kunglao

There's also Qwant. I've been using it a for a while on PC and found it to be not bad. On Android I kept running into no results a few times, I don't know what that was about.

What's wrong with FOO? It's fun to say and can use it almost anywhere when you need a random word. Has saved me seconds here and there when I didn't need to think of a word because I have FOO :)

Hmm, there are many companies where what you proposed make sense. But there are also many that I think it's hard to debate that SaaS doesn't offer value.

Running the mail server is simple enough, but then you need to set up storage. Emails are sensitive and often can't afford to lose. Then you need to set up backs, monitor and regularly test DR scenarios to see if your failovers, recovery plans are operational. Of course you need to maintain your data centers as well if you don't want subscriptions.

Then think of login. Employees don't want to log in to 15 different software. So they are going to ask for SSO. You are going to have to deploy and maintain something like active directory. Sometimes they need to be maintained across networks between different offices that are far from each other. After all this, you will still have to buy support packages from principle vendors for times when things go wrong (and they go wrong all the time when you host your own stuff). Shit escalates mate.

Something that really surprised me is how anyone has issues with git work flows. Git is one of my favourite software and I think it solves version control and collaboration issues beautifully. I can unhesistently say only one of the teams used git recall really well and we didn't agree on a work flow or no one was dogmatic about it. Each seemed to just know what they were doing.

I think just create your own branch always for your work is a good idea. Use merges to take or give contributions (reduce using complex things like rebases). If branching on sub branches, try not to squash merge. You can't avoid conflicts all the time but just sticking to branching and merging reduces this problem quite a lot. Team size has been about 12 engineers not sure how it'll impact team of much larger projects. But I have also contributed to open source projects using this same techniques without an issue.

In addition to what you said, I feel that may be Google's view of a viable project (business-wise) is different from many others, hence any real drive to continue these POCs long term.

If we look at main projects/products at Google like Chrome, Search, Gmail, Android, YouTube, Maps, Kuberenetes none of them has any serious competitors out there (except for Android perhaps). I mean, sure we technologists are more aware of alternatives and open to try new things but almost every average user I know is utterly uninterested in an alternative. There's a perception of Google as simply being the most technologically capable company on the planet for average users and that any alternative simply can't match, let alone surpass, Google's offering. Sometimes, when I think about, there's some truth to the latter part of that sentiment. Google does a good job with the projects that actually last.

So, perhaps any project that can't have a similar traction in the market probably doesn't get a whole lot of attention on a collective level.

This is Google we are talking about. I would imagine they started working on competing strategies even well before Microsoft announced officially they are going to use Chromium.

You people seriously undermine the tech awareness of marketing teams, of Google no less.

This is a naive view of how things work in big corporations. They work hard on many levels to make sure different teams are aligned under the strategic interests of the company as a whole.

Sure, different teams might get in the way of each other now and then. But not at a strategic level and the managers don't let the veer too far off the main course. Unless I miss my guess, Chrome isn't just any product to Google. It had great strategic importance to them just like Android. I'm not sure if the main purpose of Chrome's existence is to drive open Web standards.

What saddens me about the threads here is that it seems that some paint a very deliberate picture of Brave as a bad actor worse than other browser vendors.

I was using Firefox and then I switched to Brave. None of their featyres/business model is shoved down my throat. I just use it to browse the Web, I do not see ads, I do not participate in their crypto currency program. Heck I don't even see their icon for crypto currency on my browser UI.

I found Brave to be faster and more user friendly than Firefox which is why I switched. What I meant by user friendly is not just the UI components but also requires a minimal setup effort. I would like to hear more about technical and privacy related merits/demerits of Brave as I feel that's more pertinent at the moment when it comes to browser. However, the hate I hear about their business model/crypto currency somehow is baffling and ironically it seems to come from Firefox users. Can anyone point out some interesting technical and privacy related drawbacks of Brave? That'd be useful for a lot of us.

Considering how software development has become relatively lucrative and so many want to throw themselves at this, it's bound to create a large pool of incompetent engineers. Specially because this isn't an industry that is regulated like medical doctors or architects. Given that, I think it should be relatively easy to find 10x performers on different teams.

However, to find a 10x guy in a high-performing team, that'd be a sight :)

Link to the actual image: https://images.app.goo.gl/HgaapxCmCdiTrRKw5

https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=qwant+bot+detection&prmd=....

Usually the challenge i get is like may be 6 squares and one circle and I need to click on the circle. Apologies, I thought its easy to look this up because I have nt used Google search in a while and when I just searched this just now it's the first result I got on my images section.

