generalk

Booted the new GPay app on my Android phone this morning.

"Sorry, Enterprise accounts are not supported on Google Pay."

I've been doing NFC payments through Google Pay for years with the current Google Pay app, so this is kind of a surprise.

Also, I do not have an "Enterprise account." I have a GAFYD account from around 2006. Over time Google's turned it into some limited bullshit account, and at this point I'd pay them just to turn all that shit off and turn me into a regular Google account -- or just close the damn thing down if I could transfer all the stuff I've purchased, which Google won't allow me to do.

My fault for trusting Google, but the landscape was way different in 2006.

Which community have you been a part of, online or otherwise, where "flagrant violation of the norms" doesn't carry the potential for expulsion?

Without a written code of conduct, there are still values, views, and norms, usually created and run by the most disruptive members who are free to behave in any way they see fit and ostracize those who that behavior hurts.

Which of the actions they've listed would you like to be able to do without fear of repercussion? This sounds an awful lot like "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service? So much for the 'tolerant left.'"

  > Anti meritocracy is a cover for the most intolerant. 

The Paradox of Tolerance indicates that a society that is infinitely tolerant will eventually be overrun by the least tolerant.

Having a written set of guidelines that define the behavior expected seems like...I dunno, a good idea?

I initially had that "oh no, CEOs shouldn't be coding" response too. For anyone who didn't read the transcribed segment of a podcast linked:

  > we started to see performance slowly degrading in terms 
  > of response times on the server, and eventually we kind 
  > of had to do something about it [...] Interesting story - 
  > the initial commits for that applications were Tobi 
  > himself

This doesn't sound like a CEO/founder who's unable to give up control of the software and is still inserting himself into the process unnecessarily. Many of us have been in that spot and, yeah, that doesn't work too well.

This sounds entirely like a founder who still solves problems with code, but then stands back and lets his company form a team around it if it's valuable.

No inside knowledge or anything, this just doesn't sound...bad.

  > if you're serious about "building product" [...] You 
  > would build and run something yourself.

Perhaps as a side project, something useful just for yourself. Lots of developers scratch itches they can't scratch at their day job that way; new tech, greenfield ideas instead of maintaining someone else's garbage, etc.

And sometimes those devs go into business for themselves and realize that they don't get to spend all their time building product -- now they've got to build the marketing page and write a bunch of copy and take a ton of screenshots (of features they know they're going to change), and figure out how sales funnels work, and all the other things that go into running a business.

Building and running your own company is the fastest way to get out of pure product development I've ever seen.

No, with Protobuf, I send my counterparts a .proto file, and they 1) Don't know what the hell to do with it, not just because they don't know Protobuf but because 2) it wasn't included in the docs/dictionaries from the standards organization that set this all up in the first place.

On XML:

  > Not sure anyone really knows how XML happened. It’s 
  > basically the W3C’s fault, I think? It’s okay for some 
  > things but in the end I’m not sure it’s something anyone 
  > actually wants to use, it’s just going to be one more of 
  > those mistakes of the past.

Look, I was doing web dev when XMLRPC was in. For simple API stuff, JSON ended up being worlds better. No fiddly XML preamble, no schemas, no envelopes, just enough structure to be able to quickly pull out a couple of fields and we're set. Beautiful.

But let me tell you how much I appreciated XML and schema validation when we were working with fifteen different partners all using a standardized XML format with a schema. These are cats who were putting XSDs into their IDEs, clicking generate to get a class, and then just not caring.

So when our integrations broke because they were sending XML payloads that failed schema validation, our conversations were so easy.

Before you say "yes but technically you could have done the same with $OTHER_THING" -- sure it's possible, but XML is ubiquitous. Shit, our tools were in Ruby.

XML can be a bear, but sometimes you need a bear.

I didn't get the context of your quote, and had to go grab the complete quote:

  > The average programmer, including someone straight out of 
  > college, should be able to understand and work on a well 
  > put-together codebase. 

I think straight out of college is definitely a little squishy -- someone just out of college may be just out of a theory-heavy CS degree, or a very product-focused CIS degree, or maybe not at all a tech-oriented degree.

But let's focus on average programmer.

If I have a solid developer, with a year or two in their field, and they can't make heads or tails of the codebase put in front of them? That says more about the codebase than it does of the dev reading it.

