erikb

> These sources [...] paint a consistent picture of a company desperately struggling to keep its head above water.

No? Manager start doing this when their profits dwindle, not when the company has no cash left. The basic idea is to get one or two more bonus checks while the others lose their homes. You can be sure that some people still made a profit.

> “[Hawley] came into a situation where the staff needed a strong leader with a clear vision,” says a former employee.

Does anybody remember how Dunder Miflin tried to pursuade the stockholders by presenting Michael Scott as the hero who would turn things around?

And one thing I don't really get is why one brings oneself in a situation where one works ones ass off in exchange for living paycheck-to-paycheck. You should have a decent amount of spare time (or time for personal projects at least) and turn a profit, otherwise why work this job at all? I mean gaming industry is not a career you work in because you need to feed 3 children and don't have another choice.

Let's rephrase it. China and the US probably have very good guesses almost all of the time. So the Chinese government can probably provide a very small area to search for him, if they didn't apprehend him themselves.

Not to say you are wrong, but why do you claim that your one source is more right than the one source that is the article? Just saying that there's a book that says otherwise shouldn't be proof. E.g., I bet I can even find a book that says Trump is our savior, Jesus 2.0.

*edit: I knew this would get downvoted. Why discuss logically when you can downvote, right?

This looks a lot like getting short term profit increases for losing long term control. I wouldn't do it, at least not with just Airbnb suggestions.

Your current setup is probably already quite stable. Why switch to another? You probably underestimate the learning effort and the required effort to keep your stuff running in a long-term maintainable way on k8s.

Yes, that's what most people think at this point. If you look at pictures of his mother you also know who bullied him as a kid (and maybe even today).

The headline is misdirecting. This was the news from last week. Now they have found a setllement.

Sure if you put enough effort in you can make everything usable and cheap. But why put in the effort into that instead of investing it into building a system that naturally fufills such requirements?

Kubernetes was never intended as a system for hobbyists, but for bringing more users onto google cloud. At that it is incredibly successful. But in exchange a lot of other stuff it does really badly.

It is much better to start with a single-node system in mind that expects getting more nodes at some point and develop from there. This will bring in a lot of hobbyists and really carves out how to solve the developer story. Then this will grow automatically with the size of popular projects building on it.

That said, of course it's nice if people invest energy into finding other usecases for k8s as well. But it shouldn't be the community's main effort.

It sounds very attractive to developers, and I myself was a huge fan of this way of thinking for a long time. Sadly real life teams are never even close to this. And there are reasons for that, which we might like or not. But they have to be accepted. For instance most project leaders are not good developers nor good managers. And they don't really want to advertise that fact, because just like us they believe that anybody actually cares. So they get even worse by not tracking relevant metrics and instead focus (not by coincidence but by cunning) on metrics that are painful for developers, like current_open_bugs, or open_features_that_nobody_understands_and_that_where_discussed_with_nobody. They do that because it increases pressure on developers, hooks them with their desire to become better, and they provide automatic goals that can never be achieved. And these are the desired outcomes for the project leaders. Because if everybody is under time pressure, you don't need to worry that someone might steal your job, if everybody already feels bad about themselves they will not criticize you openly (and are motivated to work harder), and if there are always automatic goals you don't need to think about new goals all the time.

What is interesting to me is that nobody puts these people actively at the top of the projects. It's more like they grow to these positions naturally. But now that they are there, you can't really apply the logic from the presentation to convince them. Insted you might even give them the impression that they don't apply enough pressure yet because you are criticising their job.

It doesn't make sense for yourself. The idea is to have one person tracking another (group of) person(s) and thereby having some feedback and motivation. Maybe you can grow a team with other freelancers and track each other?

More like a notebook. You could for instance use the email format to store your diary entries, or a todo list, or an index of useful links, etc. even if nobody else uses the standard anymore.

> I think developers don't really have experience working with email either

Honestly if you compare the two, email is much easier to grasp. So I'm not sure what the point is. If you want easier, then go with email.

That said, I don't understand why a decentralized system shouldn't speak as many languages as possible. Therefore I see no harm in implementing both.

The thing is that someone saying "I don't like the new UI" doesn't say anything. Always when you change something that more than 10 people use at least one person will be unhappy with a change.

What they hopefully do is check the metrics, e.g. of how many people switch to desktop mail clients and basic html view.

And honestly the new UI doesn't disrupt my workflow that much. You can like or not like the roundedness or that it got slower, but the workflow can stay almost the same. Therefore I'd say the current change is at least better then when they switched to teh Google-plus-everything mode a few years ago and fucked up all processes and all static links.

Yeah, and how do people know which format the data has you put inside.

Btw git is already running on SSB (Scuttlebut protocol): https://git.scuttlebot.io/%25n92DiQh7ietE%2BR%2BX%2FI403LQoy...

There it has issue tracking, Readme parsing etc. Looks pretty githubby to me.

