Too often, those updates break already working tools. I don't need my essential app insisting that I wait 10 minutes to upgrade when I'm 1 minute away from giving a presentation using it.
I'm on version 83.0.4103.116 which is 3 major versions behind. I am averse to upgrading because it's working for me and I'm concerned about 3 rounds of incompatible/breaking changes. I have no idea about the relative maturity of the two versions, how big the breaking changes are or if they're likely to affect me, or how much time has transpired between the two versions. With every "major release" of Chromium my wariness increases, until the only way you'll get me to upgrade is when I'm forced to upgrade my system.
How is this communicating clearly or being helpful to me? Does anyone know offhand what major version of Chromium/Firefox they're using? If it's just an incremental counter, then why do we need .0.4103.116?
Apparently some small percentage of couples do experience this. I don't think it's some magical "marriage made in heaven"; my theory is that some small number of people have a superhealthy relationship with their ego, and so don't need to differentiate (which is what causes the honeymoon-leaving), and if you get two of them together, they can stay in the honeymoon state indefinitely.
A carbon tax was a reasonable idea 20 years ago. Now it would be too little, too late. If the people in favor of a carbon tax had actually been serious and made it happen, then we could have more nuanced discussions now about how to make it work better. As it is, we don't have N more years to argue about what form the carbon tax should take and how to enact it worldwide. Every passing year makes the authoritarian solution more probable and severe.
America has that story, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. America may not have "class" restrictions like other places, but it sure does have "race" restrictions. And even when the wrong people manage to make it, they (as a group anyway) will still have it taken away from them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
That's fair, I didn't look closely enough at the specific terms to make sure it conformed to my view of "open-source". I specifically disagreed with the parent comment and others, which declare that "it's not open source unless [Amazon is free to profit from the software]".
Hard disagree. The OSI may have "Open Source" in its name, but we decide what "open source" means. And I agree with the 'spirit' of open source, which is based in RMS' inability to replace code on his printer. The right to study the code running on your hardware, the right to make modifications to it, the right to distribute those modifications.
This "it's not open-source unless you allow Amazon to profit from your charitable work" is horse hockey. I don't care if this is how a hardliner sees it. Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive, and this is important enough that I support the migration of "open-source" to include these restrictions. Which, as they point out, affect none of the people using their code, and only the corporations (not people!) who would abuse the goodwill created by the Open Source movement.
It's easy to say that for one person, but these are some of the largest tech companies around, and you're talking about 10s of thousands of engineers. Where are they all supposed to go? FAANG won't hire most of them, and it's not because they're incompetent.
The article says he put away $2m for his and his wife's retirement. While I agree it's not quite 'broke' in the classic American sense, it is .025% of his former net worth of $8b.
Yeah I ordered one 15 months ago and had to start using a flip phone. I can't wait any longer though, I am going to have to get a different smartphone :(
Erm, in my experience (20 years, good but not a superstar) the numbers are 2x that. My last BigCo offer was $300k total comp and jobs with smaller companies (all remote) were around $120-150k. One startup offered me $190k to work remote (but I would have been the only remote worker).
That said, I agree that your average non-FAANG job pays about half of FAANG. Although this is true regardless of remote-ness.
Boomers are a special generation, though. They grew up in a great expansionary period but did not have to experience the insecurity and horrors of WW2 firsthand. I personally believe their morals were corrupted by the easy band-aid of universal growth and profits, since they came to rely on it, and expect it will continue forever (hence the "you'll get old and corrupt too" mentality).
Function signature is only half the battle. The semantics can change without the signature changing. This could be caught by a unit/functional test, but then you'd have to have 100% semantic interface coverage. Which is not quite worth it for most libraries/packages.
I run several static websites. Thanks to S3, they do not require a sysadmin. Thanks to Google, they do require regularly updated certs. We run certbot from an AWS instance that exists for about 10 minutes/day. Are you telling me that my little projects, which I have purposefully designed to require minimal maintenance and which cost me ~$10/year in static hosting, require an actual sysadmin?
Every software job I've ever had, has an infinite amount of work that could be done. So somehow I have to justify the amount of work I've gotten done, which is usually less than the amount they 'want' done (which is all of it), and the justification is usually "couldn't spend any more hours on it, literally".
It is impossible by design. Adding that 'feature' takes away the core principle of decentralized currency. Allowing government to reverse transactions will also allow them to seize assets. Then it is just a regular currency (for better and worse).
Most of IRC is on those 'channels' (#whatever). and most channels (at least back in the day) were public, so you could just go to #books or whatever. For example, I spent my formative years on #uiuc, where there was a healthy community of 50-100 people from the university I was at. Newcomers would stop by on a regular basis and ask a question or just start chatting or troll or even grief--there were kickbans and scripts and bots to help manage larger communities.
Also these persistent channels are created just by joining the channel with that name; they disappear when the last person leaves. Notably, the first person to join a chatroom gets "operator" status, and thus the rights to change channel settings and kick/ban people etc. So there evolved a culture of bots, who would sit in channels with op status and 'occupy' it in case someone came along; these bots had op status themselves, and were programmed to auto-ban certain users or even domains, and auto-op their owners and their owners' friends. slap me summa dat +o.
And of course, there were the bot wars and the attempts at deliberate netsplits to try and steal op status, which were fun games for the script kiddies, but would really take the piss out of your evening chat when they would come by.
"can" I think is true for some large majority of people. It's just that most people get discouraged well before the point at which they've devoted enough of their lives to their endeavor to be truly excellent. So in that sense, maybe they "can't", but it is not due to an innate talent deficit, but a psychological deficit (which I believe can also usually be addressed with enough attention and intention).
I do not share your optimism. The main post says that you can do this for code up until ~2005, but not since then, and I would tend to agree. Also, many of the games require access to servers, which are no longer running, and even if you could get access to the server code, you wouldn't legally be allowed to run one yourself!
It's not $1000 to do "nothing", it's $1000 so they can do whatever they want. If they're building some useless road (and many of the public works projects of the past whose aim was to provide "full employment", were busy-work projects moving rocks from one pile to another), then they don't have the time/energy to work on something else that they deem more fulfilling or productive.
You can totally use the software for non-commercial use. You'd just have to pay for it! I don't understand why FOSS supporters insist on the software being free-as-in-beer, when that has never been the point (even if many people and corporations enjoy the spoils of zero-cost software made by passionate artisans). Open Source Software is awesome, but imagine how much better it could be if there were a way for those passionate artisans to eke out a modest livelihood from their efforts!