  > especially given what's happened to the "average 
  > programmer" over time

And what, indeed, has happened to the "average programmer" over time? From my view, more people today are making computers do new things than ever before; from "secretaries" (oof, that term) maintaining excel spreadsheets that run entire small businesses, to bootcamp graduates who can (with a little guidance) ship fully functional MVPs to prove a line of business.

If something's beyond the skillset of a newer developer that's reasonable, but the goal should be to continually make that not the case.

I've been using an Ergodox EZ for a lot of professional work for a few years now, but since I'm bouncing between that and laptop keyboards regularly, I haven't found any issues switching between layouts. I do occasionally try to use some custom-mapped ergodox keys the wrong way on a laptop keyboard, but it's a momentary embarrassment and not a thing that impedes my work.

Trying this out as it's typed. For background: I really want to love tools like i3 or awesome, but I always go back to Gnome because it juts gets stuff done. I liked Gnome 2, I like 3.

So: just like the site says. Top is the taskbar, which also has a left icon for the current tiling pattern (fullscreen, tiled vertically, etc). The left side panel starts at the top-left with the search button that does the Gnome activities overlay, then a globe icon for each workspace, and a button to create a new workspace. At the bottom of the left panel are the system icons (normally in the upper right in Gnome) and then the clock, crammed into bottom-left.

So I don't hate the tiling, and one of the layout options is "floating" so you can have a workspace full of floating windows. Cool.

My first thought was that the panels are too big -- 48px, which seemed overly large. Luckily this is easily configurable in the extension settings, and updates as you change it so there's no guesswork.

If I switch to floating, or a new workspace, I appear to have no wallpaper behind the windows or the "new workspace" launcher. I liked my wallpaper, and I miss it.

I was going to complain about the globe icons for the workspaces, but it turns out it only preselected those icons because I have browsers primarily in each workspace. It'll pick based on the first open app (I think?) or you can override the icon by right-clicking, or have it display a group of app icons for the open apps in that workspace. This is cool! It's not quite the thumbnail previews of virtual desktops I had in 2004 with Openbox, but It works well.

I'll keep on this for a little while -- I really like that I can turn the whole shebang on and off with a single extension toggle.

There's a world of difference between "a fun myth we share with our children that we drop as soon as they outgrow it" and "a blatant lie," and that context is also important for kids to learn.

Bezos' asset wouldn't have increased in value so massively if he'd done things like paid his warehouse workers living wages.

It's not compensation in the "the company paid for my time" sense, but it sure affects the decisions that he makes as CEO.

(But yeah, for the original point about compensation, Bezos perhaps was a poor choice. I'm rolling with that decision.)

    > I always find myself in the weird position, that i 
    > think, i have to defend this kind of wealth.

You can easily just...not.

To continue using Bezos as an example: sure, he built a logistical empire that can deliver cat litter to my home in under 48hrs, and a computing empire that's surprisingly well used despite being absolutely obtuse.

If that's all he did, and everyone who worked for Amazon was treated well, made middle-class salaries without overworking themselves, and had world-class healthcare? Sure. I got no complaints.

But that isn't what's happening. Wealth inequality isn't "I'm jealous of someone" or "I'm opposed to this just because" -- it's recognizing that it only seems to happen when the folks on the bottom of the org chart suffer.

    > So I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that 
    > Jeff Bezos can't be worth $100 billion unless they're 
    > mistreating their workers. Those things don't have to 
    > be connected.

But...they are connected.

Bezos is not just a large shareholder of AMZN, he's also it's CEO. He is responsible for every decision, ultimately, such as warehouse worker count and compensation. If they make less, he can put what he would have paid them into other product lines, thereby increasing AMZN stock price and his personal wealth.

Jeff Bezos could choose to pay his employees a living wage and treat them with dignity, but that may impact AMZN's bottom line or its share prices, so he doesn't.

    > If you put $500k into Amazon at IPO you'd also be a 
    > billionaire right now, does that mean that Amazon is 
    > mistreating their employees because of you?

This is a stupid hypothetical. I wouldn't be the CEO, so the decision wouldn't be mine. And I'm assuming I somehow didn't buy a significant enough sum of stock to be able to influence shareholder votes.

