_6pvr

We are in the middle of a global pandemic. I'm sorry this reality upsets you.

> It’s hard to do test-first TDD “mindlessly” because writing a test usually forces you to think in terms of the specification of the behavior you’re about to implement.

Tests are code. Code can be sloppy, fallible, useless. Writing a consumer before you write a provider doesn't make either more robust, just the point at which they meet more clear. You can certainly write a test that uses a function, but the test doesn't actually test anything at all, just that the function exists. aka "mindless TDD".

> Is it just me or was this _not_ surprising at all?

It wasn't surprising to anyone that has reflected about the value of tests. Mindless testing/TDD isn't usually reflective, though.

A mandatory meeting in which all developers must be present and regurgitate status updates to the entire team, as an example, assumes this information wouldn't get to relevant parties organically and all team members must consume all status updates.

> We need to be able to see each other in the eye.

This isn't what happens during webcam meetings. If you're looking at the camera (to try and provide eye contact), you're not able to see anyone looking back at you.

> Managers, especially, should set the right example and turn their on cameras - and ask their team to do so too.

Definitely not, and I wouldn't work for a manager that cared if my camera was on or not.

Don't estimate. They don't matter and nobody cares about them anyway. If you're a sales driven/feature factory company, the estimates won't matter anyway as you'll demand to meet your obligations regardless of estimates.

If you're a company that plans far in advance, the same is true. You'll demand the work you wanted is done at a given date, again regardless of how difficult it was.

At my company, we have a well maintained backlog of work. We pick dates in the future to check in on what got done in between check ins. The product manager can (re)prioritize work as needed. We pull from the top. If there's a surprise deadline it gets brought up to everyone and then put at the top of the queue, sometimes over currently in-progress tasks.

You cannot bend the realities of time and complexity. If something is hard, an estimate doesn't make it easier. A hard delivery date also doesn't bring predictability. Ultimately, with or without estimates, you'll get what you get. If you want to get _more_, ask a team what's making them slow and then prioritize fixing the things they bring up. If every team is working optimally (they're not), hire.

I'll also add, the time it takes to prepare an estimate of any value is probably 10x what anybody asking you to estimate something is willing to provide. You're being asked to spit out a number to fit an existing narrative. If you wanted to estimate a unit of work with any amount of legitimacy, you'd need hours/days/weeks (depending on SOW). These companies scheduling weekly estimation meetings that last an hour and are bullshit scrum cards don't matter and aren't interested in being even close to correct.

> Most devs have to know the commands and configuration to do rolling deployments on the target infrastructure, fetch logs, how the readiness protocoll integrates with automatic restarts, ingress, etc.

Is this serious? You think _most devs_, meaning a group that includes FE devs, mobile app devs, IoT, open source, DBAs, security engineers, need to know these things?

> With k8s, all this is standard and transferable. With ad-hoc simpler solutions, this is all per-team tribal knowledge, and in my experience it's not even simpler to use for us devs.

Most teams do not have to manage most/all of the things you're describing.

This really feels like more K8s marketing disguised as a HN post.

> Then why do you start running forward instantly when you press “W” in counterstrike or quake? Why not just deploy servers closer to users?

You do both? Game client handles movements and writes game state changes to a server, which should be close to the user to reduce the possibility for invalid state behaviors? You really haven't seen online games that deploy servers all over the world to reduce latency for their users? What?

Both web apps and games do optimistic server writes. Both web apps and games have to accommodate a failed write. Both web apps and games handle local state and remote state differently.

> In many areas of the US, that trigger happy cop will be the difference between you recovering your propert

A cop's not going to get your bike back. They'll write a report and then throw it away when you leave.

(Not attacking you) Do you write a substantial amount of Go very frequently?

I've been paying attention to Zig posts on HN, mostly just because it seems well-liked and I think Andrew Kelley is interesting/smart. Would it be fair to say that Zig is to C, what Rust is to C++? Or are they both just kind of...low-ish-level systems languages solving similar problems, differently?

> For large PHP setups it is usually the number of database connections that is the limiting factor,

For pretty much every modern programming language, IO is the bottleneck over everything else.

To save you some time, there are practically no metrics in which I think PHP beats another programming language other than maturity, and even then, not really.

> ere really shouldn't be two standard package managers for JS.

Why? Aren't there multiple package managers in many languages? SBT/Maven, Ant/Ivy/Maven, PIP/Poem(or poetry or whatever it is). What's the harm?

> it's a tough one

For sure.

> Statistics

Bingo!

YC certainly keeps stats on their acceptance info. They don't accept 99% of those that apply. What % of those that get accepted are over 35, compared to those that apply? What % aren't white men? Multiple founders?

> I for sure don't think the main post is evidence of anything, so I struggle to see how it's getting so popular.

Because OP has a reason to believe they were discriminated against. They ask the question to A.) See if others come forward, B.) Hope/expect YC to produce the statistics we just talked about, either proving or disproving a pattern of discriminatory behavior. And if YC knows they don't discriminate based on age, there should be absolutely no issue with them producing their data supporting that claim, right?

I would say a place that is both so small and so riddled with sexual abuse definitely qualifies as "rather sad". I think your bias/passion for its/your heritage might be skewing your perception. If 1/3 of the male population are convicted, I would assume the realities of who partook are actually much worse.

