I assume you mean with only spaces. A proper tab centric style can have spaces after tabbing to the code block level (for visual alignment of continuation)
There is this infestation of 'Junior' (cheap and you get what you pay for) developers in the industry. I'm not saying 'Junior' as in starting out their career and with some guidance they will get better, I'm saying people over a decade into their career and still hopeless, and therefore cheap and persistently cheap.
Too much management thinks that picking the right process means they can get decent result out of whatever people they feel like, under insane collaboration constraints like 12 hour offset in time zone within a team.
Even really primitive editors like windows notepad support tab properly.
Well there's that, and there's also not exactly a non destructive 'divide the leading spaces by two' or 'multiply leading spaces by two' to get the changeable tab visualization. Even if there were, the best way is tab indent for code level, then space indent for visual indent on continuations past the code block level.
I don't know if steam will ever be compatible with this or if there are complications, but they did ultimately allow win32 applications to be delivered via windows store.
Nothing at all to do with controlling distribution over the platform and taking a cut of all the revenue of every company publishing software on their platform.
It actually might not have been too bad, if they only had the repository system be extensible like yum and apt, which would allow competing application distribution platforms. But that would be too much for the user and not enough for Microsoft.
Iif someone else makes a key with the same fingerprint as my key, couldn't they sign things and be trusted by people who have trusted my key, since keys are trusted by fingeprint?
By the time you could do something like trash it with crafted content, you could screw things over in less difficult ways...
On the other hand, gpg still uses SHA1 for key fingerprints per the standard, which seems like that would be a much bigger risk. You can use other more secure hashes for digests, but fingerprint ids are SHA1, which was deemed inadequate for key fingerprints in X509...
Regardless of the rating, if your personal perspective leads you to writing something like the author did, then *your* experience is bad enough to run away much earlier.
Well, there's the fact that this person allegedly did this to several women. More importantly though, was a lack of anti-retaliation protection by HR. In sane companies, they are very upfront and very explicit about protecting anonymity and if that's not possible, strict anti-retaliation rules. So regardless of the level of punishment the manager should/should not have gotten, her position in the aftermath of reporting it sounds unacceptable.
Also in sane companies, if you are trying to transfer out and you have the target management on your side, your current team can only block the transfer for a few months to transition. Also, your *current* manager's performance review can't factor into another team requesting you (and *certainly* not it a way where bad performance reviews are a tool to retain, that's counter productive, if a person is a bad fit in one team, why would the rules *lock* that person to a team?).
Note that sexism was a *small* part of the situation described. What amazes me was the continued desire to work for a company because of the 'great engineers'.
The reality is you can find a *good* company that also has great engineers. Other companies also face interesting challenges that are worthy of your time. I've seen people fall into this trap of toiling under crappy management because 'their team is so great'. The problem is that crappy management gets all the benefits of your awesome teams work (in fact, in crappy management, the management gets nearly *all* the glory and your 'awesome engineers' are the first under the bus when good times are over, after months on end of 60+ hour workweeks, where the management is only around for part of maybe 3 days a week. You need to find a company that has both a great team *and* good management.
If it had been an isolated incident with one manager, and switching teams fixed it, but she reports a pattern of management dysfunction that seems pervasive, at least to wherever she could go. Now it *might* be the case that her perspective by itself is skewed, but in her view of things, it was a terrible situation and she stayed *way* longer than anyone should have.
So the companies don't want to spend 6 figures for these IT people. Suddenly, the 'cheap' H1-B option goes away. The dream is that they will start hiring local rather than importing. The reality will be they will suck it up and just fully offshore jobs they would otherwise have kept in the US.
Of course after Dell said that, Apple made an incredible comeback and makes a ton of money (whether they should be or not).
I'd say that MS is far from on life support (sadly). Sure, they are messing about with their traditional products to figure out how to make money when upgrades are rarer and older versions are increasingly 'good enough'. However they have enjoyed way too much success with Azure making inroads against AWS.
I've always hated MS product and been befuddled why people think.NET is good (it's a terrible API, in the same level as VMware APIs). Nevertheless, they are undeniably successful.
First off, Microsoft doesn't care what people prefer, they care about what is more financially good for them. If someone prefers using their copy of Office 97 they bought 20 years ago, MS isn't very happy because they haven't seen revenue from that person in decades.