No criticism intended but how is git based on a merkle tree? Commits reference each others hash to build a DAG, but in a merkle tree, if I understand correctly, the non-leaf nodes are actually only having the purpose of simplifying a hash check of the underlying leaf nodes, a tradeoff between processing (checking all the hashes) and storage space (storing the non-leaf nodes additionally to the actual data). Just learned about a few days ago though, might be incorrect.

The funny thing is that a huge part of the world hasn't realized yet that a blockchain is in fact a p2p network with the addition of increased trust in the form of proof-of-work. If you could define work on a bug, providing a changeset, reviewing a changeset, running tests on a changeset as proof-of-work, you could actually define a development system based on a blockchain.

Next time, please mouse over the corresponding comments time stamp, next to the authors name, and copy&paste the link into your comment. Just because it's the top comment at the time of your writing doesn't mean it's always the top comment, right?

I think you mean this one (yes, it's still the top comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18098416

It is theoretically possible though, that if you find a usecase for a protocol that happened to be not used for a hundred years, that you implement it and then use it. Not even the document about the protocol is necessary if you remember it well enough.

And a part of the self-responsible philosophy is also that "there is no implementation" is not even an excuse. As long as there are free programming languages and affordable computers (I.e. a raspberry pi) then you can very well create your own implementation. It might take years to even start due to the requirements to learn programming, but it's not impossible at all.

> We need to not require command-line proficiency.

Why? You also need a driving license to drive a car. There are a lot of problems in this world that have a certain internal complexity. You can't UX it away. And the command line is exactly that. It's actually not complex at all. It's so simple that a student can write one before graduating from college. And the learning you need to do to use it is actually learning to interact with a computer.

It's really harmful that people nowadays act like hard stuff wouldn't exist and having to interact with hard things would be discrimination. Hard stuff does exist and you need to get used to handle it or suffer never to be able to do anything.

---

Also email is actually one of the most simple communication protocols. It's so easy that you can manually read and write most of the stuff. You don't need anything fancy for it. A text editor is enough.

And while I think people don't need more than git and email or ssh, I'm all in favor of also implementing ActivityPub. One leg of stable distributed systems is the ability to use another transport if your preferred transport is not available.

there are single(!) player games now that advertise that you can play them without internet connection, as a feature.

> Voting Machine Used in Half of U.S. Is Vulnerable to Attack, Report Finds

Too much attention seeking in this headline. We knew from day one that there would be vulns. It doesn't matter how many people use them. Good that some have been found now. Let's support them by public reporting in seriously investigating the flaws they know about.

My understanding is different:

Shorting a stock means borrowing it and paying a fee for borrowing it. Then selling the borrowed stock and hoping when you buy it back it's worth less. If the borrower doesn't want his stock back and the price is too high for you, then you simply don't buy and continue to pay the fee.

So if you borrow stock for $100, maybe each year you pay a $5 fee, and sell it for $100. Considering there wouldn't be any transaction fees you would now have $95. If the price now rises to $500, you don't buy but continue to pay the $5. So it means you are only $90 ahead instead of $95. But you are not in the minus.

This is actually a really good deal for both the borrower and the short seller, which is why I bet there are lots of rules forbidding that and banks not actually doing it if you don't borrow a certain minimum size of a few million $. I don't know that, though. In theory you and I could do that game as well, if it's not illegal.

or the government

> So when Elon tweeted, a whole whack of shorts got stopped out

What means stopped out? The bank forcing the lender to give the stock back right at this point?

I hope so much that we find out what the actual political game here is. That this kind of stuff happens now, shortly after Linus takes a break, is not a coincidence. That has been growing there for quite some time. But who and why? I don't know yet and am happy for any hint.

> or me the most important part is being able to fork the project if you want to add features or are unhappy with the way the original project is going

Which is not "complete control" and that was the point I was arguing against. That having source code access enables you to gain some control over your own life is not a point I was arguing against.

Additionally another point: even if you fork you can't keep that fork alive without manpower. Nowadays all the dependencies and apis change all the time as well.

I'm a huge fan of FOSS, but do you really think that you have full control over any modern piece of software? I think that underestimates how many people actually work on such a project and how many new updates we're getting on a daily basis. Nobody is more than %-wise controlling that stuff anymore. And this % is based on regular financial(!) investment in developer-hours but not in what software you use.

PS: I just fetched a project I'm actively working on. Last fetch was Friday afternoon or Saturday morning. >50 new commits fetched today. Until I'm finished reading and understanding all of them, there will be >500 more I suppose.

> it's pretty hard to even find applications that require strong global consistency

Exactly my point, even a little generalized. The world isn't consistent, why always put unrealistic constraints unto ourselves. If we change from "I really need to have all the datasets in all of their truthest form" and instead go with "well there is some data coming, better than nothing" the whole system might be even more reliable. Things in the middle won't die just because the world is imperfect.

I don't see how this relates to the question whether consistency is needed. If two tables only have 80% of all the rows that you expect you can STILL do a join on them. It's just that the join, just like your original data, is not containing all data sets. The join itself will not raise an exception because of that.