But now imagine that the boss of your boss of your boss says the same about you on an official company meeting in front of all other employees. Even if meant as joke, as most people don't know him personally, it will be taken seriously.
Yeah, but this is part of what I was thinking. And I'm stressing that I don't follow these things and I don't know, but it sounds plausible that it'd be sort of like if the boss of your boss of your boss did that at a company meeting in front of other employees, and then was like, "What? That was just a friendly meeting and we're all friends here." Like maybe it's not as much about being completely antisocial, and more about horrifically misreading the situation.
Same rules apply: If it does not improve the flow of information, it does not belong in the email. Some swearwords don't bring any points across that could not be covered by "professional english" subset;-).
I do think there's a little complexity here, and I'm not sure exactly how it works in this situation. What I have in mind is that, honestly, I might swear and say "unprofessional" things when communicating with coworkers. If I'm talking to someone who I work closely with on a daily basis, it's possible that I'd see something I thought was stupid and say, "Oh my god, that's so f#*^king stupid. What the hell was that guy thinking. If he does that again, I'm going to put my foot up his a$%." But that's in speaking to a guy that I know well, that I work with every day. I wouldn't say that on my company's twitter account.
So I do wonder, is there some disconnect in understanding what this mailing list is? I don't know, just putting the idea out there. Maybe Torvalds thinks he's talking to coworkers, and the rest of us are reading it as though it's a professional public communication.
I'll be honest: They lost my respect the first time I heard of them. The name "Go Daddy" is super creepy. I find it hard to take a company seriously when it chooses a name like that. And then I logged into the site at one point when I was helping someone, and the negative associations were reinforced. The whole thing always felt like a spam/scam site. I think I saw one of the commercials once, and I wasn't particularly offended or anything, but again, it reinforced the sense that the company seemed trashy/scammy/spammy.
Even the logo-- that dude with the sunglasses-- I don't know why but he looks like a perv to me. I think it's the "Go Daddy" association, which always sounded to me like it was somehow hearkening to the concept of child molestation. The words "Go Daddy" look like they're written with sloppy and perhaps childish handwriting, as though a child is telling "daddy" to go away. I want to ask, "Is it because Daddy did something bad?" He looks creepy, wearing sunglasses and has some kind of a star stuck to his bald head. And what are those orange lines emanating from the top of his head?
Is it just me? I can't be the first person to think this. Seems like really bad marketing to me, but I've never heard anyone else mention it.
Yeah, why even bother to create standards, because some jackasses won't follow them? Why bother doing anything, since some people might possibly ruin it?
It's not clear to me that this needs to create a big practical difference for you. I guess I don't really know what's been going on with ChromeOS lately, but my understanding is that both Android and ChromeOS are basically Linux, so merging the system codebase itself doesn't need to make a big difference for users. They could even potentially use the same display system across both platforms while customizing the UI to fit each. ChromeOS could still be, essentially, a simplified Linux distro where the UI is mostly just just Chrome browser.
On the other hand, it would possibly make it easier for Google to update/maintain both systems if they shared a codebase. It would also possibly make it easier for Android developers to create desktop versions of their phone apps, in cases where that made sense.
So all in all, it seems like this is probably a good thing. Not that they couldn't screw it up.
You end up with a load of background updater processes wasting resources at all times, so they end up getting turned off.
Even more often, they don't get turned off, and instead you end up with 10 different updaters running on 10 different schedules, each using up resources, each popping up and nagging the user, and half of which are going to ask for a reboot. As someone who runs IT support for a few thousand computers, this is a problem that I've been looking for an elegant solution to for decades now, without any luck.
I really don't see why Apple and Microsoft can't design a system-wide package manager that allows 3rd party repositories, thereby solving the whole issue. Essentially, allow developers to hook into Apple's SoftwareUpdate and Microsoft's WindowsUpdate so that all patches can be installed through the same mechanism, on the same schedule, with the same notification system.
