njitram

Can you provide those links?

A thousand marketing departments are now checking with IT if their own domain is secured to prevent domain expiration from happening...

I never understood the need for the JCP to build a whole new standard for modularization. Why didn't they rubber stamp the OSGi spec which is used everywhere, is extremely solid, has multiple great implementations and provides stuff that this standard not even has (like runtime updating of modules, versioning and more). Felt to me like politics/not invented here syndrome from the start, no wonder there is so much pushback from the community about this standard.

As context, that website is said to be a proponent of conspiracy theories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for...)

Apparently Apple has enabled a feature to reduce/remove the motion when switching, not sure if that fixes point 1 above, but worth a try: http://apple.stackexchange.com/a/255220/183228

That's explained here: https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/the-appengine-enviro... Most important difference; the app engine is fully managed by Google (so they do security updates etc), with Compute Engine you have to do it yourself.

This one might work: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B016QO8186

I installed https://bahoom.com/hyperswitch to get this behavior (it even has thumbnails of the window), but ideally you would have that option out of the box indeed.

The nice thing about USB-C is that its a standard, so you don't have to buy it from Apple only anymore like before. For example I have https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K7C53K2 for $69, which is really useful: plug one cable in and everything is connected.

That all depends on the definition of a CTO of course, and that definition wildly fluctuates. Most software companies, big and small, startup or very mature, have a CTO, so the title is not reserved for big companies only imho. That does lead to confusion of what the CTO role actually is :)

The switching cost for retail is really low; one Google and you know where you can get the same product for a potential lower price. This means that to win in the retail business you have to accept incredible low margins or even periodically a loss. Online retail is almost a 'perfect' market.

While with hosting, it isn't as easy to switch. When you have chosen AWS, of course you can switch to another vendor, but that is not without an investment in time and money. The higher the switching cost, the more you can raise the price above cost without customers (immediately) running away.

I don't know what dedicated servers has to do with it?

I do not disagree on your point that it might be a combination of intention and incompetence, although I think most of them really do not want to see downtime and negative press at release date, when they sell the most. So next to intention and incompetence there is also a strong incentive for them to prevent this from happening.

But the orignal point I was making is that scaling up all of a sudden for an enormous amount of people/traffic is intrinsically very hard, so its easy for them to underestimate the effort needed, and pay deeply for that on launch date (and we too as gamers).

The difference with major online services like facebook and twitter is that games have a -very- big launch, and get a lot of users at the same time all at once. It's really hard to test for all that traffic in advance, as there will be so many configurations, (slow and fast) connections, hackers etc coming in all of a sudden. Its almost impossible to simulate the enormous variation.

Facebook, Twitter etc begin by a stable (code) base and then step by step scale up their systems. When something does not scale they can roll back or quickly fix it. They don't have to ramp up from a few hundred players to hundreds of thousands in a few hours like in the gaming industry.

From a business model perspective, the reader is not the 'customer', but the advertisers. The content is just the bait to get traffic, and then a publisher has to monetize the traffic, most of the time by using ads to divert some of the traffic to an advertiser. So a publisher has to walk a very fine line between not anoying the reader too much but at the same time still have value for the advertiser. No wonder that some publishers go (way) too far and only focus on advertisers and almost forget the reader.

Doesn't help that the ads are most of the time outside the control of the publisher, but are controlled by big advertising networks of course.

They get that information from tracking you across the wide internet (because you see the banners which also track you) and they sell targeted advertisement to specific audiences using real time bidding systems where you can bid for advertisement space for a specific audience ('interested in cars', 'interested in electronics', 'probably male', 'age 30 to 40') etc. That profile data is gathered/derived from your browsing behavior.

OSGi isn't that complex, it's more that modularisation is inherently complex and people try to wave that away. When thinking modularisation through you quickly end up wanting depencency managament, versioning, modules and dynamic updates (meaning no restart of the VM when updating a module), and combining all of this is inherently difficult to design, and some of the stuff the JVM wasn't really designed for from the beginning. OSGi solves all that in a quite nice way, but for political reasons Oracle doesn't want to use OSGi ('not invented here syndrome').