johnnyfaehell

I believe that was a civil way to point out to someone that they're not coming across completely lacking knowledge on a subject and that they're coming across as a try hard. Personally, I believe that not stating this in scenarios like this is akin to bullying. Basically, the person is out of their depth instead of pointing it out, people carry on while smirking to themselves feeling superior while everyone else enjoys the embarrassment. To me, that is intellectual bullying. This is not a nice thing to do. Instead, the civil thing to do is to point out that the framing of their point is not good and this allows them to improve the framing of their point.

Just curious why you think upholding copyright is a travesty?

This is a good idea in large companies but the only time I've ever seen this implemented was when a developer wanted who wanted to become lead dev so started hogging permissions to things and set up an internal packagist that only he could add packages to. It didn't end well for him really.

To backup the point of the iPhone is the gateway to their ecosystem. They increased the size of the iPhone and I stopped buying new iPhones, since then I've switched from an iPhone to Android, Macbook to Dell XPS, and iPad to a bog standard Windows 2-in-1 tablet/mini-laptop.

I'm not sure about how the contracts are but some contracts (I've heard of UK ones) it's a cost per prisoner. So if the prison holds 300 prisoners the company is owed money for 300 prisoners. I've heard of some that are run a prison for a certain amount of time for x amount of money.

So depending on what the contract is for a private prison, it could actually be a case of it costs x for a prisoner.

Ok, you're a YouTuber with no technical knowledge, how do you get a WordPress site? Pay for hosting, pay for someone to build you one, etc. Then you have to maintain that site, keep it secure etc. Again, you have no technical knowledge. Or you can sign up to a site like Patreon give x% of the money you're not even making yet for no hassle.

Yea, but Apple has support. Google doesn't really do support.

To be fair, most of the videos I see of the US Police abuse is generally caused by the fact they're afraid. Then you watch the documentaries and interviews and see a constant re-enforcement of that fear. It's like they're trained to be afraid and every day they are told to remain afraid.

Who talks about US police being brave? Normally I hear the oppisite.

Especially when it's a major product and you literally have thousands of engineers.

I think they were using their catch-all for non-transactional/newsletter emails. I have a catch-all for websites and then another that I give to people to email me on. This lets me see emails sent to me by a person easily while having separate email addresses for each site.

Do you mean don't run your own Jenkins or build your own CI system?

GitHub Actions is just GitHub implementing features others have had for quite a while. So I guess, GitHub Actions is a validation of their features.

I think GitHub Actions is picking up because of how big GitHub is.

Other than it being funny, no it means nothing.

I think the main reason they don't try is for Atlassian the enterprise market is the most important market. How many enterprises really care about the free tier?

Also aren't free tier customers the most costily in terms of support, etc?

50 mins seems perfect for a trial to see if you want to purchase it.

> Do you think your scrum master is done after the stand up? Oh no, there's a lot more to do.

You know scrum master doesn't do development, they do project management work. Their entire job is to make sure the project is not impeded.

Yes, refusing to do things that are technically bad is a technical matter hence a developers job. And what happens if you say no, they either go find a developer who will do it (seen that so often) or they go to the CTO/Engineer Manager/etc to try and get them to agree. In both cases, a developers job is to give technical feedback such as "Sorry but that's a security threat, you'll need to figure a new approach. Maybe try Z." not, "I think it is a better idea to work on X instead because it's going to generate Y". One is technical feedback on their idea and the other is a product/business idea.

> Expanding out of a strictly coding role isn't just good for career progression, it's a necessity for career self-preservation, too.

The first part is pretty much my point. To progress in a career in IT you have to stop doing technical work to progress. Development is a dead end job, just a reasonably well paid one. The second part, for the most part, I've never really seen. Most developers I've worked with haven't been held accountable for anything in such a long time that they get offended when you point out 500 servers going down in 20 countries because of one Redis server is embarrassing and we should work on stopping that from ever happening again and give excuses why it's not.

