mikelinington

Neither your nor the GP's point seems relevant to the quoted text, which seems pulled specifically to paint the SCOTUS decision in a bad light. I read it as a direct response to the claim of the employees in this case, which is that the NLRA intended to displace parts of the Arbitrage Act. They are just saying that, among other reasons, this was not a common policy and unlikely to have been meant even in spirit.

They further explain their approach to resolving claimed conflict between two pieces of legislation:

> And in approaching a claimed conflict, we come armed with the “stron[g] presum[ption]” that repeals by implication are “disfavored” and that “Congress will specifically address” preexisting law when it wishes to suspend its normal operations in a later statute.

And specifically for the Arbitrage Act, because this is apparently a tactic that people keep trying:

> In many cases over many years, this Court has heard and rejected efforts to conjure conflicts between the Arbitration Act and other federal statutes. In fact, this Court has rejected every such effort to date […] Throughout, we have made clear that even a statute’s express provision for collective legal actions does not necessarily mean that it precludes “‘individual attempts at conciliation’” through arbitration […] And we’ve stressed that the absence of any specific statutory discussion of arbitration or class actions is an important and telling clue that Congress has not displaced the Arbitration Act.

So they're not saying "we can't decide," they're stating (I think): Congress can give employees more protection in this arena, but the laws as written are (1) not unconstitutional and (2) are not being interpreted incorrectly by lower courts.

I've dropped the Screen Hero binary to a few people (even outside of my Slack org) and they were able to sign up via the app even after that message appeared, but you're totally right, we're on borrowed time.

I see mentions of Screen Hero in a way that makes it sound like it's dead, but my team still uses SH daily (via Slack's `/hero` command). It's easily the best _remote pairing_ tool that I've found.

This new Slack feature seems like something different, for presenting content to everyone on a call, not for collaborating on code.

The biggest thing I've noticed is that terraform doesn't, out of the box, have any way of bringing in your existing resources, and sharing the [tfstate file] that has the current state of your world is its own challenge. The ec2 module of ansible has `count_tag`, and that was exactly what I wanted: "I want this many boxes that are identified by these tags."

Played with an external tool call [terraforming] that creates a terraform setup from your existing boxes, but that, too, was way more than I wanted.

Terraform is a very neat tool, but learning the AWS ecosystem _and_ this third-party tool that has its own very strong set of best practices was too much for me. If you're experienced, and especially if you're already using CloudFormation heavily, you can probably get a lot of mileage out of terraform.

Doing a quick search to make sure I'm not crazy, it looks like terraform 0.7 will start to support importing, so that's something: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/issues/581

[tfstate file]: https://www.terraform.io/docs/state/remote

[terraforming]: https://github.com/dtan4/terraforming

The article did a good job IMO of pointing out the absurdity of LinkedIn's position (but I didn't need any convincing; I work at Nutshell, and contributed to the blog post you linked).

At this point in the pipe, it's not about privacy concerns; this is data available via the end user's use of LinkedIn. The salient question to me is, what the hell can we do with the LinkedIn API? Why even have developer.linkedin.com if your partner program is designed to exclude everyone but two companies? (A simplification that focuses on the CRM program, but I don't know what the purpose of their other Partner Programs are.)

I don't know about making it easier for some of the programs, but you can see the current partners here: http://developer.linkedin.com/partner.

The CRM Partner Program is what's relevant to Nutshell, FullContact, and probably anyone else who wants to use this data; Microsoft Dynamics and Salesforce are the only current partners.

Nutshell – Ann Arbor, MI – nutshell.com

Nutshell is a profitable company building some top-tier CRM software. We are a tight-knit team that is passionate about designing and building beautiful apps for our enthusiastic customers.

We're looking for sharp designers and engineers to help take the product to the next step. We've also had some outstanding paid internships — if you're a student looking to gain experience, produce meaningful code, and bring home a paycheck, get a hold of us!

For more info, see http://nutshell.com/jobs/ or feel free to reach out directly if you have any questions: mike [at] nutshell.com.

Thanks for reading!

For what it's worth, we did the free premium trial in June. Over 14 days, we received 11 emails from the folks at StatusPage--some about getting started, some (too many) just their regular email blasts, some to say our trial was ending. Eight of these offered an unsubscribe link, which is appreciated, but the default should not be to spam the shit out of potential customers.

I know I've seen other threads on HN and elsewhere about finding the "right" number of emails to inundate your trial users with, so I hope you guys are experimenting with this and tracking what works and what's turning people off.

Still, seems like a solid product that does what it says, and overall we didn't convert because we already had a solution in place that we're comfortable with. Good luck.