Second off, these are *new* subscribers. This would be of course catastrophic in a transaction business model as in a perpetually licensed software product, but for a subscription model, a saturated plateau isn't a bad thing. That plateau may be lower than they had hoped, but it probably still represents over a billion dollars of pure profit.
I'm sad, but this is capitalism at work on intellectual property. Business software has to find a way to lock in their revenue when their customers are less likely to need any new functionality. Game publishers focus on multiplayer online games with networking effects causing their software to 'go out of style' and pushing the audience to buy more, or alternatively to nickle and dime their loyal base with subscription fees and/or 'real money' in-game items.
Keep in mind a small company's roll-your-own solution is frequently still being rolled themselves even on cloud infrastructure. Except instead of roll-your-own on some little private subnet, they roll their own on publicly accessible ip addresses.
1) Cloud providers are a much more critical target. So risk is elevated by virtue of being so prominent and knowing that if you do finda hypervisor exploit, there is a target rich environment. In practice, this hasn't really been an issue, but should the day come when someone succeeds at scale, this will be catastrophic.
2) The way SMBs *use* cloud providers is a *huge* increase of risk. On an SMBs private network, it's generally a big hassle to get a system accessible from the internet, so they generally deploy stuff on unroutable addresses without any NAT rules to expose ports. In that context, when they do the lazy thing and have easy to guess passwords/irresponsibly default configuration, the risk is somewhat mitigated of it becoming an attack surface. Now they *shouldn't* do this, but this is the reality. With their cloud provider, it's generally easier to put it on the internet widely accessible than it is to tuck it away. The path of least resistance becomes easy to guess passwords and default configuration on a publicly accessible IP address.
Reference all the huge number of DB attacks where someone got into an admin portal of some instance. This is worse now than it used to be because of all the folks who shouldn't be deploying on internet addresses now doing so.
Because it's not based in data, just subjective opinion. It's a subjective opinion that I happen to share, but I can't pretend for a moment that I can quantify real imminent risk to humanity as an objective measure.
It's an appeal to authority that isn't very well baked.
They just didn't have time to definitively figure out root cause and the most obvious culprit being the battery got derailed because it happened with a different battery vendor and design. It ultimately turned out to be battery issues after all, but at the time they couldn't afford to take any chances.
Note the same thing would have happened even with replaceable batteries, though I would like to see replaceable batteries in phones for other reasons.
On the UI front, at least I'll agree that some GNOME software has done that. MS fell into that big time with Windows 8, though they have walked back some of it. However I can't think of too many examples outside of those two where an existing software did big steps backwards.
On Slack v. IRC, it's not that *hard* what they added, but having the history available on reconnect, being able to paste text and images and such into chat rather than resorting to pastebins. Sure some things like emoji support may be a bit silly, but otherwise it's something that makes a lot of functionality a lot more accessible. We would be better off recognizing that IRC is *not* in fact perfect as is and think about actually competing instead of being in denial.
Actually, I would say that marketing understands that most *people* they want to get to spend money don't understand fractions, which is probably a good bet.
I suppose my *hope* is that I influence fellow people to not get that hung up. I occasionally am in the position of hiring, and I give nearly no weight to whether or not they have used our chosen tools before versus understand the general idea. Now if someone acts overly intimidated with working with unfamiliar technology, or claims they do know the tooling when they clearly don't, that is something I consider a warning sign.
Warming nor cooling is good for us as it stands. We need to be careful and do our best to hold as it is.
That could conceivably involve purposely putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in the face of cooling, but that's not what we are seeing. This would almost certainly be a very risky idea.
If it were possible through manipulating the albedo of the earth, that would probably be our best bet for a mechanism that could be tuned as needed to compensate to fight undesired cooling or warming as it happened, since it's not feasible to pull a greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere once we put it there.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume you mean with only spaces. A proper tab centric style can have spaces after tabbing to the code block level (for visual alignment of continuation)
There is this infestation of 'Junior' (cheap and you get what you pay for) developers in the industry. I'm not saying 'Junior' as in starting out their career and with some guidance they will get better, I'm saying people over a decade into their career and still hopeless, and therefore cheap and persistently cheap.
