lcw

I mean sure, but in a practical sense the company becoming the only seller of gasoline happened through anti-competitive behavior and not just because they have a superior gasoline product. I think that two app stores controlling 100% of distribution and setting their rates similarly feels pretty anti-competitive.

I think mileage varies man. You get a good probation officer and can basically do as you please. You get a crappy one and they show up randomly everywhere. It also depends on if you are pushing the rules. If your probation officer doesn't trust you it's going to be a bad time

As someone who has consistently worked out 3 to 4 time a week for many years I believe and of course have heard many people speak to all the positive effects of exercise. I think what's interesting after doing it for so long and it being a normal part of my life that it doesn't really have the same benefits it once did.

I think there is something to doing unique things and it taking you out of your comfort zone. For instance in this case I could see hot yoga being vastly different than my typical workouts and that having a positive impact on my moods more so than my typical workout. I think it might be something that would be interesting to study, because while having better cardio and the endorphins that are generated from a good workout do make you feel better I have to imagine just as important for better moods is the fact that you are improving yourself in a way that takes you out of what might be a routine that you associate with depression or negative moods, which I think we all cycle through at points in our lives. Shaking things up seems to be important I guess is what I'm saying.

I think you are looking at this from the consumer side, and I completely agree with you. Consumers are probably none the wiser on the original intended region of their phone and should not be penalized.

I'm talking from a corporation/carrier side that let this happen to consumers. If you sign to terms of a contract that gives you special access to phones to sell in your region and then you just go and break that contract that doesn't seem right to me. To be clear I don't think downstream consumers did something wrong.

Thanks for sharing I'm definitely going to read into it a bit, and I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about South American economics nor have I spent a lot of time there.I definitely haven't bought anything expensive there. As I said in a previous comments this was sometime ago, but I would say that if a bunch of carriers were selling their allotment of phones to US markets it could lead to the scenarios that you are depicting. If it's easier to offload to the US market expensive phones than reasonably there would have to be a big incentive to keep them in market which would inflate costs to be higher than US markets. I can't speak to the tariff issues though that could hurt my argument. It may be a lesser evil at the end of the day who is it for me to say. I just didn't feel right about it.

The manufacturers have contractual agreements with certain carriers in specific regions and get reduced rates because of the purchase power of those markets. It's not ethical in my opinion especially if you want to have a lasting relationship with said manufactures, which we did, to purchase large amounts of those phones and then sell them to US carriers by changing carrier configuration. At the time we were receiving pre released flagship phones to test with. I see people arguing that it's a supply and demand problem and there is nothing wrong with it, but the reality is more like there is demand there, but at the time carries say in South America could make a quick Million USD off just dumping the phones to the US which leaves the people of that region unable to purchase flagship phones at reduced rates. I'm not sure if the economics are the same now, but that was my understanding at the time and I felt like it wasn't and ethical path forward.

This is from about 10 years ago. So the carrier apis were a little different then, but the answer is both were necessary to update depending on the test or in this case carrier.

I worked for a start-up that was struggling for money. The CEO had a bunch of relationships with small carriers in the US. One day he asked me to create a program that rooted a specific type of flagship Android phone and to update the carrier information to his choosing. At first, since we were a testing startup that had some government contracts, I thought this was for testing purposes since we had cell test equipment. I realized not too long after it was to basically enable small US carriers to sell flagship phones that were meant for different regions... Let's just say that was the final nail in the coffin for me at that specific startup.

From my understanding they don't dogfood a lot of gcp products internally. That's how you end up with janky integrations between their products. It's really frustrating at times to see their cloud architects pitch some grouping of technologies that you should use to find out the integrations aren't well tested at scale. For example, pushing for pubsub to be used with dataflow for near real time processing just to figure out at scale global pubsub has high latency, above 1 minute sometimes 5 minutes, on 1% of messages at scale.

I feel like the Wall Street Journal has been pretty balanced on the FTC's case in regards to the MSFT/ATVI acquisition. They have noted Lina Kahn's strategy and how it is meant to hopefully bring attention to Congress of issues that are arising that the FTC doesn't really have legal grounds to stand on at the moment. They also have had some oped and reporting about how the FTC is being disruptive and over extending. It will be interesting to see what side of history Kahn's FTC lands. I guess you take what you want when you read reporting these days though.

I'm actually impressed that this OS patch strategy didn't cause more outages over the years. It seems like there was no health check before starting more restarts. I'm also surprised that no one seems to have tested the patch because I would assume something similar would happen in a testing or canary environment.

The point of the lawsuit seems to be to create case law that would influence standards and/or a requirements for automotive security features.

It was surprising to me, but my kids like going into retro toy stores and getting things more than getting newer stuff. Some things can be more expensive but generally these places have a bunch of cheap used toys that come from franchises and brands my kids understand and like. For instance, transformers, star wars, power rangers, and ninja turtles.

