testudovictoria

> I don’t see anything about anyone paying the content creators.

The knowledge contributed to Wikimedia is understood to be public knowledge. Any contributions are considered voluntary and available to the general public. This includes profit driven corporations who want to create a service wrapper around Wikimedia content or serve the content in a different presentation (licenses withstanding).

> ...not to try to provide a free service for a profit driven corporation.

I personally feel like this is a fair step. Since contributions are made for public consumption, it makes sense that for-profit corporations whose products depend on Wikimedia APIs would pay for access to those APIs. They're not paying for the data; that's free to the public. They're paying ensure their presentation has a guaranteed level of availability and support[0]. The end result is the same: knowledge contributors aren't paid for additions or edits. The context behind the payments are different.

[0]: https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/pricing/

GP isn't validating over criminalization. GP is trying to steer people clear of catching charges. The end results for both is, "Don't hack your school district for a prank," but the context of the two are very different. Students' minds are still developing. You can tell them not to respect Draconian laws surrounding hacking, but do the students understand what's at stake?

Yes, students get in trouble all the time, but most of the consequences for their stupidity are slaps on the hand. Lunch in a classroom, a parent-teacher conference, after school detention, in-school suspension, getting grounded - none of these things carry civil or criminal charges that are a matter of record. What should be a harmless prank can turn into a life altering civil and criminal charges. With high school kids, things quickly go from, "I hacked the school network to do a Rick Roll; they laughed and sent me on my way," all the way to, "I gave my friend the exploit to do something similar; I didn't know he was going to change everyone's grades to 69%."

Further, I would not want to teach in a district where students doing digital pranks is the norm. I volunteer at a high school. Unchecked digital pranks would quickly turn into a constant stream of disruptions. Everyone would think that their prank is better than the last.

> Every project prior to Bootstrap required revisiting styles and starting from scratch or creating an internal Bootstrap-like base that would be used

I went through several projects where team leads laughed at the idea of Bootstrap in their projects. They treated Bootstrap as a bulky, unnecessary mess of a framework that only inexperienced code monkeys used in spite of it being small and modular.

The dumbest one of all was a team lead who turned out to have little to no real world experience in decision making. He had some help creating an internal CSS framework. It was responsive, modular, mobile first, and had lots of builtin classes for font/element sizes, colors, behavior, etc. Sound familiar? His column-based framework was a terrible drop in for Bootstrap. Even the class attributes were blatant rip-offs, but the lack of robustness meant lots of inline CSS to fix elements.

To combine the numbers:

Roblox takes 75% of each sale. This means the developer needs to make 400,000 in Robux sales before the developer accumulates 100,000 Robux for cash withdrawal.

If 100,000 Robux is sold for $1,000, and 100,000 Robux only nets the developer $350, then the double dip gives Roblox a net 91.25% of developer sales. This excludes any applicable taxes or app store fees.

I also lucked out with my first job. It was a part time gig at a small company of about 8. Had I saw a job listing for it, I would have been sure that it was a scam to exploit university students looking for experience. The saving grace was a classmate who worked there as well.

Their idea was to have 1 or 2 senior developers with a few part-time university students. They'd negotiate contracts with clients for websites or apps. Their rationale was to give students more experience than a summer internship while having some quality control in place with a few experienced developers and engineers. The pay was great too.

I recommended a classmate a year behind me as my replacement when I left.

I was going to say that I have a small, very limited amount of experience with MS Access. I agree; the middle ground between Excel and databases sounds very similar to Access.

We had been using Excel for org charts like most places. We wanted to add grouping, metadata, and neatly be able to extend/add information with or without constraints. This was much before I knew anything database related, and Access seemed to be more powerful than Excel. Having generated forms to fit the data model was much more user friendly and a lot less error prone than adding a new row to an Excel sheet.

People criticize Access for being a dumb database or a Excel with too much heavy lifting. It occupies a specific space as a DB on rails.

>Instead, aside from the programmers, you have mostly salesdroids and managers, who have absolutely no concept, because they have never done any real work.

Wow. This is exactly what the top comment was talking about with the opening sentence. These people may not need deep concentration to be successful, but that doesn't mean they don't do real work.

Analogies work until they don't. They're a tool break down concepts or to help re-frame a way of thinking. When analogies stop being useful, stop using them. With that being said, I feel like there's some nuance being missed.

"Find the earliest end" is about keeping ideas flowing for creativity's sake. There is only so much mileage out of an idea before it becomes stale (exceptions withstanding [skip to about the 1 minute mark])[0]. The earliest end isn't permanent either. Troupes and groups revisit ideas all of the time.