And another fogie observation: use common tools in your tool stack because you are more likely to find support for them down the road.
I agree, and use the same basic principle in terms of configuration. As a rule of thumb, whenever you have the option, leave all the default settings/methods. You might be able to squeeze out slightly better performance by tweaking things a bunch, but it's generally not really worth it-- at least not for most environments.
For example: If you install the server with the most generic, out of the box settings there are, and things work? Leave them. Everything you change is another thing that could potentially break.
The biggest reason for that is developers. Obscure settings are not always well tested. If you have any third party programs or add-ins, they'll often assume a default setup and not test against other settings. But developers aside, there's also the problem of support. Every setting you change is another thing that you have to remember the next time you do something with that server. If you hand it off to another tech to support, it's another thing that they have to learn and figure out.
Some people think that the best IT workers are the ones who know lots of tricks and hacks to really optimize the hell out of everything-- secret settings that nobody else knows. I disagree. The best ones are those who leave everything in the most predictable, standardized state that's unremarkable except for how boring and clean it is.
What the heck ever happened to good engineering practices.
Also, to be honest... I've never seen a project management approach or a development method that could outperform a good, smart, organized group of people working hard, talking to each other, and thinking about what they're doing. And I've never seen a piece of technology that couldn't make things more difficult.
I just don't know how else to put that. It might not be clear. But every time I'm asked to develop a new methodology, I'm like, "Great. Let's do that, for as much and as long as it makes sense, and then when it stops making sense, let's not do that." Every time someone gives me a hot new technical solution, I think, "Great. Let's use this in all the situations where this gives us a more efficient, reliable solution than what we're currently doing. Otherwise let's not. Because it'll take a lot of work to implement and train people and to troubleshoot whatever goes wrong. Then, it'll take a certain amount of ongoing time to just make sure that we're all using this new technology the same way, bla bla bla... On top of that, before we implement, let's take a step back and see whether this technology is going to break things in some disastrous way."
I'm certainly not opposed to new things. I work in technology largely because I've always been the sort of person who wants shiny new tech, and wants a great new way of doing things. Still, there's a cost to jumping on bandwagons that inexperienced people often don't see.
They probably just get sick of seeing the same mistakes implemented over and over again.
Or they're just sick of being asked to jump from one fad to another. A lot of times, the "new stuff" is the same old stuff with a new coat of paint and a bunch of flashy buzzwords. There was a recent story on Slashdot about the amazing new concept of "DevOps", and the only explanation I could get for what it was is, "Have developers work with operations." Wow. Big move there. You mean you don't want different departments within your business at each other's throats? You want them to work together seamlessly?
And I'm sick of programmers going on endlessly about how their brilliant new organizational and project management style will fix everything. "Agile" this and "waterfall" that. Oh, instead of having your project be one single big project, you're going to break your project into smaller projects? You've designed a new theme for your gantt chart? Slap a buzzword on it, and you have the hot new development method that's going to solve world hunger!
"Oh, you're on Friendster? That's lame, I'm on MySpace. Oh, you're on MySpace? That's lame, I'm on Facebook. Oh, you're on Facebook? That's lame, I only use Snapchat now." What are you doing with your lives. Whatever network you're on, you're just sending out pictures that nobody wants to look at.
This is why old people don't care. Young people see the hot new thing and think, "This is going to be the thing that changes the world and makes everything great!" Old people have been through that several times, and think, "This is another one of those things that's supposed to change the world and make everything great. Same as the last 50 things that were supposed to do that. And this one looks even stupider."
As some people have pointed out, pen and paper isn't searchable unless you're very good at staying organized and filing things. Also, it's somewhat difficult to backup and archive unless you scan everything. Plus, it can end up taking up a bunch of space. It's also harder to share, if you want to share your notes for some reason.