I've always found it interesting that Git gets a pass for its horrible UX by so many devs. The programming community wants to provide too many options for _everything_. If there's a tool you don't like, there are probably 10 other versions that do similar enough things that you can just switch. Devs are harshly critical of tools. And yet, with Git, the response just seems to be "if you don't like it you must just not _get it_." Which, I guess is fair, but I don't particularly understand why everyone has to "get it"? Why can't we expect a tool that's used by so many be intuitive? Or at least, _more_ intuitive? It feels a bit like hazing at this point. The post recently about `git undo` was great, I think, because of the frequency with which users encounter surprising and unintended behavior.

It continues to be kind of frustrating to me. It feels like a tool that should be wrapped in something else and never even brought up to 99% of users. A half finished idea on productivity and team centric version control (to get ahead of comments: I know it's not designed to be that, but that's how it's very frequently used).

> Oh let me clear that up for you.

> Are there any other mysteries we can clear up? I mean we all had to start somewhere and "there are no stupid questions" right?

I'm surprised at how big a jackass a single person can appear in such a concise response.

Every time a new technology shows up, there are lots of "Why not just use < insert old technology >?" The answer is obvious, and can be most highlighted by leaning harder into the absurdity of "Why not just use < insert old technology>?", which is, why does any technology exist beyond Assembly if all that's old is good enough?

But, given you can't behave like a grown up, I'd rather not continue this comment tree.

Most pieces of technology create as many problems as they're meant to solve. The cost-benefit is always around whether or not the solved problems are worth the cost of the new problems. If latency is such a problem that you'd want to deploy servers and caches as close as possible to a user, you'd probably gladly pay for the reduction of that latency at the cost of the new class(es) of problem.

It was an interesting decision to make a SaaS out of this solution, though, as I think 99% of problems are not solved by having machines closer to their users.

This is just a really silly way to think of craftsmanship. Whoever you pay to redo your bathroom doesn't care at all, literally at all, about your motivations behind wanting to redo your bathroom and how you think it'll change your whole morning and evening routines. They don't care. It's their craft. They will redo your bathroom to the best of their abilities and will take pleasure in new or interesting units of work you've included in your bathroom design that they haven't been able to try.

What you're suggesting is just hustle culture nonsense. If you want someone to be invested in your company, give them _equity_. If you won't (and you won't), accept that you're paying for a transactional relationship, not "investment".

> Kubernetes is complex because the reality of what you’re dealing with is complex.

Passing off complexity instead of reducing it isn't a net-positive though. The purpose of frameworks/libraries/etc is to (considerably) reduce complexity. In Kubernetes, you've replaced a group of specialist engineers with just a different group of specialist engineers.

> why are you joining the meeting to begin with?

At companies that misuse meetings, most meetings are not optional to attend. Of course you could say "Well just don't go", but some people don't like getting fired over things like this.

> Just decline like a grown-up and get some actual work done

What a condescending way to communicate.

Seeing lots of posts in this thread about "Americans" and "freedom", but these posters I think are forgetting that the only thing Americans love more than "freedom" (quotes intentional) are controlling other people, which HOAs allow.

> Again, are you saying streamers shouldn't be allowed to go to the beach? Or are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to wear bikinis? And if another streamer watches a YouTube video that has a woman at the beach should they be banned?

You should consider reading my post.

> Is charging admission for beach volleyball a sexual service?

This question actually perfectly articulates the difference. When you pay $5 to watch a beach volleyball tournament, you're paying for volleyball, and may as a side effect experience content that _some_ may find sexual. By Twitch's ToS, this should totally be allowed.

As for my example, is there a nonsexual reason to pay a woman 5 dollars to bend over in front of you? What is it?

What a truly excellent strawman. Do you see no middle ground between obviously sexual content and a Burqa? Is there no middle ground between writing someone's name on your breasts for $5 and going to the beach to swim?

> There has been confusion around whether streams from hot tubs are permissible under our current policies, and we understand why our rules as written have contributed to that confusion. Under our current Nudity & Attire and Sexually Suggestive Content policies, streamers may appear in swimwear in contextually appropriate situations (at the beach, in a hot tub, for example), and we allow creative expression like body writing and body painting, provided the streamer has appropriate coverage as outlined by our attire policy. Nudity or sexually explicit content (which we define as pornography, sex acts, and sexual services) are not allowed on Twitch.

I again ask, is wearing a bikini, facing away from a camera and touching your toes for $5 not a sexual service?

> I didn't know there were so many outraged prudes on twitch. Why should twitch have a sexually suggestive content rule in the first place?

If you're asserting that thinking hot tub streams break ToS, and Twitch's selective enforcement of that ToS causes problems very frequently on their platform, makes me an "outraged prude", well I'm sorry friend. Gaslighting an entire community doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

> Nudity or sexually explicit content (which we define as pornography, sex acts, and sexual services) are not allowed on Twitch.

Is wearing a bikini, facing away from a camera and touching your toes for $5 not sexually explicit?

> I don't see what the huge issue with showing off your own sexiness is. Sheesh!

The issue is inconsistency. I think they should update the ToS to support these streamers - they're some of the biggest streamers on the platform. To suggest that those streamers are not being sexually suggestive is, again, an absolute joke. Twitch themselves made the determination that sexually suggestive content is not welcome on their platform, not me.

The joke is asserting that hot tub streams aren't sexually suggestive. The twitch community seems to love them, so of course Twitch will fight tooth and nail to keep them. But to suggest that they aren't sexually suggestive (and by proxy against Twitch ToS) is an absolute joke. They look like clowns.

Twitch continues to pretend hot tub streams aren't intentionally sexually suggestive. What a joke.

HN doesn't really do memes, but I made this because it seems relevant: https://imgflip.com/i/5ah3b7

Diminishing a person's job in an attempt to discredit their feedback has even less credibility.