> 1. Make it work 2. Make it good 3. Make it fast

Anecdotally, everytime someone tells me Kubernetes is overkill and then follows your approach. In a year they end up building the capabilities that come out of the box with Kubernetes, and of course they aren't as well thought out. Because they were done adhoc and as needed.

I agree with you, but I think a passive voice is used correctly in that sentence you are referencing. It puts the emphasis on the impacted employees and then goes on to speak to their contributions. This takes away the company for a moment from the conversation to discuss the "impacted teammates". They were using an active voice up till that point.

I think this is just a matter of opinion. When something severe happens it's natural to not use the most harsh term to describe the event. It doesn't seems like something malicious.

When describing a death many people will say "they are no longer with us" instead of describing the circumstance of death. When talking about traumatic events we as a society have a natural propensity to not use triggering words. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that unless it's hiding information. As described above no one is hiding anything because we all understand what happened.

I think structured interviews can be just as easily biased as unbiased. I'm not disagreeing necessarily about being structured with your interview practices, but I find this to be a grey area with promotions also.

As soon as people figure out the check boxes or the structured pointing system they start to check all the boxes, but it doesn't necessarily speak to the nuances between individuals that make them diverse and both valuable. In fact it can lead to a certain type of person people hired or promote, which can be on good characteristics, but I find many times turns into a "certain type" of person.

I guess what I'm saying is structure can take you so far, but you have to be willing to explore a little bit about what makes a person special, and that many times means not controlling the whole interview, and be willing to have your bias challenged through the candidate directing some of it.

Do you see how playing this game of writing iterative tests would actually provude slower learnings than prototyping a call to an API and receiving a result that would inform a series of tests that would be much more informed?

It's just as easy to be inefficient writing useless/bad tests than it is writing bad code. I think every developer should do TDD in their career, because it will make you think about the testability of the code. That said once you understand how to write testable code than I think it makes sense to be flexible on whether you write the test first or take a crack at an implementation.

The argument that you should have a good understanding of requirements I think leads to a lot of analysis paralysis, and isn't a practical method for building novel things in a timely manner.

I see what your saying in regard to me trying to appeal to emotion by using a topic like abortion. However, my intent in the example was/is that emotions are high in these topics and are used to give some opinions more attention than they deserve.

In this case I feel like the main point of the parent commenter was not a well formed opinion and as such the commenter was trying to appeal to emotion. I'm not trying to say they can't say something like what they said here. This is a perfect place to have a discussion.

> Self-preservation is not innately good (or bad)

I agree with you. The parent comment that I was responding to does not agree with this statement. That's clear when they say "what rubs me the wrong way", and referring to work done in the name of human preservation as narcissism.

There are a bunch of weak arguments here.

> How would we feel if aliens stopped the mass extinction events that led to our existence?

This statement is just appealing to emotion and is commonly used in arguments against abortion or attempts to thought police. There is nothing provable or disprovable in your argument and this question is used to just try and bait people into an emotional response.

> Non-human life seems by and large indifferent to its long-term fate on this planet.

I would argue that self preservation is an innate characteristics of every plant and animal on this earth. Isn't a desire to live the basis for self preservation? Isn't it natural for a plant or animal to stop something from killing them if it impedes in their ability to survive? At a basic level plants compete for sunlight at the expense of other plants. If there was an cognitive leap in a plant or animal wouldn't it be natural for anything to protect their greater habitat? If that's narcissistic than I guess it's the most natural narcissism I can think of.

Staff has negative value when demand growth doesn't meet a companies forecasts. You are right there should always be positive output from staff, but it doesn't mean that there is a demand for said output.

I think when you say value you aren't speaking fiscally. If that's the case then I would say I'm not trying to minimize the output of workers being laid off. I'm just saying that the value of their output isn't marketable to consumers, so from a capitalist perspective a company should rationally make adjustments.

In general layoffs especially when they are proactive, which in this case they seem to be, show investors that the company is being fiscally responsible. This isn't an indication that Amazon is going to increase profitability it's a sign to investors that they are taking in recession indicators and adapting accordingly. It doesn't seem malicious it seems perfectly reasonable and sane. Of course it's Amazon so there is another layer of context, but this is a rational and normal investor response.

We didn't have much tooling outside of typical things you would find in a Linux distro. It started with trying to isolate a node having issues. Then looking at at application and kernel logs. Then testing the connection to the other node via ping or telnetting a port I knew should be open. Found out I couldn't route then just process of elimination from that point till we managed our way to looking at a full ARP cache. Tested that we could increase the ARP cache size to fix the issue. Then figured out by going through the kernel why it wasn't releasing correctly by looking at the source code for the release we were using. I'm simplifying some discovery, but there was no magic unfortunately.