I'm not really opposed to it. I keep notebooks. But for anything important, I usually end up transcribing it into some kind of digital form. If you're worried about your notes being legally admissible, then you can include the digital notes in some kind of tamper-proof archiving solution-- e.g. email it through a system that has email archiving for compliance. It costs money, but I feel like generally, if you're in a situation where you're worried about your documents being admissible, then it probably warrants spending a little money.
To give my answer to OP's question, I don't feel like I need a specialized note-taking system. I use whatever document type is appropriate for the content. If I'm need to write out a bunch of text, I use a word processor. If I want something in a table that I can sort and process, I use whatever my preferred spreadsheet program is. Right now I use Google Apps, but it shouldn't really matter. If you want FOSS, maybe use LibreOffice?
comedians don't really improve or try out material.
Besides hearing interviews with comedians recently where they talk about trying out new material, I don't see how it would be possible for comedians to not "improve or try out material". If they're coming out with new material, they have to try it out somewhere.
Protecting cars from privacy breaches is, frankly, a secondary issue. There have been hacks demonstrating that an attacker can wirelessly take control of the car and interrupt the driver's control. This sort of hack certainly can be prevented-- by yanking any wireless connectivity, if nothing else.
If a car maker has cars that are not fully protected against that kind of attack, it should be illegal to drive those cars on public roads.
(if you press the start key and begin typing, the Win10 start menu will delay opening just long enough to miss one or two keystrokes).
It's even worse than that, at least on my machine. Maybe there's some kind of misconfiguration on my computer, but I used to be able to hit the Windows key, start typing the name of the application I wanted to run, and hit enter. So I'd type "calc", for example, and hit Enter, and it would figure out that I wanted the calculator, and launch it. Not in Windows 10.
Now, in Windows 10, I type "calc", and it pauses for 5-10 seconds (keep in mind this is on a 1 year-old computer with plenty of RAM and an SSD). Then it comes up with some options, the first of which is often to perform a web search for "calc". It's not consistent, but it's constant. I can't just use the search, because I have no idea what will come up. It's even things like, if I want to load the Snipping Tool, I'll type "sni' and the Snipping Tool is the top option. Great! But then out of habit, I continue typing, and as soon as I hit the "p", the Snipping Tool disappears from the search results. For some reason, the Snipping Tool is the top result for "sni" but doesn't exist for "snip"....
... sometimes. Sometimes the search works just as I'd like, although slow. Sometimes the results are nonsensical. This is one of those things where I'm honestly baffled how such a big, successful developer could screw up something so simple.
Give them the choice; perpetual security updates or open source.
If you want real security, those perpetual security updates ought to have 3rd party audits of the code to ensure that proper security methods are being used.
Again, I haven't been inside their organization, but I suspect it's probably bullshit-- i.e. managers who say that they aren't managers in order to make themselves feel good about being egalitarian, but still expecting people to do what they say.
I don't feel like reading the whole thing, but I have a strong suspicion that the thing is bullshit. I'll admit I don't really know, but I wouldn't trust what I was told about this unless I saw it for myself over an extended period of time, but I've worked with/in/for a lot of different companies and groups, nonprofits and businesses, and I've seen a few try various schemes to do away with "managers" and "hierarchy". At least in my experience so far, it doesn't work.
You might think that the problem is that the system breaks down and becomes chaotic, that without guidance, workers will allocate resources badly. But that's not quite the problem that I've seen. The problem is more that some kind of hierarchy always forms. In the end, someone takes the role of "the boss" and people still do what the boss says. The boss may be making speeches about how he's not "the boss", but he's your friend. He says he'll listen to you, he'll take your input and criticisms seriously, and you shouldn't feel like this is a hierarchy. He may spend quite a long time talking about the benefits of not having a "boss" or a "hierarchy", and how it continues to work out so well for your company, but when push comes to shove, he'll make a unilateral decision and expect you to go along with it. And he'll also have some people that he likes more than others-- whether for personal or professional reasons-- and those people will be able to tell other people what to do, too. They'll be the de facto middle-management.