"Yes and..." doesn't mean that every idea needs to run its course at the detriment of the group. It means to explore the idea to see if it leads anywhere fruitful. If it doesn't, bail. The Office[1] showcases this where Michael pretends to have a gun during an improv group. It ruins the flow of everyone else's idea, because his idea has a clear, expected ending. It's OK to see where a fresh-faced dev's idea might take the project. That doesn't mean they have creative control.

[0]: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/16175...

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6wY9OwqJ2A

This isn't about what Replit can gain. It's about stifling this before it can ever become something more that a legal threat. Replit is banking on legal pressure to win this for them, because there's likely a nasty PR fallout on the other side of actual litigation.

If a dev finds a form to be nested, it's usually because something was tacked on as an afterthought. I'm speaking from experience.

I had a project that had applications associated with it. Forms are the natural way to express this. There were some disclosures associated with the application, and there was a modal associated with emailing the disclosures. I needed to add some front end validations to this modal.

No matter what I tried, I could not get these validations to trigger correctly. I spent an entire work day on trying to get a library to work with this modal. It wouldn't work, because changing the modal's div to a form tag would cause errors or unexpected behavior due to the nested form tags.

TL;DR: Nothing requires it. Devs might not understand the implications.

If a black person name's their son Tyrone, there's nothing wrong with that. It's a normal, human name. If someone walks up to a black guy that they've never met before and says, "Sup Tyrone?" that's racist. In the context of this, let's say that this was a group of black students from Morehouse, Tuskegee, or Florida A&M. It can be racist to say, "They should have named it Tyrone."

Racism is all about context.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why are you talking only in terms of massive funding and growth. The GP stated that they're seeing success in smaller (I don't actually know the size) companies due to capitalizing on a local or hyperlocal need. That's far from disrupt, fund, flip, and retire, and it's a perfectly viable way to start, grow and maintain a business.

Again, I could be missing the entire point of your comment.

This isn't a sarcastic question nor an attempt at snark: have you ever moderated a message board, forum, subreddit, facebook group, etc. with decent post traffic? It's tough. Even something that has a hyperfocused topic (e.g. a subreddit for dogs with sunglasses riding skateboards) will have naysayers of what should and shouldn't be allowed. Someone posts a pic of a dog. It doesn't have sunglasses, but it does have on yellow-tinted glasses for reducing eye-strain on monitor. Oh and it's not riding a skateboard. This dog is on a self-balancing scooter.

Most of your users won't care. They'll enjoy the content. Someone chimes in that the sub or forum is no longer pure. The content is similar, but it's off-topic. The board is going to devolve into just pics of dogs (which is a legitimate concern). Other people defend that the board needs content, and that computer glasses and a scooter is similar enough to be inclusive. So where do you plant you flag? Will there be a zero-tolerance policy for anything that isn't a dog wearing sunglasses riding a skateboard (OMG mods are literally Nazis!!!), do you allow users to flag posts for review on a case-by-case basis (need more mods), or do you relax the content restriction (this board is trash since it lost its focus!)?

Twitter has no focused topic. The platform is for anyone to communicate whatever they want within reason. With disparate cultures than span every corner of the globe, how do you stop the problem from existing in the first place? Not everyone has the tolerance for scathing, brutal honesty. How do you draw the line between that and bullying? How do you differentiate between well-intended people who are misinformed and people spouting propaganda? I don't have the answer, but my time moderating forums about topics that have no impact on society has taught me that it's pretty much impossible to create a perfect platform that appeases everyone.

If the site layouts and design weren't clue enough on how old this is, the high res photo links are 640x480 pixels!

This is plausible in either direction.

I once turned down the volume for a streaming service one evening probably to talk to a friend. The playlist played through the night and well into the next evening. Depending on the playlist, some tracks could have gotten 15+ plays due to absent-mindedness.

I can definitely see a music critic putting together short playlists (e.g. 3 songs) for work on a specific album, article, or project. 3 songs at 3.5 minutes each in a playlist would take 10.5 minutes to play and loop 5.714 per hour. You could get 96 plays out of all 3 tracks by continuously looping the playlist 16.8 times.

Again, I'm not saying the numbers aren't inflated, but it's possible for some of these to be false-positives.

This reminds me if the college freshman who starts freaking out about post-college life. They immediately regret the college they chose. They're chattering non-stop about the what classes are worth taking.

