you can get a reasonable percentage of the community to drill down on one solution instead of having 4-5 competing ones, but it also needs a lot of in-depth insights, which is kind of opposite to leadership which requires a top-down view.

And for each such professor that gets discovered there are a dozen still hidden and a hundred covering each other, all of the hundred three doing the same stuff, just slightly smarter.

I don't believe anymore that this stuff is a new phenomenon though. It's more like a group of people trying to discredit university these days.

Interestingly, while reading the text and with zero knowledge of the novel he's talking about, I always assume the text's author to be a woman. Does anybody know the guy? Are his novels also like this?

Is Roadside Picnic from Russia?

Well, well. You still have a lot to learn, my Padawan. The better answer is not "that's odd" but "we'll see". ;-)

http://buddhistinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/12/well-see-zen...

Can you explain how that works out? Like, do you have virtual checklists and for everything you experience over the day your head goes "check check check -> we must be in event X"? It's really hard to imagine.

What I already know is emotional pattern matching. E.g. one smells a spice that one's mother used as a child and one is immediately transferred back to that time. In that way if one recognizes that high excitement is often related to advertisements or scams one might recognize when one feels that way that something might be fishy.

Or what I also know is path recognition. E.g. "at first we did this, then we did this, then we did this, and therefore we arrived at X". In that way we can remember processes like riding a bike or our way home. That's also how memory palaces work.

Great that you put actual examples together. I like that. But I'm not sure if you can really improve the world through that. A lot of these problems are quite obvious and if people iwll still put their money into ICOs I'm not sure anything could help that.

That, I feel, is the hardest part of learning more about scams and how to protect yourself. You inevitably see a lot of people who simply can't avoid it, almost going for getting scammed like a moth goes to the lamp, never learning from bad experience that you simply can't get rich quick if you aren't already rich.

You sit with an old friend in bar, already quite drunk. You haven't seen this guys for years but now that you had such a nice evening you really feel like old brothers. Now he tells you about this great house he has and that he considers to move to another town. He might let you take it before he puts it on the market and to a friendship price that he could certainly not achieve on the market.

Will you, at this point, remember that "Scammers dress up ‘opportunities’ with professional looking brochures and websites to mask their fraudulent operations. They often begin with a phone call or email out of the blue from a scammer offering a ‘not-to-be-missed’, ‘high return’ or ‘guaranteed’ opportunity. The scammer usually operates from overseas, and will not have an Australian Financial Services licence"?

Probably not. But you might remember the story that guy on hacker news told you. You might remember, just as in that story, that you should look out carefully when a "great opportunity" arises. You might check your emotional state and find the comradry you feel to that old friend might not be based on facts since you haven't seen him for a long time. It's rather related to you two having a great night together.

And you might recognize that this combination of great offer, excitement, and a person who doesn't spend time with you often are combining to red flags for a scam.

But that is all because it was a specific example, a story. Not just a list of facts and attributes that generally relate to a set of scams that can be categorized as rather similar.

Therefore I'd argue that such a general list of scams, without specific examples, is not worth much. People's brain simply doesn't work like that. Rather check on Youtube for actual scams. Like "tourist scams in <countryX>".

It seems like your qoute is a common saying but neither me nor google seems to really know it. So I would guess your downvotes come from not providing enough context about what you want to say.

> I don't really buy the parent comment's insinuation that Microsoft GitHub would be more likely to fix it than GitHub previously

If Linux would be a proprietary product, than post-acquisition-github would get a fix from Linux developers because Microsoft is big. Not Github would provide anything, but they would get something due to the size of the Microsoft empirial stamp.

Just to give a picture how similar situations play out in closed source environments: They would have a key account manager who's live they would turn into hell. And depending on the size of gitlab's business in relation to the customers of the software provider it would have more or less effect towards software development. Reaction might range from having a fix in 2 days plus on-site engineer/consultant visits plus inviting the corresponding manager of gitlab to dinner for $100+/person to not even getting a response to even getting an angry call from the provider side's manager that the account will be closed if gitlab doesn't behave.

So, Github owned by Microsoft might not even notice such a bug for long, since the engineer would be able to get it fixed through an email or two. While the pre-Github-purchase Gitlab might have gotten no fix at all.

In that regard one might argue that open source doesn't completely destroy the ability to solve problems, but open source certainly helps balancing out the odds for different competitors.

The speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k