That's one lousy excuse for a corporation like Google. This has nothing to do with them being PhD-heavy or engineering-first? (what engineering-first are you referring to btw?) The reason for this is the nature of their business. It's a calculated decision by them in terms of how much is worth spending on support without taking an actual hit to their margins.

I like the way Qwant search engine deals with this. It gives a small challenge to solve which is a lot less cumbersome than finding traffic lights on photos or far less invasive than the fingerprinting technologies others use.

This is so true man! I've seen this first hand both ways.

My observation has been is that most users who use Firefox aren't the kind to be controlled by their PC. Someone who can use Firefox (specially because of privacy concerns and have installed extensions) should easily be able to switch off this ad. If anything I found it bold and kinda funny of Microsoft to do that. I myself am a Brave user, btw.

First let's get the space suits and things that actually matter ready this time eh? :p

The problem with trying to be "define any assumptions" and using "a clear chain of logic" is that, if you do this right, you will realise that there's really very few things you can actually say about anything at all. This is a problem when it comes to day to day dealings.

On the one hand, average population do not agree on what can be construed as "self-evident". On the other hand, what seems self-evident within our limited capacity is often misguided or frustratingly incomplete. Even if we sorted both these out, being logical means having to deal with details. My experience has been that average person does not like to deal with the details.

I've found C# to be one of the easier languages to do multithreading with. I think this is owing to the capabilities of a Visual Studio like parallel stack viewer.

Also, anyone working with an OOP should really read Java Concurrency in Practice. That really helps in terms of learning how to think about multiple threads in a OOP world.

Not sure how events by themselves can solve the threading issues as events can be multi-threaded too. I've seen people write far worse event driven code than multi-threaded code. If people want to use events heavily, I think it's better to use a well known design pattern so others can understand what you are trying to do.

I think a large number of people can't tell a browser and the search engine apart anymore. They are so entangled, internet to people means something that when they click on it, it shows the iconic Google search page. Wonder how that happened. I heard that Google is introducing Chromebooks to school kids. By the time these kids graduate, they'll be confused by any computer that is not a Chromebook.

I think if the OS, browser and the search engine belongs to the same company, its perfectly fine to set it as the default. As long as on first launch they give a clear option to choose something else.

Boeing's 737 MAX, despite heavy regulations, designed the software to depend on just one sensor. Didn't put any limit on how far down the plane could be pushed.

These are not any individual who would do deliberately. I bet these conversations go differently for ex need to certain kinds of debugging vs the improbability of actually pulling off an attack or prioritising a release dealing and making a design decision to implement a feature in a specific way which is intended to be updated later on opening up windows for attack. They would genuinely be improbable unless someone knows that they are there and committed enough to try.

Try using search engines like Qwant. Give others a fighting chance.

I think that's because before this whole cloud thing came about, Microsoft already had built the image as an enterprise software vendor. They provided hosted cloud solutions long back, then they invented hybrid solutions like Azure Stack and slowly and carefully eased their clients into Azure.

Also, Microsoft support for enterprise customers is just amazing. They have been deploying their own engineers to support enterprise customers in the past for their hosted clouds.

Cant mention much about security but Microsoft does open fewer lower level Apis compared to Linux. For example, it's impossible to do certain socket-level ops with Windows apis. So, in a sense I guess it makes Windows safer at least historically?

1. Navigation: subjective so gonna let that slide. 2. Downright bullshit. You are starting to whine. 3. Subjective but far from something that makes the IDE a "piece of crap" 4. You are starying to sound like you are in the wrong industry. 5. No. Change the .csproj and drop the AssemblyInfo.cs usually work for something that can actually be migrated. If you expect any project that targeted Windows to just migrate to cross platform using a NNF you are an idiot.

At the very least you could have given an example of an IDE that you consider is better. You were just talking out of your arse.

Haha. Would love to hear also about:

1. We're releases and code changes as common as it is now or once you finished writing it's more less that except for bug fixes?

2. Nowadays a lot of non-technical people are also involved in the development process like product owners, project managers, scrum masters, engineering managers, etc. Was this so then?

3. Size of the teams? Was it generally smaller or larger compared to today?

1. If you broke a code, don't generalise it as an inherent problem of clean code. Just find what exactly you did wrong. 2. If the only reason you refactored it was because you felt it's not clean, don't do it - that code doesn't look terrible to me anyway. 3. To do this kind of refactoring you need good test coverage. So, start there. This also makes sure that you understand the specs well enough to refactor. 4. Clean code is good. It's a skill to know what is good code and what is bad code, what is better code and what is worse code and when to give in on clean code and compromise. Practice it.