llanowarelves

Or you could say it the other way around: Even leading scientists are susceptible to letting emotions get the best of them and double-down defending their personal investments into things.

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck.

Same happened to me on Gumroad. I ended up with 5 or so before I had to contact customer support to merge them all.

Some people rightfully want to see what the engineering effort and roadmap is gonna be before becoming invested in it, since there's always a cost.

Simple aesthetic changes and codes of conduct / political alignment for contributors are not enough for forks to become full things of their own. Even if they can help (branding, community, etc.). Or hurt (Forgejo is harder to pronounce. And CoC have potential downsides, possibly excluding good people, ironically, over banal minutia and hostile environment around being "not hostile" - like you saying he is "hung up" on it...).

Gitea was already a fork of Gogs, so why should contributors use this fork of a fork?

These forks (and direct clones) are like little political secessionary/independence movements, both making lofty statements and splitting would-be contributors. Sometimes it works out very well and they become full independent things of their own (GNU stuff), but it's fair to want to get on to see the actual engineering side of things.

It's so you don't need an exact term, you can search for a synonym or something "similar" in concept.

So more like a search engine than just a Ctrl+F in a file for a string of tokens

Learned a lesson that you only have to "spend" (forgo) $250 to cause that company $14m in losses (that you could have prevented)

Indeed the choice for me as recent as 1-2 years ago was still SVN vs Perforce. Despite only having ever worked with Git

I liked the one Pennsylvania bill introduced where subscription services have to email you that they're about to charge you again.

Throws a wrench into the "was hoping you forgot about it, now ask/argue with customer support on the phone" dark pattern.

Well-written comment. I would love to read an extended version of this with examples, pictures, etc. as a blog post / youtube video.

Thanks. A lot of good stuff here that may go overlooked.

As with any business/product, consumers are also free to say what they think to the business, other users, competitors, and anyone else.

They are great because you can find so many problems at much lower cost earlier. And communication across domain and skill levels.

Maybe their unpopularity among developers stems from trauma of the UML+OOO+Waterfall days and an overcorrection in the opposite direction.

Or many more are doing it and just not talking about it since it's not as exciting as code.

It's clear you've never experienced significant amounts of tech debt that you aren't allowed to fix because it doesnt Excel chart nicely for the boomers higher up who only see things in terms of "something working on the screen" or not.

And no, I'm not going to rebel by secretly fixing it silently and unappreciatedly while peers pile on hacks and get promoted for things on the screen.

Luckily Figma has a great engineering background as its basis with technical founders, so they can avoid becoming that, but not all companies are like that.

I think it ends up being hybrid, like seen in CQRS and especially with DDD. Toss in "Vertical Slice Architecture" as well. What abstractions you want can decided on a per command or query basis and it feels natural.

"If you define a MAIN function, any parameters you give it will be automatically turned into CLI flags."

This is actually cool

Also some apps, like the old Zynga social games, would hold you hostage, you had to approve everything (at once, not granular like it is today) to use or even install.

It's been a while since early Android, but I'm pretty sure that's how it worked.

Is that like Astro?

What would be the right tool for an entertaining highly interactive and animated (game-like, but still mostly text based) thing then? Used to be Java applets and Flash. Now is "webapps" and WebGL.

Or is that it should have been handrolled using CSS animations and framework-less JS?

Or is it more that we're acting like it's 1995 and the web is for reading text documents only, and anything other than that is nerd blasphemy? (Not saying you're saying this, but it is something some still press; they hate the web stack being used in other ways).

It feels bad to "waste" the work that could have otherwise gone into highly-paid billable hours, or at least charity work on other repos that get more use.

The thing about economics is that it's physics, with a time delay. We are seeing the time-delayed reaction to over-extension into the cloud play out, not instantly but in the downturn cycle.

I like that it's this way so we can easily compete with these dysfunctional companies. Don't fix them :)

Also you can argue that the (original) filename itself is part of the metadata. It's useful to have what it was originally called when referencing elsewhere. So where to put this data? in a sidecar file during the rename process or something? We could just use content hash, but then online dashboards to redownload things from vendors, for example, won't necessarily have that there displayed on the page, or when you start downloading it in the browser.

This is great. I noticed I have about 9 or 10 top-level bookmarks folders to do the same. My categories are very similar

And we can expect it to continue going that way for smaller companies, since the tax changes in the US wrt R&D means it's better to buy than build, all else being equal, due to the tax deduction not having to be spread over time.

They probably also see States Rights (the philosophy, not necessarily a legal interpretation) as opposite Federal power.

States rights isn't just for social-moral topics such as marijuana and immigration. We should have expected it to be used for other things as has historically been the case.

California et al just had a slight lead.

There's limits on either end of that spectrum (pile of bespoke pipes vs. Lotus Notes), that we can see a demonstrated interest in, somewhere in the middle: the success of tools like Docker, and arguably even something as banal as the concept of an OS (distribution). Any user-facing software, etc.

You don't want everyone wasting too much time handrolling slightly-differing monstrosities instead of a cohesive design if it's not a business or engineering differentiator.

Evidently, the best way to run a bank is a 0% cash reserve minimum (as was granted to US banks starting during COVID), so you can make money off of literally every last penny, and then discourage and prevent customers from taking their money out, then [externalizing all costs]/[socialize losses] onto government (taxpayer) via bailout or customer via bail-in, while privatizing all profits in the meantime. And charge poor people $30 every time they dip under $0 even by a penny.

Doesn't mean it's a good idea for the rest of us non-banks.

I am not awfully sure. Point is I threw you a bone in my first response to you, you know -- "opposite" sides to synthesize, which I now know I shouldn't have done, and you shat all over it. Which is why the conversation with you is over.

Ok, without resorting to insulting you as you are me, according to you, is the 10th Amendment a loophole or not?

More generally, are people doing things because they aren't stopped from doing so a loophole or not?

Are loopholes a feature or a bug? Does it depend on intentions or how it's used to be called this, or not?

More importantly, why don't judges tend to rule in the "spirit of the law" over what's actually the law, if that's so obviously the thing that should matter the most? Are you willing to sign contracts with me on that basis? And see which philosophy wins? Or do you just want to complain and show your disapproval of me?

There's how things are and how they "should" be and simply describing it in terms of a constellation of competing actors and overlapping interests at different layers and forces that motivate them (not always easy to tell, and I've already left open and taken into account the whole spectrum of characterizations: intentional v not, malicious v not, passive v active. I have my own not-strongly held opinion on the car one while acknowledging all of that) means I'm not reasoning (unlike you). Got it.

Ah gotcha, thanks for clarification.

Things can be a conspiracy of common interests (and not even necessarily be bad), whether or not that's what this is, without involving "smoky rooms" (also known as boardrooms; but for fun on that topic, check out full history of NCR, company was nuts).

I don't disagree with you on that component of it existing.

The thing about policy is usually somebody big is warning the public ahead of time that the "affordable healthcare bill" (for another example) isn't actually affordable healthcare (it's mandated health insurance), get called debby-downers/negative/hateful, and then it happens that way anyway due to lawmaker and corp PR pushing it through while everyone else cheers. Actually reading the bill and thinking/wargaming how it will apply deterministically with basic thought experiments is discouraged. And all "sides" do this, from incentives.

I question the validity of the spirit of bills when it repeats like that so often. At some point that is the spirit of the bill.

This is of course ignoring the revolving door, regulatory capture, and lobbying angles, which are always in play some (maybe huge) %. Also predictable and deterministic, from incentives.