Too much management thinks that picking the right process means they can get decent result out of whatever people they feel like, under insane collaboration constraints like 12 hour offset in time zone within a team.
Unrelated rant is unrelated...
Even really primitive editors like windows notepad support tab properly.
Well there's that, and there's also not exactly a non destructive 'divide the leading spaces by two' or 'multiply leading spaces by two' to get the changeable tab visualization. Even if there were, the best way is tab indent for code level, then space indent for visual indent on continuations past the code block level.
I don't know if steam will ever be compatible with this or if there are complications, but they did ultimately allow win32 applications to be delivered via windows store.
No, it's about safety and security of course.
Nothing at all to do with controlling distribution over the platform and taking a cut of all the revenue of every company publishing software on their platform.
It actually might not have been too bad, if they only had the repository system be extensible like yum and apt, which would allow competing application distribution platforms. But that would be too much for the user and not enough for Microsoft.
License is laying out the terms under which you won't get in legal trouble copyright wise.
Without copyright protection, a license makes no sense, because it's impossible to permit or restrict copying and redistribution.
Iif someone else makes a key with the same fingerprint as my key, couldn't they sign things and be trusted by people who have trusted my key, since keys are trusted by fingeprint?
By the time you could do something like trash it with crafted content, you could screw things over in less difficult ways...
On the other hand, gpg still uses SHA1 for key fingerprints per the standard, which seems like that would be a much bigger risk. You can use other more secure hashes for digests, but fingerprint ids are SHA1, which was deemed inadequate for key fingerprints in X509...
Regardless of the rating, if your personal perspective leads you to writing something like the author did, then *your* experience is bad enough to run away much earlier.
Well, there's the fact that this person allegedly did this to several women. More importantly though, was a lack of anti-retaliation protection by HR. In sane companies, they are very upfront and very explicit about protecting anonymity and if that's not possible, strict anti-retaliation rules. So regardless of the level of punishment the manager should/should not have gotten, her position in the aftermath of reporting it sounds unacceptable.
Also in sane companies, if you are trying to transfer out and you have the target management on your side, your current team can only block the transfer for a few months to transition. Also, your *current* manager's performance review can't factor into another team requesting you (and *certainly* not it a way where bad performance reviews are a tool to retain, that's counter productive, if a person is a bad fit in one team, why would the rules *lock* that person to a team?).
Note that sexism was a *small* part of the situation described. What amazes me was the continued desire to work for a company because of the 'great engineers'.
The reality is you can find a *good* company that also has great engineers. Other companies also face interesting challenges that are worthy of your time. I've seen people fall into this trap of toiling under crappy management because 'their team is so great'. The problem is that crappy management gets all the benefits of your awesome teams work (in fact, in crappy management, the management gets nearly *all* the glory and your 'awesome engineers' are the first under the bus when good times are over, after months on end of 60+ hour workweeks, where the management is only around for part of maybe 3 days a week. You need to find a company that has both a great team *and* good management.
If it had been an isolated incident with one manager, and switching teams fixed it, but she reports a pattern of management dysfunction that seems pervasive, at least to wherever she could go. Now it *might* be the case that her perspective by itself is skewed, but in her view of things, it was a terrible situation and she stayed *way* longer than anyone should have.
So the companies don't want to spend 6 figures for these IT people. Suddenly, the 'cheap' H1-B option goes away. The dream is that they will start hiring local rather than importing. The reality will be they will suck it up and just fully offshore jobs they would otherwise have kept in the US.
Of course after Dell said that, Apple made an incredible comeback and makes a ton of money (whether they should be or not).
I'd say that MS is far from on life support (sadly). Sure, they are messing about with their traditional products to figure out how to make money when upgrades are rarer and older versions are increasingly 'good enough'. However they have enjoyed way too much success with Azure making inroads against AWS.
I've always hated MS product and been befuddled why people think .NET is good (it's a terrible API, in the same level as VMware APIs). Nevertheless, they are undeniably successful.
First off, Microsoft doesn't care what people prefer, they care about what is more financially good for them. If someone prefers using their copy of Office 97 they bought 20 years ago, MS isn't very happy because they haven't seen revenue from that person in decades.