So it really becomes an issue of terminology rather than organization. There's no "hierarchy", but some people are more important and influential than others. There are not "managers", but you'll find yourself answering to one or more of those "more influential" people. The change in terminology creates a lot of feel-goodery for the management team, but in the best cases, it's just a hierarchy by other names. Unfortunately, the informality of the hierarchy tends to lead towards cronyism rather than egalitarianism.
I don't think it's quite that. It's more like, "adding manpower to a project will not necessarily speed it up." The famous example is "9 women can't make a baby in 1 month."
Adding manpower may help a project get done faster. It may make it take longer. It may make no real difference. It depends. It seems like what's being discussed here is that someone thinks they have disproved the concept, when really they just found one specialized situation where "it depends".
I've never actually seen a Sharepoint implementation that worked out. Either nobody uses it, or management forces everyone to use it, and it turns into a big mess, and everyone hates it. I genuinely don't know of an appropriate use case for Sharepoint.
Getting equity in a project that doesn't get off the ground will sill end up with you working for nothing. It's not really "working my ass off for others' benefit", but "working my ass off for no one's benefit". I'm not sure that's much better.
It's a gamble either way, but sometimes I'd rather get a salary than equity.
Re:The movie was good because the book was short.
on
Review: The Martian
·
· Score: 1
They could have fixed the calculations, then. Even if the math was wrong, having his thought process and explaining his mistakes added a lot.
Re:The movie was good because the book was short.
on
Review: The Martian
·
· Score: 2
I liked the movie a lot, and I was surprised about how almost everything in the book made it into the movie.
Sort of. They still skipped out a lot of the description of what he's doing and why, which I thought was some of the best parts of the books. For example, there wasn't much description of how he calculated how much water he needed, why he was mixing poop in with the soil, or what he was modifying in the rover. I can understand why they did it-- it would be potentially boring and confusing to an audience who didn't understand the science. Still, I felt like there could have been a little more of him describing what's going on in his journals.
The key here is that Apple shouldn't have the power to arbitrarily disappear an app (which may constitute speech)
First amendment protections only extend to protections against the government-- not actions by private entities. Your "freedom of speech" does not include any requirement on me to provide you with a platform to make that speech.
Consider, next time it may well be a negative review that gets someone's apps yanked. Or an allegation of wrongdoing.
Yes, actually, there are various kinds of wrongdoing that can get your app pulled. Violating the terms of the agreement you have with Apple is just one of many things, including if your app includes pornography or hate speech, or any number of other things. Ultimately, you're talking about a store that Apple is running, and they have the freedom to pull products from their shelves. Could you imagine the alternative in a brick-and-mortar situation? You own a store, and you just have to stock your shelves with anyone who wants to sell their products at your stores, regardless of whether you find their product objectionable, dangerous, or misleading, and regardless of whether those vendors honor their agreements with you?
If Apple really believes they have been materially harmed by the disclosure, they should (and would have) sued iFixit and would have already requested an injunction requiring iFixit to withdraw it's app from Apple and Google.
So you want Apple to sue iFixit in order to get them to submit an application back to Apple to have Apple remove the app from Apple's own store. As a response for violating Apple's developer's program, which already includes terms that Apple can pull apps from the store for violating the agreement.
And let's not make any mistake here-- iFixit agreed to an NDA and then broke it-- not just the letter of it, but the spirit of it. Regardless of what you think the penalty should be, it's unambiguous that iFixit was in the wrong here.
What else would you suggest I call it when one group declares itself to be judge, jury, and executioner (so to speak)?
When the "execution" is the enforcement of a pre-existing legal agreement, I'm not sure I'd call it anything. Maybe "standard business practices"? Like if I rented an apartment from you and then I never paid any rent and you responded with eviction proceedings, as specified by the lease and the requirements of the jurisdiction, what would you call that? Perhaps, "an appropriate and predictable response"? Or "exactly the outcome you would expect"?