They later get two internship offers: one from a no name local place where the internship is data science (which they want), but the other is at Googazon Faceple chasing birds off the property. The student inevitably has a meltdown, because they want the prestige of a big four.

This isn't to say that there is inherently anything wrong with trying to min/max life. You'll have a better time (to a point) when you make more money. But let's not forget that if you're spending 5 years in misery for little gain, that's 5 years you aren't getting back.

You only get one life. Enjoy it.

I just wish the included adapter had a longer cable. The 6-ish feet is just long enough to get you off of a wall, but not quite long enough to move away comfortably. I assume that it's due to the spec though.

Paraphrased from a professor when he substituted my intro programming course:

Code is a valuable gemstone covered in layers of shit. Always aim to create diamonds, not CZ, and keep at least one face of that diamond shit free.

I always thought was a very pessimistic way to view code until I landed my first job. Algorithm exercises and toy projects for capstone can be shit free diamonds every time. Working with finicky clients, legacy code bases, and peers who don't care about quality quickly proved that sometimes you're destined to make topaz double-dipped in dung.

Dependencies are no exception to this. I've worked with a mapper that works pretty well out of the box. I ran into an issue with how Strings were mapped to boolean values. It turned out the default mapping values for those conversions were yes, no, y, n, and possibly some other variation of those String values. It didn't include true and false by default.

People don't want to admit that you can be pretty bad at CS and still get by. This isn't unique to CS. There are plenty of people slipping through the cracks in all fields and disciplines.

It's especially easy to do in this field, because there can be a strong disconnect between the business side and the tech side. Most everyone on here can name at least one person they've worked with that created more work than they completed. It would have literally made better economic sense to have them watch movies all day at work rather than mangle the code base.

>I want to get work done and move on with life, not play silly office games. Open space floor plans kill my focus.

I always found the people against cubicles but for open floor plans strange. In reality, it's pretty much impossible to build offices for every employee. Cubicles were supposed to be the fix for that. You have a open office with space and partitions to separate you from other people. Then someone said that open offices offer substantial collaboration for employees. The people who were drones in a cubicle farm bought into it, because I supposed it was a change from the Office Space type scenery.

But now all we get are interruptions with no recourse. We have desks that are fixed to other desks or desks that are clustered together where the only thing that separates you from your neighbor is your monitor. Everything is open, so now the collaboration areas (they're meeting areas, but calling it collaboration areas make it agile or some crap like that) aren't fully enclosed. Everyone in a 30 foot radius gets to sit in on the meeting as well!

From the other side, I get management types telling me to keep my voice down, because I'm disturbing the collaborators. Never mind that I'm trying to get work done by hammering out details with other devs and testers - their meeting that encroaches on my space in always more important. So much more important that their jokes, their laughs, their applause, their voices, and any other other form of noise have no upper noise limit. No sweat though, it's not like I'm working or anything.

Heaven forbid I do anything like open personal email, bank account info, etc. The person to my left, to my right, behind me, and that small cluster of 5 people in that collaboration area can see my screen as plain as day.

But cubicles are somehow terrible.

You need to enumerate the goals of the meeting on a whiteboard. Literally write them out so people can see. I have found this to be the most effective method by far. When people have a meeting agenda in their email, it won't come to mind during the meeting. When they see the topics ahead of them, they know exactly what needs to be addressed.

Someone has to play the assertive, no nonsense authority. Meetings are ripe for sidebar conversations. It only gets worse with more people, people from different offices/sections/projects, closeness of participants, etc. Whoever is running the meeting needs to ensure that the agenda is the foremost priority. Keep the agenda conversation going while squelching pointless conversation.

Keep a list of tabled topics. Not all sidebar conversation is bad. There are tangentially related topics that need to be addressed as well, but they may not take precedent over what is on the agenda. Those topics can also be written on the board to circle back to if time permits. This has the added bonus of growing the agenda while keeping the time allotted constant.

Understand why people argue and what is needed to make both parties happy. For the longest time, I didn't realize that I was arguing poorly. I knew what my point was and what I wanted to get across. I would listen to their reasons for arguing their side, but I never got to their core beliefs. Sometimes you have to outright ask what will it take to make them change their mind.

An underhanded trick that can be used (but not every time) is to give them a sense of urgency: Thanks for attending this meeting. I know we have a lot to cover, but I have to leave in 45 minutes. If we focus, I know we can hit all of these topics. If certain topics are limping along, give a time check: We need to make a decision. I only have 25 minutes with 3 more topics to go.

Is that not the same as what GP said? Your modifier is wealth or status. Without those, you move from eccentric to creepy on the sliding scale.