Stop defending billionaires. They won't defend you.

  > it's misleading to call equity compensation "getting paid".

Please.

A person who has a portfolio worth tens/hundreds of millions of dollars does not have to liquidate it to leverage its value. They can secure cash loans on extremely preferential terms backed by their assets, for one.

Futher, who cares if it's "exactly the same as giving them money" or not? That doesn't change the inequality inherit in such compensation packages, just how they pay taxes.

    > [neither reducing cash or equity comp] is going to 
    > solve the structural problems of the american economy 
    > such as healthcare being tied to employment.

Sure, that's true, but that's also a fine way to allow wealth inequality to continue unchecked. Jeff Bezos can't be worth over $100B unless his company is vastly underpaying and mistreating its workers.

In the Healthcare world, computers frequently lag behind the state-of-the-art. Writing Healthcare IT webapps, we had to support IE6 up until ~2013. If your nation-wide pharmacy chain customer is primarily running IE10 on outdated Windows PCs they refuse to upgrade, your app had better be very well tested on that browser.

No tricks, but I disagree with you here.

A government-run, publicly owned online communication platform has several problems that prevent it from being the utopia you expect.

1. What value does it actually provide that Twitter and Reddit and Tumblr (and even Facebook) don't provide? I've learned more about marginalized communities both locally and globally on Twitter than I have anywhere else. Seems that they have a pretty decent platform today.

2. It's existence doesn't mean those platforms go away, so it by itself doesn't stop Facebook from doing the ridiculous things it's doing today. Folks may choose to patronize those private platforms over using the thing you describe.

3. Economically disadvantaged folks won't have access to it without a separate set of programs to ensure every household is connected to the Internet at a reasonable speed, and that they have the tech required to access it. (COVID-19 has laid bare the economic disparity even in my relatively affluent school district.)

4. Are we talking "run by the US"? If so: globally, marginalized people may not be able to communicate there due to policies from our government (which we can over time theoretically control) or their governments (which we cannot.) If not: who runs it then?

5. I think you'll find that the US government routinely denies people speech. Police violently responding to peaceful protests around the country is just one example. The US would definitely have to control for speech that violates US law, such as SESTA/FOSTA.

6. This is all ignoring the fact that people are people, and even the best examples of online communities have examples of folks being rejected by the dominant voices in the community irrespective of the rules.

I think a public-owned online space is fascinating, but I don't think it'd be a magic bullet to solving these problems.

I think that would be an interesting thing to have, and the implementation of it would have to solve a lot of issues (equal access to technology, etc) that need solving badly.

I'm also glad we finally got to the actual thing you want to see change.

Curious though: what would having this space solve?

Hi, it's me, unironically pushing the "just make your own" narrative.

I posted a comment similar to this, but let me just lay cards on the table: if you want to publish child abuse images, or sell controlled substances, you're probably going to have a hard time finding hosting for that. Same if you want to publish content that violates US copyright law, which I agree with less but still applies.

The original question was "where can I speak 'in the public domain' online," and I'm fairly sure my answer holds.

Unless you were just trying to make some juvenile "any limits placed on my conduct online are invalid because Internet" argument, which I mean good luck with.

Sure. If I own a website or a newspaper or the patch of ground in front of my house, I get to decide what information goes there.

Are you arguing that there should be some legal provision that says anyone can publish anything on your website, or newspaper, or ground, and you don't get a say in it? That seems unreasonable.

I will definitely agree that payment processing is subject to limitations I don't agree with. Many adult-oriented websites have found it difficult to find payment processors, even when their businesses comply with the relevant laws.

But if we're answering my original parent comment of "where can I speak freely online," we're probably not discussing payment processing.

> If you push that rope you will discover that your capacity to publish anything you want is restricted by the policy of whoever hosts your servers

Fair enough.

My original parent comment asked where you can speak freely online, which for the purposes of my argument I'm equating to US law regarding free speech. (This may not be the angle you're coming from.)

Most hosts will allow you to publish things that fit that description. To take the examples given in this thread: if you want to publish an image of the Confederate flag, or publish something and not have Twitter or Facebook placing ropes around your content, publishing your own website is going to solve that problem for you.