Slashdot Mirror
But now imagine that the boss of your boss of your boss says the same about you on an official company meeting in front of all other employees. Even if meant as joke, as most people don't know him personally, it will be taken seriously.
Yeah, but this is part of what I was thinking. And I'm stressing that I don't follow these things and I don't know, but it sounds plausible that it'd be sort of like if the boss of your boss of your boss did that at a company meeting in front of other employees, and then was like, "What? That was just a friendly meeting and we're all friends here." Like maybe it's not as much about being completely antisocial, and more about horrifically misreading the situation.
Same rules apply: If it does not improve the flow of information, it does not belong in the email. Some swearwords don't bring any points across that could not be covered by "professional english" subset ;-).
I do think there's a little complexity here, and I'm not sure exactly how it works in this situation. What I have in mind is that, honestly, I might swear and say "unprofessional" things when communicating with coworkers. If I'm talking to someone who I work closely with on a daily basis, it's possible that I'd see something I thought was stupid and say, "Oh my god, that's so f#*^king stupid. What the hell was that guy thinking. If he does that again, I'm going to put my foot up his a$%." But that's in speaking to a guy that I know well, that I work with every day. I wouldn't say that on my company's twitter account.
So I do wonder, is there some disconnect in understanding what this mailing list is? I don't know, just putting the idea out there. Maybe Torvalds thinks he's talking to coworkers, and the rest of us are reading it as though it's a professional public communication.
I'll be honest: They lost my respect the first time I heard of them. The name "Go Daddy" is super creepy. I find it hard to take a company seriously when it chooses a name like that. And then I logged into the site at one point when I was helping someone, and the negative associations were reinforced. The whole thing always felt like a spam/scam site. I think I saw one of the commercials once, and I wasn't particularly offended or anything, but again, it reinforced the sense that the company seemed trashy/scammy/spammy.
Even the logo-- that dude with the sunglasses-- I don't know why but he looks like a perv to me. I think it's the "Go Daddy" association, which always sounded to me like it was somehow hearkening to the concept of child molestation. The words "Go Daddy" look like they're written with sloppy and perhaps childish handwriting, as though a child is telling "daddy" to go away. I want to ask, "Is it because Daddy did something bad?" He looks creepy, wearing sunglasses and has some kind of a star stuck to his bald head. And what are those orange lines emanating from the top of his head?
Is it just me? I can't be the first person to think this. Seems like really bad marketing to me, but I've never heard anyone else mention it.
Yeah, why even bother to create standards, because some jackasses won't follow them? Why bother doing anything, since some people might possibly ruin it?
It's not clear to me that this needs to create a big practical difference for you. I guess I don't really know what's been going on with ChromeOS lately, but my understanding is that both Android and ChromeOS are basically Linux, so merging the system codebase itself doesn't need to make a big difference for users. They could even potentially use the same display system across both platforms while customizing the UI to fit each. ChromeOS could still be, essentially, a simplified Linux distro where the UI is mostly just just Chrome browser.
On the other hand, it would possibly make it easier for Google to update/maintain both systems if they shared a codebase. It would also possibly make it easier for Android developers to create desktop versions of their phone apps, in cases where that made sense.
So all in all, it seems like this is probably a good thing. Not that they couldn't screw it up.
You end up with a load of background updater processes wasting resources at all times, so they end up getting turned off.
Even more often, they don't get turned off, and instead you end up with 10 different updaters running on 10 different schedules, each using up resources, each popping up and nagging the user, and half of which are going to ask for a reboot. As someone who runs IT support for a few thousand computers, this is a problem that I've been looking for an elegant solution to for decades now, without any luck.
I really don't see why Apple and Microsoft can't design a system-wide package manager that allows 3rd party repositories, thereby solving the whole issue. Essentially, allow developers to hook into Apple's SoftwareUpdate and Microsoft's WindowsUpdate so that all patches can be installed through the same mechanism, on the same schedule, with the same notification system.
