_jal

I'm not making a normative claim - I don't want a corporate mall, either.

I'm making a prediction. The unregulated internet is a risk to some very powerful interests. They cannot tolerate that. And despite what some people thought early on (me included), IT is a power-amplifier, not an equalizer.

I'm not optimistic.

> 20 years from now, we're still going to want to run our own software

And you'll be able to, on hobby machines or VMs. But the general purpose machine where the owner controls the OS will fade.

Banks, popular sites and other choke points will demand attestation of an unmodified system for access. People will talk about internet access the way they do about driving in the US - a privilege, not a right.

Bet it.

If I do not end up with an offline-playable artifact in a standard format with no DRM, it needs to be priced as one-off consumption, like a movie ticket. Because duration aside, that's what it is.

"Cloud" service economics cannot work for "sales" of content, that only works for subscription models. The vendor has ongoing costs related to a one-time sale; of course they're going to screw you out of it no matter what lies they tell you.

I mostly buy physical media, although BandCamp got a fair amount of my money before it was eviscerated. The first sale doctrine still exists, as much as rentiers hate it.

If you added attributes for the number of rows and columns (something like <table ... rows="4" cols="4">), it could render it progressively.

I don't recall if that was vanilla HTML or vendor extension, I suspect not vanilla.

I stopped doing front end work about the time tables for layout went out of fashion, my dorky internal tools still use them.

Yep. I used to be more charitable, but I've taken to being very short with founder wannabes who act like this. Bluntly, if they refuse to look past their preconceptions to see who they're actually talking to, why should I?

This is made easier knowing founders with those sorts of blinders are likely going to fail anyway, so you don't want to be in the blast radius when it happens.

> Grammarly is an application that I don't get.

You write like a native speaker, so I'm not surprised. But imagine having a few years of school-German, and then taking a German language job. I'd bet there would be times you'd want a writing assistant, too.

There are also plenty of native English speakers who for whatever reason got a crappy education, and didn't get a lot of writing feedback.

As far as corporate security goes, you are correct, and we ban it. But I get why people want it.

You seem to think I'm arguing against something there. I'm not, it is strictly descriptive.

The US also has close to no data privacy protection, so you can also practice whatever targeting and manipulative nonsense you want on your subjects.

The delta there shows what that's worth.

But not complicated things like, uh, dumping a representation of what's on screen to a file.

> That will change

Been hearing that from Wayland folks about very basic things for what, 15 years now?

It is an emotional response to the fear of being "left behind".

And for some folks, there are pseudo-religious elements. There's been a long line of thought (search Extropians) obsessed with a sort of godhead-merger, or becoming godlike, and related immortality dreams. And just from a symbology perspective, there are a lot of religious overtones. The similarities between Vinge's singularity and biblical rapture are hard to miss, for instance. And just listen to some of the "AI" cheerleaders right now...

I've been convinced for years that Google Docs loses things. I both had files vanish and have lost edits - one time I could demonstrate it with a screenshot of part of a doc that later reverted to an earlier version.

Other people at work agree with me. Google support insists we're nuts.

I only use it when other internal folks start collaborative docs, otherwise I do not trust it. Files don't randomly disappear from my local filesystem (and we test our backups).

Some people, when faced with a demonstration that someone they care a lot about can successfully deceive them, develop trust issues.

It is a thing that happens. I don't think it speaks to the depth of their feelings, it speaks more to how they develop trust.

The argument is that there are plenty of unprosecuted crimes already, obviously.

I understand why you might disagree with that, and I understand why your reading comprehension might work better when not discussing your employer, but I have to say, you're really not helping your firm's reputation here.

RHV is dead, they're trying to move people over to (the much more expensive) OpenShift. Support for it has gotten predictably worse.

I don't expect Ovirt to survive, the vast majority of development was RH.

"The market" seems to "deciding" that in-house virtualization will be insanely expensive, and otherwise you need to rent OCP.

Not github, but I signed up for a service with the username 'duplicate_user_id'. It seems someone there didn't find that as amusing as I did, locked the account, and refused service.

I can only guess they thought it was setup for some sort of scam, but I can't imagine what.

My guess is that sideloading on IOS will be region-locked to be available only where legally required.

It reads like the advice of a mid-career engineer who is not aware that their time has been spent in a very small corner of the overall software engineering world.

To start with, individuals do not print their own currencies. People always jump in immediately to say you can't inflate your way out of debt/look at Argentina/etc., but that's missing the point, I'm not saying that.

The point is a sovereign currency issuer has a fundamentally different relationship to money than mere people. They can certainly still get themselves in trouble through mismanagement, no doubt, but there are a lot of levers they have that are unavailable to normal folks.

Like some other major differences: not too many people have massive standing armies or hundreds of millions of tax payers, or control over a substantial fraction of global financial flows.

Again, not saying eleventy-trillion in debt is not a problem, or that all's well, or anything else like that. I am saying that comparing private finance to sovereign finance is a category error, and things will make much more sense to you if you understand why.

I'm currently working on planning for a large enterprise migration. We're definitely not doing a 1:1 mapping of VMs, but costs are still going to go through the roof.

There might be a quiet betting pool on just how much more.

The landlords were clearly communicating pricing information to one another with the intent of profit maximization. I don't see how software mediation changes that.

It codes as "clean" and "controlled".

It also implied clean energy tech at a time when that was also mostly science fiction.

Is Ycombinator paying out to their "content generators" here?

Also, while I can imagine one's HN reputation helping someone a job or find a venture partner in this little bubble, there is no comparison with Xitter's reach.

I like wood. It is pretty much everything you want for something like this - super durable, very easy to work with, and depending on what you pick, cheap and pretty, too.

Plus, woodworking is very satisfying by itself. And also easy to get started with - for small box-like things like this you only need a few cheap hand tools.

> prevent long terms

It is a quandary. Some pols burrow in and never go away, to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be serving.

On the other hand, term limits just empower lobbyists, who don't have them. You think capture is bad now, just wait until all elected officials are perennial novices at the game.

Why are you pretending I said anything about it being illegal? I said nothing about law.

> His reasoning boiled down to "Linux is too popular".

You made the right choice. That founder demonstrated domain incompetence alongside a demonstration that they don't know when to delegate, with a side of shallow reasoning.

> To me it’s quite obvious that this is about defending “the Swedish model"

Of course it is. And what's wrong with that?

Mr. Freeze Peach doesn't seem to complain about that when it is China calling the shots. If he wants to play in Sweden, he can play by local rules.

New categories of things to wear are really hard to get people to adapt without some instantly-compelling use case. I'm having trouble coming up with a mildly interesting use case for this.

Get it to the point where it can constantly observe my surroundings and make the sort of suggestions a partner might ("if we stop at the hardware store first, we can get those fresh bagels Bob likes from the place that closes early", ) and maybe there's something to talk about.

> The European Union isn’t sovereign. It likes to pretend it is, but it isn’t.

I'm going to assume you're misinterpreting rather than trying to be disingenuous, but I was obviously referencing the nations Ireland signed the series of treaties starting with the Treaty of Lisbon (which Ireland signed in 2009).

France, Germany, etc. are perfectly within their rights to hold Ireland to the agreements it made.

> They’ve just about always been just lies of convenience.

Your examples are proving the opposite of what you appear to think they do. The US would be a much better example of what you mean, but that just demonstrates that nobody currently wants to take the US on.

In any case, Ireland is perfectly free to exit the treaty normally if it chooses. England showed them how.