justinlaster

I called this out a few months ago, and got told by a moderator to not employ conspiracy theories.

Yet, week by week, I watch as brand new accounts show up on these types of posts to spout the same short-sighted, toxic talking points that always get vomited out by Trump supporters. They don't say anything related to technology, they always tend to comment on political posts. I've been watching a few accounts and there has been no change in behavior.

This is not a left vs right issue. A lot of these people forgo basic philosophical principles about knowledge, and seem to shun any use of logic and reason (part of the reason you will not get anywhere by engaging them, they simply don't care).

This is such a stupid talking point. It's like me setting up a bunch of gas canisters and then someone else coming in and burning those canisters, and then that person proclaiming "I didn't put the canisters there though."

>Showing up at the office on time is a first-line test of dependability.

If you truly believe that, your opinions are severely lacking some level of realistic perspective.

We are anything if not constantly chemically altered. From the food we eat, to the drinks we consume, to the things we inhale.

I strongly disagree. In fact, I'm of the opinion these days that if you can't communicate effectively and proficiently over text, you're in the wrong field; at the very least I'm going to question how much you are "with it."

There is nothing stopping a completely remote company from having "jam" sessions between developers. Is there any solid evidence that working in an office together yields a better work product? We see plenty examples of products that are built by completely remote organizations, and no one has ever pointed to them and gone "man, if only they worked in a face to face situation this would be so much better!"

And where did I say you were? There you go again. Stop trying to waste people's time and be constructive about something.

Yes, racists tend to be in the Republican party. That is not saying that all Republicans are racist. Or that there is some intrinsic quality about republican and racist. Although it should make you question why you're apart of the same party given certain platform agendas recently.

I am not going to explain this further, as you are borderline trolling.

Except it's not.

Not a very reasonable analogy at all. Of course you and your ilk need to resort to such nonsense to waste everyone's time.

No it isn't. He's advocating for publication of data. No where does that align with a climate change "skeptic"

No one said they weren't allowed. It's just exceedingly unlikely that as a scientist you would align yourself with a political party that has had a staunch anti-science platform for the past two decades.

Flip a coin 4 times, all 4 times the coin lands on heads.

You: "Statistics is bullshit."

He literally just explained this. Democrats then are not the same Democrats now.

The people (southern whites) that committed violence against blacks who were democrats back then, are very, very likely to be Republican these days.

>We don't impeach Presidents because a loud group of people dislikes the fact that they lost an election.

That's an incredibly disingenuous statement.

Well that's clearly false to everyone else, and again, is kind of irrelevant.

Assuming something isn't valid because it contains a fallacy is in and of itself a fallacy. Ad hominems are used all the time in extremely valid ways.

Take what he said in spirit, instead of literally.

There has always been an attitude of cynicism that tries to masquerade as wisdom around these parts.

>So I spent a few evenings with Rust

I stopped reading. There is literally nothing you could possibly say that'd be worthwhile after "a few evenings" with Rust, especially when you lack the proper background in the first place.

This trend of "The problem with Rust: A naive and inexperienced perspective"-esque articles is already old.

That's not the same thing as showing different results per user. It's just tacking on the user's operations when it renders out the front page.

They're two completely different operations, with completely different complexities behind them.

The "hide" feature is not analogous to what reddit is doing.

I put "good" in quotes for a reason. I never said "hire the best"; that isn't a requirement for anything that was stated.

There shouldn't really be a measurable overhead of running a distributed system, at least in the context of microservices. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that a distributed system isn't "worth it" at smaller organizations. I'm part of one, and it helps keep things flexible while increasing reliability of the "overall" system(s).

But that's neither here nor there. One shoe size won't fit everyone, but OP ran down a gambit of things and seemed to have issue with each one. It is exceedingly unlikely they are doing anything eccentric enough to the point of proclaiming CI is just a bandaid on the broken concept of microservices. I will contend that the source of OP's insights are... misappointed, and by breaking down efficiencies and flexibility they're merely masking certain underlying problems.

What's more probable? An organization hired some wrong people, or a generic list of strongly supported practices over the course of two to three decades are to blame for an organization's failings? I guess that's my take on it.

I would say in a lot of cases understanding that there are some basic failures is probably a great starting point to cleaning up the development effort. There's not much else I can say other than that, considering how vague OP's post is.

"Good" engineers will get things done and use common tooling to their advantage. This requires actually understanding the principle behind the tools, not just shoving things in and hoping it all magically works.

If you have a lot of "good" practices that are supposed to make it easy to move code around and you find that things just keep breaking, one could reasonably assume that it's simply highlighting an underlying issue. I'd start figuring out which engineers (and management) is causing more work for our organization than they're putting out.

What I think we're seeing from OP is lot of "in name only" practices.

1. I think this is rather obvious, work with what you have. Maybe think about hiring specifically for areas your team is in lacking in, as long as the team as a whole will see decent benefit from it.

2. I hate to say you're doing microservices "wrong" but I'd really question project structure and practices being the culprit behind the cost of doing devops with microservices.

3. This seems like an engineering fault, rather than some implicit principle behind those concepts causing more downtime.

4. How is CI a plaster on the problem of microservices? CI is useful with or without microservices.

5. Agile was always meant to be a guideline, not an end all and be all. It's meant to get your team to figure out how it wants to work, and write code before process. See: http://agilemanifesto.org/

The problems you are describing seem like big problems with your team, engineering and management. No amount of process and technology is ever going to fix a dysfunctional (sorry if that's too blunt) team. What I get from this, instead of having processes in place that make it easy to move code out, you're removing tooling to slow things down intentionally with the superficial result of "stabilizing" the entire development effort. The solution appears to be to get your team to write less code, and force management to bow down to the new reality of these "stabilizing" changes. Both of which can and sometimes should be done regardless of processes and tooling in place.

The best code is the code you don't write. But don't blame the tooling on making it easy for a team to be lazy and remove the all important characteristic of a team self-critiquing (i.e, "Do we really need this feature", "That'd be nice to have but right now we're managing to get things done.", "Did I actually test my code, was it reviewed, or am I just counting on the fact that I can shove something else out later while our redundancy systems pick up the slack?")

That doesn't answer anything.

I literally have struggled to come up with an appropriate question that addresses the several different misconceptions about your statement, so I'll just go with this: what?

How is anything you stated remotely analogous to what is in the article.

Hired.

Why not? Yahoo is being bought precisely because the amount of people that use it, discussing it's demographic is certainly a valid discussion point.

Are you seriously going to try to treat a blip from one publisher and act like it's characteristic of the whole ecosystem?

For your information, other publishers that are apart of the "MSM" called out the Rolling Stone article.

>They used that power to publish biased articles, half truths, etc.

No they didn't. They just didn't post what people wanted.

>started distrusting the mass media.

People were told to distrust the media, and they followed through because it tickles people's ego's.

It's not a one or the other...

> I'd love to contribute, but I don't want to wade through a reddit-comment-thread-level of forced references and memes to do that.

I'm going to have call you out on this. You have no wishes to contribute. Because asking this question reveals you haven't even bothered to look at the repositories, join IRC channels, or subscribe to the mailing lists.

You're here to complain and you're using hypothetical constructive motivations to masquerade that fact. State your opinion without the fussy lie, there was really nothing wrong with it.