2,895 karma · joined July 18, 2013
1. Framework X is created based on the vision of its founder
2. Lots of people begin to use it
3. X gets better and better (user feedback + excitement of the project's success)
4. X becomes super popular and attracts people from other frameworks
5. More and more contributors begin committing code (helpful, but hard to manage beyond a certain volume), and entropy increases - more bugs start getting through (think Rails, where there were loads of security and data loss bugs in the span of single years)
6. People bring their ideas with them, which is helpful at times, but which also begins to dilute the X creator's vision and replace it with a democratic vision (sometimes good, sometimes bad)
7. Social pressure causes the creator of X to begin changing his vision to accommodate the community
The apex of quality is at # 4, and that's the point we're approaching now. Also worth noting is that this timeline isn't always followed exactly. Take Django, for instance. It was able to keep up with community demands without caving in to too many wild requests, and it managed entropy by keeping the number of core committers to a minimum for many years.
The unfortunate part is that it's moments like this (when a framework makes it into the spotlight in a big way like this) that those hordes begin their swim.
Evan is an excellent developer, and it won't by through his volition that Vue gets ruined.
The OP feels that if somebody disagrees with his political view point they should be silenced and oustered, and have their life ruined.
People like Marco are ruinous to society.
It's more like a global minimum.
With many of these micro-frameworks, you're observing what is near the minimum API required for mapping a web request to a single function.
137% as many req/sec as Node
83% as many req/sec as Go
When you add asyncpg to the mix my money is on Sanic winning by a long shot, in a benchmark that includes e.g., 3 queries and returning the results as JSON.
1. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/sql-notify.html
Indeed.
Btw, funny thing: fake grassroots is called "astroturfing".
In order to truly clear your history (files open, last searches, etc.), I have to maintain a script with the following:
find ~ -name *.sublime-workspace -delete
rm ~/Library/Application\ Support/Sublime\ Text\ 3/Local/Session.sublime_session
My rule of thumb is:
If I'm on a server via SSH, it's Vim. Otherwise, it's Sublime.
No. That's what courts are for.
This notion that you (in the general sense) should publicly shame businesses and people over private concerns is absurd.
Just kidding. Ok, let's do this. $200 it is, but you have to pick your charity now, and the timeframe for a return has to be sufficiently short such that $200 can still at least buy a mosquito net or something.
My charity choice is the US Treasury.
Also, HN is fine (my real name / twitter / github are in my profile).
P.S. You didn't ask why I thought it wouldn't return a profit. It's not because I disbelieve in your company (you guys have more startup data than just about anyone).
This fund will not earn its investors a positive return.
I worked at Staples when I was 19, and when I first started I was a "front end lead" (read: the only full-time cashier), so I would work behind the service counter at the front.
Once, I was standing up front while there were no customers when all of the sudden the voice of the general manager (we'll call him Bill) popped onto the phone's speaker, "Hey, Michael". I looked up and noticed the light next to "Manager's Office" was on. I instinctively replied, "Hey, Bill; what's up?", despite the fact that it nearly gave me a heart attack.
Bill proceeded to tell me to run something he needed to the back, which I did, and that was the end of that.
Then, one day I was helping a customer with some Cross pens behind the counter. I stood up to grab a key that was next to the register when I noticed out of the corner of my eye that the phone's "Manager's Office" intercom light was on. It made my heart jump because I hadn't talk to anybody through it, and I knew that Bill was in the back office. I immediately realized, 'oh my god, he's probably spying on me to see how my service is!'. It made me feel uncomfortable, until I realized it was an opportunity to be extraordinarily helpful and jovial with the customer and be "candidly" observed by my manager. So I did that. I rang the customer up and she left. The light went off after a few minutes of silence.
After that, I noticed the light come on a number of times on different days, which surprised me. I even ran to the back after helping a customer once, while the intercom light was still on, sneaked around the corner, and looked into his office window to see if it was really him. He was sitting there looking at his phone. I looked for just a moment when I heard from the speaker above, "<beep!> cashier to the front". I ran.
Bill was probably the greatest manager I've ever known, such a hard worker, a really cool guy to talk to, well respected by everyone, etc. In fact, if all managers were like him, Staples would probably still be a force to be reckoned with. So, it never bothered me the way it probably would have, had it been some creepy manager. This is necessary for the rest of the story, because had it not been the case, I would have probably called him out, etc.
Eventually I started being extra jovial all the time, because I never knew when I'd miss seeing the light come on and miss the opportunity to impress Bill.
Bill was so impressed with my service that I was given a raise and promoted to manager of the copy & print center about 6 months later, which eventually led to me opening my own print company and quitting Staples (after seeing how high the margins were), which led to me learning how to use Adobe Creative Suite and graphic design, which led to me shifting my focus to print design for clients (brochures, cards, etc.), which led to me meeting some guys who ran an Internet marketing company one day while trying to sell my print design services. They wanted to hire me full time, and did, so I began learning web design, then web development, then back end code, etc.
