productceo

I don't think it'll be technically possible to release code to the taxpayers and no one else.

It may be the case that code should be released publicly. But their reasoning does not seem applicable.

Google Cloud Platform is losing less money!

Expecting to be an unpopular opinion, but this also seems like an effective way to enforce maintenance and progress.

If a good app is no longer maintained, this will release space for new enterprising developers to come in and fill.

Good idea! Thanks for organizing this information.

Please keep up the processing power progress!

Economics of the software industry (or at least the products that I work on) depend on the assumption that cost of computing (including storage) diminish exponentially over time! <3

Seems like they had a good attempt, and the team learnt a valuable lessin on the importance of validating the business (not just the product) ASAP.

I wish them luck on their next enterprises!

I like UNPHAT idea, as long as it is executed in an agile way. That is, at a given moment, perform multiple stages that can be done safely without feeling blocked by other stages, then iterate, where in each iteration, one tries to do all possible stages better. For example, after reading papers, don't consider previous stages "DONE", and revisit understanding the problem based on the new understanding, and so on.

Making companies chase growth is good for the economy.

Assume for the sake of contradiction that we the humankind decide not to incentivize companies to chase growth. This would mean the humankind is enabling a company to sustain its current position with existing assets and operations and nothing new. Since the company has no incentive to grow (introduce something new), the rational company will not create new additional value. Since the company is in a market dominant position, no new entrants will be able to create new additional value.

Curious to see if others see any ways to protect the interests of the humankind while taking away the incentives for market dominant companies to continue to make progress.

Physical size (one USB stick) is an ineffective unit of data.

Pretty sure we can fit all the data you burnt in on one USB stick today.

I disagree that merits outweighed the demerits in the case we are discussing here, but I respect your viewpoint.

Perfect one sentence summary. I wasted a minute or two searching online for the difference between the two, but I should have read your comment first! Thanks for communicating precisely and concisely.

I didn't dig deep enough to know the difference between the "real" ones and the illegitimate ones.

My current approach is, don't fix what is not broken. If I'm happy with the system I have now, let it stay until there is a need to change it.

I do wish you luck on your exploration of graphical approaches though. Let me know if you find them useful. :)

I grew up hearing a lot of buzz for concept maps (or mind maps as I heard). I never found them to be as powerful as advertised.

A concept map is slightly easier than writing in bulletpoints because it can ignore structure. But this makes it incredibly difficult for anyone, including myself, to read after it is written.

At best, I use a concept map as an intermediary stage for figuring out how to write in bulletpoints, write in paragraphs, or draw in diagrams. This intermediary stage never lasts overnight for me, and I discard the concept map immediately.

Companies fix past mistakes all the time without publicly denouncing the team's previous work.

Apple brought back several ports in the new MacBook Pro series after killing them several years ago. This was done in a confident manner under excellent management and public communication.

You are citing words from my comment, but you are debating against imaginary comments which you invented. I already clarified in my previous comment that what you are debating against is unrelated to my comments, and I have no further clarifications I can add to help.

This is an incorrect interpretation of what I pointed out. I pointed out that Jack Dorsey worded his tweet in a way that invalidates work of his former team and brings their morale down. You are either following a slippery slope or setting up a straw man in characterizing my comment as suggesting that Jack Dorsey, or any other leaders, should have remained silent.

An effective leader of an organization will find and fix problems.

Managers far less experienced than Jack Dorsey, in companies larger and smaller than Twitter, are effectively performing this today without hurting morale of the organizations.

I hope you don't feel defensive in response to my comments. I wish to make a more accurate understanding available for you to grab. Whether you grab it is your choice and affects me in no ways.

I believe your comment is a straw man argument.

I did not ask Jack Dorsey or any other leaders to lie. The idea of 'promoting deceptive behaviors' is a concept that you introduced in this conversation, not me.

Let me know if I misunderstood.

They are fellow human beings, and I wish for them to be both prosperous and fulfilled. That we have rewarded them with cash is no excuse for us to condone abuse.

Words of a leader, or a symbolic representative in this case since Jack Dorsey has left Twitter, weighs more heavily than words of other people.

You don't have to convince me to see the way you do, since I have no interest in blocking your discussion for merits and demerits of decentralized web. I also don't intend to convince anyone to see the way I do. This is just a reaction and a note for myself to never fail my people this way.

Must feel crushing for Twitter employees.

I am amazed Jack Dorsey is arrogant enough to "regret" the enterprise. He must be under a delusion that "he" built Twitter. He's completely ignoring the fact that "his" enterprise was paid for with money, time, and skills of other people. I feel sorry for anyone who trusted him and gave him their time and skills, for the years of their life, which they invested in him and now they can never get back, have been wasted on creating merely a regrettable impact.

> We only merge code that is ready to go live.

In their perception, is the rest of tech industry gambling in every pull request that some untested code would work in production?

I work at a large company. We extensively test code on local machines. Then dev test environments. Then small roll out to just a few data centers in prod bed. Run small scale online flight experiments. Then roll out to the rest of prod bed.

And I've seen code fail in each of the stages, no matter how extensively we tested and robustly code ran in prior stages.

I disagree, but still respect your differing perspective.

As humankind progresses, we'll abstract more and more.

Already, most are not able to put together these systems from semiconductor design. Or writing the OS. Or programming languages. And that is fine.

I envision that in a decade, we (the humankind) will have way more devs, creating way more apps, and not knowing a thing about NodeJS or PostgreSQL or such things that you and I take as "minimum requirements".

There are a lot of apps out there running on managed backends.

Okay fine. If you buy people's time and skills with money, I guess you can solve all software development problems with money.

I meant, say you want to ship [any new software product]. There are parts that are common to everyone, and parts that are unique to your product. Whatever is common to others, see what you can leverage (i.e. buy with money), so that you can make time to focus on what is unique to your problem.

You can't buy my love with money.

To qualify, I know ngrok and lightweight set up can be super useful. When I was in college, ngrok was so awesome for doing small ad hoc fun things.

But as soon as someone needs to set up even the simplest SSL set up (which may take an inexperienced dev anywhere from 1 hour to multiple hours), I'd say that's not the problem to focus on.

Or not. Just use all-in-one managed services like serverless or PaaS.

In the past, I used to spend so much time on infrastructure, like setting up databases, HTTPS/SSL, network ports and security rules. Didn't understand back then that solutions I can buy with money are the cheapest solutions, because I should be focusing on problems I cannot solve with money (but rather with my time and skills).

Love it! Congrats!

I wonder if there is a similar way to fix the accessibility issues of glassmorphism (same ones as described in the article with respect to neumorphism).