And another fogie observation: use common tools in your tool stack because you are more likely to find support for them down the road.
I agree, and use the same basic principle in terms of configuration. As a rule of thumb, whenever you have the option, leave all the default settings/methods. You might be able to squeeze out slightly better performance by tweaking things a bunch, but it's generally not really worth it-- at least not for most environments.
For example: If you install the server with the most generic, out of the box settings there are, and things work? Leave them. Everything you change is another thing that could potentially break.
The biggest reason for that is developers. Obscure settings are not always well tested. If you have any third party programs or add-ins, they'll often assume a default setup and not test against other settings. But developers aside, there's also the problem of support. Every setting you change is another thing that you have to remember the next time you do something with that server. If you hand it off to another tech to support, it's another thing that they have to learn and figure out.
Some people think that the best IT workers are the ones who know lots of tricks and hacks to really optimize the hell out of everything-- secret settings that nobody else knows. I disagree. The best ones are those who leave everything in the most predictable, standardized state that's unremarkable except for how boring and clean it is.
I think we're on the same page. High five.
What the heck ever happened to good engineering practices.
Also, to be honest... I've never seen a project management approach or a development method that could outperform a good, smart, organized group of people working hard, talking to each other, and thinking about what they're doing. And I've never seen a piece of technology that couldn't make things more difficult.
I just don't know how else to put that. It might not be clear. But every time I'm asked to develop a new methodology, I'm like, "Great. Let's do that, for as much and as long as it makes sense, and then when it stops making sense, let's not do that." Every time someone gives me a hot new technical solution, I think, "Great. Let's use this in all the situations where this gives us a more efficient, reliable solution than what we're currently doing. Otherwise let's not. Because it'll take a lot of work to implement and train people and to troubleshoot whatever goes wrong. Then, it'll take a certain amount of ongoing time to just make sure that we're all using this new technology the same way, bla bla bla... On top of that, before we implement, let's take a step back and see whether this technology is going to break things in some disastrous way."
I'm certainly not opposed to new things. I work in technology largely because I've always been the sort of person who wants shiny new tech, and wants a great new way of doing things. Still, there's a cost to jumping on bandwagons that inexperienced people often don't see.
They probably just get sick of seeing the same mistakes implemented over and over again.
Or they're just sick of being asked to jump from one fad to another. A lot of times, the "new stuff" is the same old stuff with a new coat of paint and a bunch of flashy buzzwords. There was a recent story on Slashdot about the amazing new concept of "DevOps", and the only explanation I could get for what it was is, "Have developers work with operations." Wow. Big move there. You mean you don't want different departments within your business at each other's throats? You want them to work together seamlessly?
And I'm sick of programmers going on endlessly about how their brilliant new organizational and project management style will fix everything. "Agile" this and "waterfall" that. Oh, instead of having your project be one single big project, you're going to break your project into smaller projects? You've designed a new theme for your gantt chart? Slap a buzzword on it, and you have the hot new development method that's going to solve world hunger!
"Oh, you're on Friendster? That's lame, I'm on MySpace. Oh, you're on MySpace? That's lame, I'm on Facebook. Oh, you're on Facebook? That's lame, I only use Snapchat now." What are you doing with your lives. Whatever network you're on, you're just sending out pictures that nobody wants to look at.
This is why old people don't care. Young people see the hot new thing and think, "This is going to be the thing that changes the world and makes everything great!" Old people have been through that several times, and think, "This is another one of those things that's supposed to change the world and make everything great. Same as the last 50 things that were supposed to do that. And this one looks even stupider."
As some people have pointed out, pen and paper isn't searchable unless you're very good at staying organized and filing things. Also, it's somewhat difficult to backup and archive unless you scan everything. Plus, it can end up taking up a bunch of space. It's also harder to share, if you want to share your notes for some reason.