Agreed, one of the craziest bugs I had to deal with was we had a distributed system using lots of infrastructure. Said distributed system started having trouble communicating with random nodes and sub-systems. I spent 3 hard days finding a Linux kernel bug where the ARP cache was not removing least recently accessed network addresses. Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal for a typical network because few networks would fill up the default arp cache size. That was even true for ours except that we would slowly add and remove infrastructure over the course of a couple months until eventually the ARP cache would fill and remove the random network devices... It wasn't even our distributed application code... Some bugs take time to manifest themselves in very creative ways.

Obviously you are correct in that the Fed doesn't print money. That does seem like a misconception. However, they do make money more available by lowering interest rates and QE. This does give banks a disproportionate opportunity to lend more. Both because it's more lucrative for businesses and consumers to take on debt, but also because they need less real money on hand to do so.

While I agree it's not printing money out of thin air. It definitely seems to be making money more widely available, and in the end the outcome is the same. However, I think what you are alluding to is there isn't some chaos machine that dump money in the economy with no levers to pull it back.

I think you meant to refer to drizly. I would say this is an example of a company that put their priorities on growth rather than security and it worked out for them. It sounds like Drizly didn't think about security at all, and in the end it cost them 0.6% (worst case they settled for $7M and were aquired for over $1.1B) of their value. Looks like their executive team prioritized the right things to me.

Making a decision for or against more security is more about risk mitigation. If the courts are just going to slap companies on the wrists for data breaches I don't see a strong argument for intense security protocols for your run of the mill e-commerce business.

Why do you think this is controversial? Whether a company works with another software company that is bonded and/or a person uses OSS if something bad happens to the customer it still is reflective on the company using the software in a negative way. No company would refute that.

I rarely have seen court cases in regard to customer damage try to quantify negligence, because the court system is missing a lot of nuance in our industry. Pragmatically speaking the courts are ruling on the severity of the customer impact. There can and will always be an argument that is subjective about negligence in regard to how much you protect yourself from a malicious event vs the severity of said event. This isn't specific to software engineering either like concert venues that are mishandled and result in accidental death.

Your comments around npm dependencies not being reviewed and shows an engineering team is negligent seem contextually correct depending on the damage of said system the engineers are managing. If it's a bank system that leads to fraud then I agree. If it's a start up that runs a website; I hardly categorize this as negligent. Every company I have worked for has understood this trade off. If you are trying to be over zealous about the definition of negligence then I could understand how that would be controversial.

I don't think the Fed dispersing money had anything to do with it. If anything more money with low interest rates would increase the crypto market.

Oppositely I think the global fiat currency inflation and the Fed increasing interest rates sunk the Crypto market. Now you could argue that the Fed keeping interest rate so low for so long created more "money", which it absolutely did, but not directly. Banks created more inflation than the Fed printing money because loans became so lucrative at these interest rates and put more money in everyone's pockets. That allowed the stock and crypto market to grow though not crash. You increase interest rates the first thing to get squeezed is always going to be high yield high volatility investments like crypto followed by the stock market as banks and wealthy people divest to the stable now higher yielding bonds market, which should out pace inflation with a fraction of the risk.

What have they become? I think most of the issues that have haunted them lately were related to people that worked on the games early on in their history and the culture that carried. I assume bad people can't hide there anymore with as much scrutiny that company has received. Or maybe your talking about the quality of games? I don't think Diablo Immortal is any indication of Diablo IV seeing as Diablo III is still releasing content without crazy monetization.

I look forward to Diablo IV personally. However I do feel that sense of nostalgia for the early Blizzard games. It's fun to see a post like this. Not sure the company is done with good content though. I still play their games a lot... I'm biased.

These are all valid reasons to dislike p2w games. I do think that some of the p2w aspects are more complex/confusing than in previous games, but for instance losing paid for content because of time constraints isn't a novel idea. That's literally what a battle pass is. PoE has Vault Pass. You have to log in and play to receive those awards. You pay for the opportunity to get them and there is a time constraint if you don't play enough. Some games more than others make the battle pass easier to achieve with dailies.

That said you are addressing that you "feel" like it's not as bad. However, I would argue that PoE wouldn't be still running so successfully without whales that may or may not be victims. You are, like many sane human beings, reaping the benefits of a well funded development team by whales. Does that make it ethically right because you don't "feel" it or see it as egregiously? Should a skin ever cost $50?

Like most things you feel it when it impacts your experience, which is very clear if you aren't a spender in a p2w game. If it didn't impact your experience you don't care hence why you think one is worse than the other. It's about how you feel, and that is the problem today. It's hard to solve a problem when people are inconsistent about where they stand on an issue. Do they care about victims and these MTX tactics or do they just not like p2w games. Personally, I don't think p2w games should be illegal much like I don't think gambling should be illegal, but I do think there needs to be more regulation about predatory MTX especially in regard to children across the board.