I think I've been misunderstood, I'm not advocating people to quit being a developer. I was pointing out that what the person was originally suggesting is actually start doing non-development work.

> where as a developer they can anticipate business needs

The thing is, a developer isn't normally in the business meetings where these are discussed. It's not a developers job to be in on a meeting about using X pricing model over Y.

A developer is a doer job. Developers do things. They don't decide things other than the technical details. If you're going to learn the business properly, you need to start entering other areas. Such as product management, start defining problems with the product and what can be changed. That a developer can start doing, but sitting here pretending it's not developers work is just lying.

Too often I read on the internet and hear at conferences that "every developer should do X for their company". Guys, I'm going to break it to you guys. X is literally another person' job, if I start doing it, they're going to get pissy real quick (or they're lazy and will just take credit for it) For some reason people seem to think developers are swiss army knives of businesses. It's not our job to find problems with the product, that's the product managers job. We can start doing it but we're going to start moving away from development work and towards product work. That's not a bad thing per say, it is just what is.

Basically, stop doing development work and start doing Project Management, Product Management, Business Analysis, etc.

For me, everything is about, that it could be harmful. And that's true it could be. Lots of things could be harmful. But right now, it's not really provable by anyone that it is. What we need is proper laws to control what companies can do. And in some areas of the world we're getting them. They're not great but like all tbings they will improve.

But it seems very much like there is an attitude like working for Facebook or Google is amoral. That I don't believe. Especially when there are companies sell software to track phones secretly to countries like Iran. That's on the border of amoral.

No... That would be banks and governments with decades of lax tax laws. This wasn't created overnight, 2008 just highlighted it.

> Would you say that the current political climate has been harmful? I would. I would not only say that, but I would also say that it's come about specifically because of data collection practices which have enabled data analysis of entire populations in a way which has never been seen before.

Seriously, look at the state of peoples finances. That's the cause. Look at the amount of money the rich have compared to those who voted for Trump, Brexit, etc. Look at the quality of life. This has been coming for a long, long time. Blaming on Facebook and Twitter is not very insightful of the state of affairs in the world today.

What harm came from that exactly? More people voted? Is voting harm? Just because you don't like the way someone voted doesn't make it harmful.

My understanding is the entire Cambridge Analytica thing is about privacy and not actual harm from the Facebook aspect.

I didn't assert that anything was truthful?

And prove the "harm" in its data collection practices. Since you've been very specific in data collection, I will expect your response to be about data collection.

> It's the "no one is harmed" part I strongly disagree with.

I can't prove a negative. So you would have to prove the positive, what harm came from this app?

Ok, in the developed world. And it really isn't. The US might be the worlds richest Country but in many areas, it's like a developing nation.

> I struggle to see how software developers can willingly do work on a project that goes against all values and morales!

Personally, this doesn't really go against my morals or values. They installed the app. No one forced them to. Not everyone has the same set of morals and values you do. If it's not illegal and no one is harmed. I don't care so much.

> There are legal rights that are protected to the extent that you cannot waive them

Yes. This is entirely about "legal rights". Why would you assume otherwise? And the right to go to court, the right for the law of the land to be applied, is a legal right, it may even be a human right. The US is lacking behind the world in legal and human rights, is the entire point of this thread.

> the problem an acquirer has is porting the existing users over to a new messaging infrastructure.

If you're selling it, it would be your job to port it. This wouldn't be the purchaser's job, it would be Facebook's job. It would be like expecting someone to dismantle a bed your selling on eBay. No one in their right mind would agree to dismantle it for you unless you were giving it away.

Waiving your rights is about removing future options. Since you're agreeing not to do something. That is not an obligation and the requirement do something. Not the inability to do something. One is an action the other is inaction.

If you say I agree to go to arbitration that is an obligation. If you say I will never sue and must always go to arbitration that is final. That is removing the option to sue and adding in an obligation.