Second off, these are *new* subscribers. This would be of course catastrophic in a transaction business model as in a perpetually licensed software product, but for a subscription model, a saturated plateau isn't a bad thing. That plateau may be lower than they had hoped, but it probably still represents over a billion dollars of pure profit.
I'm sad, but this is capitalism at work on intellectual property. Business software has to find a way to lock in their revenue when their customers are less likely to need any new functionality. Game publishers focus on multiplayer online games with networking effects causing their software to 'go out of style' and pushing the audience to buy more, or alternatively to nickle and dime their loyal base with subscription fees and/or 'real money' in-game items.
Keep in mind a small company's roll-your-own solution is frequently still being rolled themselves even on cloud infrastructure. Except instead of roll-your-own on some little private subnet, they roll their own on publicly accessible ip addresses.
So there are two things in play:
1) Cloud providers are a much more critical target. So risk is elevated by virtue of being so prominent and knowing that if you do finda hypervisor exploit, there is a target rich environment. In practice, this hasn't really been an issue, but should the day come when someone succeeds at scale, this will be catastrophic.
2) The way SMBs *use* cloud providers is a *huge* increase of risk. On an SMBs private network, it's generally a big hassle to get a system accessible from the internet, so they generally deploy stuff on unroutable addresses without any NAT rules to expose ports. In that context, when they do the lazy thing and have easy to guess passwords/irresponsibly default configuration, the risk is somewhat mitigated of it becoming an attack surface. Now they *shouldn't* do this, but this is the reality. With their cloud provider, it's generally easier to put it on the internet widely accessible than it is to tuck it away. The path of least resistance becomes easy to guess passwords and default configuration on a publicly accessible IP address.
Reference all the huge number of DB attacks where someone got into an admin portal of some instance. This is worse now than it used to be because of all the folks who shouldn't be deploying on internet addresses now doing so.
Because it's not based in data, just subjective opinion. It's a subjective opinion that I happen to share, but I can't pretend for a moment that I can quantify real imminent risk to humanity as an objective measure.
It's an appeal to authority that isn't very well baked.
They just didn't have time to definitively figure out root cause and the most obvious culprit being the battery got derailed because it happened with a different battery vendor and design. It ultimately turned out to be battery issues after all, but at the time they couldn't afford to take any chances.
Note the same thing would have happened even with replaceable batteries, though I would like to see replaceable batteries in phones for other reasons.
Yeah, they have had some rather spectacular failures in consulting/analyst work. Trusting them isn't really any better than trusting a coin toss.
The same can be said of most of these analyst companies of course.
On the UI front, at least I'll agree that some GNOME software has done that. MS fell into that big time with Windows 8, though they have walked back some of it. However I can't think of too many examples outside of those two where an existing software did big steps backwards.
On Slack v. IRC, it's not that *hard* what they added, but having the history available on reconnect, being able to paste text and images and such into chat rather than resorting to pastebins. Sure some things like emoji support may be a bit silly, but otherwise it's something that makes a lot of functionality a lot more accessible. We would be better off recognizing that IRC is *not* in fact perfect as is and think about actually competing instead of being in denial.
Actually, I would say that marketing understands that most *people* they want to get to spend money don't understand fractions, which is probably a good bet.
The article say they disable cache to facilitate consistent behavior for repeating a test.
I'll admit the phrasing makes it sound all weird and exotic, but all they did was disable cache.
Or even an offline fitness band. However, business models are no longer interested in doing that when they can skip ahead to cloud and get lock-in.
I suppose my *hope* is that I influence fellow people to not get that hung up. I occasionally am in the position of hiring, and I give nearly no weight to whether or not they have used our chosen tools before versus understand the general idea. Now if someone acts overly intimidated with working with unfamiliar technology, or claims they do know the tooling when they clearly don't, that is something I consider a warning sign.
Warming nor cooling is good for us as it stands. We need to be careful and do our best to hold as it is.
That could conceivably involve purposely putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in the face of cooling, but that's not what we are seeing. This would almost certainly be a very risky idea.
If it were possible through manipulating the albedo of the earth, that would probably be our best bet for a mechanism that could be tuned as needed to compensate to fight undesired cooling or warming as it happened, since it's not feasible to pull a greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere once we put it there.