Now, you're not wrong, there are limits to that, but I'm struggling to find out how those limits apply to this conversation in any realistic way.

Companies aren't the only entities allowed to publish content on the World Wide Web, you know. You're free to build whatever discussion platforms you like, or you could just, y'know, publish a website.

I've used Emacs for many years, and recently switched to Spacemacs, a set of configs that kind of takes over Emacs and puts a great platform on top of it.

I frequently describe Spacemacs as a better vim than vim. Don't get me wrong, I've used vim for ages; I'll never stop editing server config with vi, nor will I stop getting mad when vi is actually vi and not vim.

But for a day to day code editor? Spacemacs is astonishingly good.

(Of course, Spacemacs is built on top of EVIL, as well as dozens of other packages. On the shoulders of giants, as we say.)

> Does the first sentence not cover that fairly well?

It does not.

The first sentence on the site ("Perkeep [...] is a set of open source formats...") describes literally what the thing is, but not at all what it _does_.

Not to slam on these cats, because marketing copy is _hard_. For project collaborators, or open-source dorks who live in this kind of world anyway, the sentence on the homepage is probably perfectly descriptive.

But I agree with my GP post. Reading the homepage I had no idea what Perkeep actually did.

Folks are focusing on "five months of runway" or other minor details and missing the big picture here.

Big companies typically have fewer constraints on time, money, and developers. They can have very mature development processes because of that.

Small companies typically have tighter constraints. It's not as if this hypothetical manager doesn't want better process, but if the things to spend time on are "better deployment methods" or "ship this feature in time to land a critical contract," there's no choice there.

OP has, potentially, a unique position here. If they can find a way to use their experience to help implement small process changes without grinding development to a halt, they can seriously improve their team and maybe emerge as a leader as well.

This is different from "we need to stop and do all-team code reviews before every PR merge!" The time may not be there, and the management buy-in sure isn't.

But encouraging teammates to add new tests with each new feature, and helping folks who may not know how to do that, can have a huge impact. Taking an hour or so Friday afternoon to gather the team and casually review merged PRs or do a sprint post meeting over drinks can be a good unwinding activity.

OP's got an opportunity here.

I think there's a huge and obvious difference between an open-source dev naming a package manager for a non-Linux platform "AppGet" in reference/homage/whatever to apt-get; and Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar company, dangling a carrot in front of the developer of a program called AppGet then ghosting him, forking his open-source project and calling it WinGet, and not even having the decency to publicly credit his work.

We're not talking about Microsoft's cloud / server strategy though. Linux as a server OS is different from Linux as a development platform. The two have nothing in common except the word "Linux."

Microsoft is taking steps to embrace desktop Linux, we've seen that with WSL. Instead of ditching Windows for a different/better dev platform, just keep using Windows.

They are extending their own desktop Linux by adding the capability to use DX12 in Linux, so long as it's run on Windows. Note that they are not adding this capability to a straight Ubuntu install, let alone any other distribution.

To claim "Microsoft knows they can't Extinguish desktop Linux" is naive at best, and shill-like at worst. They don't need to completely eliminate desktop Linux for EEE to apply here. the "Extinguish" part comes naturally from fewer and fewer devs choosing an alternative to Windows.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression here is that Windows Subsystem for Linux will support DX12, but not broader Linux support for DX12.

So if you want a machine that can play games and run a Linux dev toolchain, that would require a Windows install. If you can incentivize folks who may never have installed Windows to do so, and keep them there as the only place they can both play games and use their preferred dev environment, then you've extinguished that portion of the desktop linux install base.

EDIT: Also I absolutely love the "I don't think Microsoft thinks so either." Microsoft is a for-profit corporation who's eyeing a way to get users who traditionally avoid them to come to their platform and stay there. They aren't some benevolent font of cool tech, they're trying to sell you products.

I've been reading awful takes like this since I started writing software.

"PHP is an awful language, superior developers write in Perl."

"Rails is bloated and slow, making it unfit for any real work."

"True developers don't rely on frameworks, writing all your own code is the only way to be performant."

If you wanna handicap yourself, be my guest.

I've written three or so projects in TailwindCSS, and it lets me create responsive designs quickly. It gives me a very sane set of defaults to build off of. And most importantly, it helps me get a product to production faster than writing raw CSS.