I'm not really opposed to it. I keep notebooks. But for anything important, I usually end up transcribing it into some kind of digital form. If you're worried about your notes being legally admissible, then you can include the digital notes in some kind of tamper-proof archiving solution-- e.g. email it through a system that has email archiving for compliance. It costs money, but I feel like generally, if you're in a situation where you're worried about your documents being admissible, then it probably warrants spending a little money.
To give my answer to OP's question, I don't feel like I need a specialized note-taking system. I use whatever document type is appropriate for the content. If I'm need to write out a bunch of text, I use a word processor. If I want something in a table that I can sort and process, I use whatever my preferred spreadsheet program is. Right now I use Google Apps, but it shouldn't really matter. If you want FOSS, maybe use LibreOffice?
comedians don't really improve or try out material.
Besides hearing interviews with comedians recently where they talk about trying out new material, I don't see how it would be possible for comedians to not "improve or try out material". If they're coming out with new material, they have to try it out somewhere.
Protecting cars from privacy breaches is, frankly, a secondary issue. There have been hacks demonstrating that an attacker can wirelessly take control of the car and interrupt the driver's control. This sort of hack certainly can be prevented-- by yanking any wireless connectivity, if nothing else.
If a car maker has cars that are not fully protected against that kind of attack, it should be illegal to drive those cars on public roads.
(if you press the start key and begin typing, the Win10 start menu will delay opening just long enough to miss one or two keystrokes).
It's even worse than that, at least on my machine. Maybe there's some kind of misconfiguration on my computer, but I used to be able to hit the Windows key, start typing the name of the application I wanted to run, and hit enter. So I'd type "calc", for example, and hit Enter, and it would figure out that I wanted the calculator, and launch it. Not in Windows 10.
Now, in Windows 10, I type "calc", and it pauses for 5-10 seconds (keep in mind this is on a 1 year-old computer with plenty of RAM and an SSD). Then it comes up with some options, the first of which is often to perform a web search for "calc". It's not consistent, but it's constant. I can't just use the search, because I have no idea what will come up. It's even things like, if I want to load the Snipping Tool, I'll type "sni' and the Snipping Tool is the top option. Great! But then out of habit, I continue typing, and as soon as I hit the "p", the Snipping Tool disappears from the search results. For some reason, the Snipping Tool is the top result for "sni" but doesn't exist for "snip"....
... sometimes. Sometimes the search works just as I'd like, although slow. Sometimes the results are nonsensical. This is one of those things where I'm honestly baffled how such a big, successful developer could screw up something so simple.
I can't believe you linked to "Y Combinator". Where's the "X Combinator" link, you misogynist pig?
Give them the choice; perpetual security updates or open source.
If you want real security, those perpetual security updates ought to have 3rd party audits of the code to ensure that proper security methods are being used.
Again, I haven't been inside their organization, but I suspect it's probably bullshit-- i.e. managers who say that they aren't managers in order to make themselves feel good about being egalitarian, but still expecting people to do what they say.
I don't feel like reading the whole thing, but I have a strong suspicion that the thing is bullshit. I'll admit I don't really know, but I wouldn't trust what I was told about this unless I saw it for myself over an extended period of time, but I've worked with/in/for a lot of different companies and groups, nonprofits and businesses, and I've seen a few try various schemes to do away with "managers" and "hierarchy". At least in my experience so far, it doesn't work.
You might think that the problem is that the system breaks down and becomes chaotic, that without guidance, workers will allocate resources badly. But that's not quite the problem that I've seen. The problem is more that some kind of hierarchy always forms. In the end, someone takes the role of "the boss" and people still do what the boss says. The boss may be making speeches about how he's not "the boss", but he's your friend. He says he'll listen to you, he'll take your input and criticisms seriously, and you shouldn't feel like this is a hierarchy. He may spend quite a long time talking about the benefits of not having a "boss" or a "hierarchy", and how it continues to work out so well for your company, but when push comes to shove, he'll make a unilateral decision and expect you to go along with it. And he'll also have some people that he likes more than others-- whether for personal or professional reasons-- and those people will be able to tell other people what to do, too. They'll be the de facto middle-management.