I always tell myself, 'I was probably destined for this kind of work', but the reality is that my entire life might have been changed by simply knowing I was being spied on by my Boss. I realize that it probably worked out for the better in my case, but the fact is, knowing that somebody is watching you causes you to change who you are. It's a form of control in and of itself. In fact, it doesn't even need to happen to you. Now that we have all seen that the government does spy on people, it's hard to imagine all the tiny ways that it might change your behavior and the things you say (e.g., online).
This is the problem with these uninformed, emotionally-driven debates about ideologies; everybody thinks it's "me vs you", rather than trying to understand anything in depth.
If not, then I guess we're talking about some form of authoritarianism.
To talk about "socialism" in a sense that doesn't break the non-aggression principle (necessary for non-authoritarianism), you need to think of volunteer communes. IOW, use pooled money (just think of it as a necessary evil) to buy 1,000 acres, build a master-planned community, and offer residency to people who pitched in to buy it, and then use socialism as the guiding ideology within that commune. If it doesn't work and people want to leave, they can leave.
That's a non-authoritarianism version of socialism. If you think there are others that exist in practice, I implore you to look into every true socialist country in history, including the currently failing state of Venezuela, wherefrom there is a mass exodus underway.
Imagine looking back at your younger years from your pixel hammock overlooking the digital sunset, and you see a picture like that... now you're depressed because you remembered the physical world as being so beatiful compared to the digital world, esp after the big virus slowdown of 2251, but now you think "it must have been a creepy world after all".
The US dollar is backed first and foremost by the global reserve status of our currency, which it became in 1971, as (probably the most important) part of the Bretton Woods System. As long as nations need US dollars to purchase crude oil, the US dollar will continue to be globally valuable.
Secondly, the US has a powerful military, including hundreds of essentially forward operating bases and air fields, lying in wait, all over the world.
Third, and as a secondary property of our military and economic strength, many countries are owed many billions of US dollars. This is because, due to the strength of the US military, T-bills (essentially bets made on the US dollar) are purchased by many nations. When other countries bet on the US dollar, they're creating a vested interest in the US dollar not collapsing, which increases the US leverage (leading to things like money printing).
None of this is meant to make you more too comfortable, because, despite all of the above, China, Russia, Libya, Iran, Brazil, South Africa, and, at times, India, have been attempting to reduce the US dollar hegemony by creating other means of trading oil.
For instance, Libya's late leader, Muammar Gaddafi, created a gold backed currency for trading oil (this is the reason NATO invaded Libya and killed Gaddafi). Russia and Iran made agreements to trade food (from Russia) for Oil (from Iran), which Russia would then add to its exports, acting as a trade proxy for Iran. This, combined with Iran's efforts to pipe natural gas and oil to China, is the reason for the supposed "Iranian nuclear threat". China has also recently created the Shanghai Gold Exchange, as a means to further commoditize fiat currency (china has very large gold reserves). BRICS has created a competitor to the Western-dominated IMF in the past 24 months, which also threatens the US reserve currency's backup plan, which is called the SDR (Special Drawing Rights). The list goes on; not to mention the calls Xi Jinping has directly made to remove the US dollar as a reserve currency (IOW, this isn't exactly covert, as of about mid 2010).
As you can see, considering our posturing in the South China Sea, and considering what happened to Gaddafi, the US won't acquiesce to losing its reserve status. So, the US dollar is not going to "collapse", lest we find ourselves engaged in total war (with China, et al). So, as long as you don't plan to bail on the US in a total war scenario, you're, in my opinion, safe to invest in USD.
Of course what I just said is kind of comical at first glance, but in all honesty, and to absolutely agree with and add to your point, the exploits related to Ethereum are great examples of how something seemingly infallible that is set in stone can easily turn out to be an Achilles' heel, which then, just like in the case of Ethereum, requires human intervention, bringing it back full circle.
Also, to add to this, as @hackuser mentions[1], the system, even if set perfectly in stone, will still be based on somebody's biases.
Think about it; why else would people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates call for higher taxes on millionaires' income, while not giving up their own money to the treasury, and also not calling for taxes on people that already have billions of dollars? Because they want to keep anybody else from getting close to where they are[1]
In other words, I am on neither side, nor in the middle.
1. The 48 Laws of Power. It explains this concept of using the bottom to hold down the middle, among many others.
It's easy to suppose that those with means (which also tend to be those with weapons) will resist this, even to the point of taking their money elsewhere (divesting from e.g. US markets, etc.), and this pattern could keep repeating until there aren't enough moves left for all of those with means. At that point, is there a war between those with means / food / weapons and those who have nothing, because the money left them behind?
Here's what I think will happen. The same people (Buffet, etc.) that tricked everyone into thinking something like "luxury communism" would ever happen will have everyone virtual reality and Soylent, and call that "luxury communism". If you think otherwise, than ask yourself why they don't give their own money to you now.
But, I don't think these people will literally hand everyone this VR and Soylent. I think they'll trick everyone into believing they've achieved "luxury communism" with a "basic income" (read: "printed money", lest we forget where the means will come from), and then inflation will reduce the value of this income and the need for better efficiency will force the population into VR and Soylent.