So it really becomes an issue of terminology rather than organization. There's no "hierarchy", but some people are more important and influential than others. There are not "managers", but you'll find yourself answering to one or more of those "more influential" people. The change in terminology creates a lot of feel-goodery for the management team, but in the best cases, it's just a hierarchy by other names. Unfortunately, the informality of the hierarchy tends to lead towards cronyism rather than egalitarianism.
I don't think it's quite that. It's more like, "adding manpower to a project will not necessarily speed it up." The famous example is "9 women can't make a baby in 1 month."
Adding manpower may help a project get done faster. It may make it take longer. It may make no real difference. It depends. It seems like what's being discussed here is that someone thinks they have disproved the concept, when really they just found one specialized situation where "it depends".
I've never actually seen a Sharepoint implementation that worked out. Either nobody uses it, or management forces everyone to use it, and it turns into a big mess, and everyone hates it. I genuinely don't know of an appropriate use case for Sharepoint.
Getting equity in a project that doesn't get off the ground will sill end up with you working for nothing. It's not really "working my ass off for others' benefit", but "working my ass off for no one's benefit". I'm not sure that's much better.
It's a gamble either way, but sometimes I'd rather get a salary than equity.
They could have fixed the calculations, then. Even if the math was wrong, having his thought process and explaining his mistakes added a lot.
I liked the movie a lot, and I was surprised about how almost everything in the book made it into the movie.
Sort of. They still skipped out a lot of the description of what he's doing and why, which I thought was some of the best parts of the books. For example, there wasn't much description of how he calculated how much water he needed, why he was mixing poop in with the soil, or what he was modifying in the rover. I can understand why they did it-- it would be potentially boring and confusing to an audience who didn't understand the science. Still, I felt like there could have been a little more of him describing what's going on in his journals.
The key here is that Apple shouldn't have the power to arbitrarily disappear an app (which may constitute speech)
First amendment protections only extend to protections against the government-- not actions by private entities. Your "freedom of speech" does not include any requirement on me to provide you with a platform to make that speech.
Consider, next time it may well be a negative review that gets someone's apps yanked. Or an allegation of wrongdoing.
Yes, actually, there are various kinds of wrongdoing that can get your app pulled. Violating the terms of the agreement you have with Apple is just one of many things, including if your app includes pornography or hate speech, or any number of other things. Ultimately, you're talking about a store that Apple is running, and they have the freedom to pull products from their shelves. Could you imagine the alternative in a brick-and-mortar situation? You own a store, and you just have to stock your shelves with anyone who wants to sell their products at your stores, regardless of whether you find their product objectionable, dangerous, or misleading, and regardless of whether those vendors honor their agreements with you?
If Apple really believes they have been materially harmed by the disclosure, they should (and would have) sued iFixit and would have already requested an injunction requiring iFixit to withdraw it's app from Apple and Google.
So you want Apple to sue iFixit in order to get them to submit an application back to Apple to have Apple remove the app from Apple's own store. As a response for violating Apple's developer's program, which already includes terms that Apple can pull apps from the store for violating the agreement.
And let's not make any mistake here-- iFixit agreed to an NDA and then broke it-- not just the letter of it, but the spirit of it. Regardless of what you think the penalty should be, it's unambiguous that iFixit was in the wrong here.
What else would you suggest I call it when one group declares itself to be judge, jury, and executioner (so to speak)?
When the "execution" is the enforcement of a pre-existing legal agreement, I'm not sure I'd call it anything. Maybe "standard business practices"? Like if I rented an apartment from you and then I never paid any rent and you responded with eviction proceedings, as specified by the lease and the requirements of the jurisdiction, what would you call that? Perhaps, "an appropriate and predictable response"? Or "exactly the outcome you would expect"?