doesnt_know

We uh, didn't really "figure out" anything.

One part of radio was replaced with TV, the other I guess morphed into streaming services which provide access to practically all music at all times. TV was replaced by streaming services which have original content created under the assumption it will be binge watched and app behavior and interfaces that are specifically designed to keep you in your seat.

Social media and video game companies literally hire psychologist's to find ways to abuse human nature/evolution in order to keep you stuck in their apps.

Most people are just cruising through life like they are hooked up to an IV of dopamine.

Isn't it a ridiculous joke that yelp is threatening "a clear violation of the platform’s Terms of Service", when it seems he is no longer a user of the service?

By his own admission, he is no longer paying yelp for any service so there is no contractual agreement between the two entities right? A punishment where they delist the business from their site is giving him and other businesses exactly what they want? So.....?

From a conceptual level, an unrelated entity lists the details of you/your business on their own accord and then threatens you with "terms of service violation" when you do something or share information it doesn't like? Seems insane.

I disagree with your assessment that people are more acceptable. I think it's just more along the lines of the people that care are "over it" and have learned their lesson now.

Those that genuinely care about the free software movement either have or will stop contributing to these projects and stop signing CLA's[1] so their work can't be abused in the future (turned into a proprietary product).

I personally don't think there is much more to argue about.

[1]https://drewdevault.com/2018/10/05/Dont-sign-a-CLA.html

I'm going to risk being labeled an ~incompetent dev~ or whatever but learning golang was seriously a breath of fresh air compared to literally any language I have ever tried to grok before.

Everything felt like it was there on purpose. It always seemed like there was a "proper" way to achieve something. Being told to use this opinionated formatter was like removing a 40kg bag after a bush walk. You never have to worry about if you're writing Go "the right way", because it's extensively documented what that way is.

Generics is an awesome feature, writing C# is my day job so sometimes I miss it, but I have full faith in the designers when they say it will be in the language in a "Go appropriate way". The last thing I personally want to see is Go being handed over to the community to be designed by committee.

A decade or two (probably less) and health insurance will plug your details into some shared DNA database and automatically disqualify you because your genetics predispose you to a laundry list of conditions, not worth the risk. Or, we will cover you but not for these genetic disorders as they are considered "preexisting conditions".

> That's an interesting dilemma.

It's not a dilemma at all for those that explicitly choose the GPL over MIT because they believe in Free Software (others might choose GPL for other reasons....).

Being Free and having every user of the software retain their Freedom is the literal point of the GPL. Saying "hey, your software would be used by lots more people if we make a proprietary product out of it" is undermining the entire point of the Free Software movement....

So it's more ethical if 10 people use your software and they retain their Freedom, then it is for 10 million to use it bundled in a proprietary product.

It's much easier to take "enormous risks" when you've got a golden parachute. For 99% of people taking huge risks means career, financial or literal suicide and (at best) poverty for their loved ones.

Or I guess put another way, most people are too busy trying to survive to think about playing the game.

Anti-vax is what happens when people "think for themselves". Medical regulation doesn't solve every problem, but it solves many problems that we would have in addition to our current ones.

Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn up in the American constitution. There is also plenty of opposing views of a "constitutionally limited government" that seems to be at the heart of American culture.

Frankly, it's pretty disturbing how many Americans are unable to comprehend that their way isn't the "only way" that can be valid.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights provides freedom of expression, but it's also limited by the human rights act. Racial disharmony is illegal. Even if the shooter didn't follow through with the shootings, he could have been punished for simply publishing that manifesto of his.

The other way to look at it was that men were artificially overvalued and the market is now correcting itself.

You might not care if it's just soda, but what about when it's along every aisle in the super market? What about at a pharmacy?

A super market app on your smartphone (which was installed for coupons) pops up a notification on Tuesday to remind you to get condoms. Based on your history it knows you pick them up on the way home (it's date night).

Your wife gets personalized discounts on sanitary pads on the 12th every month because it knows her cycle based on transaction history.

A pro-life organization purchases whole sale data from one of the analytics firms and harasses those who get the morning after pill.

At this point it's too late. As a consumer you have no choice, there is no competition left in the market place that doesn't do this.

If journalists make a big noise about it at some point the chains argue this subsidizes the price of basic produce which directly helps those on low income. Now the message is if you value privacy, you ~hate the poor~.

Accepting money isn't "free", and usually incurs a non-trivial overhead. If it's someones hobby it's easier to just not accept money and focus on the actual hobby.

Some kid getting pocket money from a lemonade stand is significantly different to accepting recurring donations as an adult. Dealing with either setting up some sort of non-profit, managing tax in your country, accepting international currencies or supporting largely unethical/hostile US based financial institutions like Paypal, it can be a rabbit hole that some just can't be bothered with.

It's also just really weird to critisise people for wanting their users to donate to worthy causes.

They are the same. The full .NET framework effectively had the full source code available to read as the "Reference Source" but there was never any doubt it was proprietary.

https://referencesource.microsoft.com/

You can mince words and make inconsequential adjustments to proprietary software licenses but they are still proprietary.

Product looks fantastic, well done. Always refreshing to see services actively attempt to keep payloads small.

If there is anything to criticize about the marketing part for me it would be the "privacy focused" bit. Personally I think in 2019 saying you're privacy focused and then only baking that up with a privacy policy is a bit much. You can change it at any time and "continued use of the service" is deemed to have accepted any changes. But even then, AFAIK privacy policies aren't legally binding right?

"Privacy focused" to me means that the business running the service has limited or no access to private information in some way. But that's just me, I am probably a minority.

Everything Julia makes and writes is amazing, she seems to have an almost bottomless pit of enthusiasm and talent. I simultaneously deeply admire and am a little jealous of her at the same time, is there a word for that?

I guess it depends on how the critique is delivered. I would unironically love it if an expert level in [repo language] would come along and critique my open source code.

If they were an arrogant shit-head then I'd probably just block them, regardless of the technical merit of what they wrote.

So a life is worth less because they are poor? If you're rich you shouldn't have to face the same consequences for your actions? That is insane.

A "VP of tech company" is likely to be wealthy and have a number of assets. They could liquidate or just pay out of pocket to maintain their assests while they are inside and still come back to wealthy life.

If you were already poor going into prison, living paycheck to paycheck, they have literally lost everything. Their life is destroyed.

If anything, prison sentences and fines should scale up based on one's position of power and income.

From experience, if the org is doing https mitm then it almost certainly also has network device authentication (eg Cisco ICE) that would only allow corporate whitelisted devices. Usually with custom builds that would already have the corp root cert trusted.

This would be a pretty significant liability for builders in countries that have automatic consumer protections (eg: Consumer Guarantees Act in NZ). The builders would have to eat the costs of faulty units.

It already exists and has borrowed the name "resilience engineering" from the construction and engineering fields. Netflix has some interesting blog posts on how they deal with transient faults and resilience in general. Implementing concepts like circuit breakers.

Have a search for libraries in your favorite language, I'm sure something will already exist. I've personally used Polly in .NET.

https://github.com/App-vNext/Polly

I feel like this is really easy to say when you are a ~mature adult~.

People change and grow up, the new generation(s) aren't given an opportunity to fuck up or express shitty opinions and learn from them because the internet never forgets.

Some stupid social media post or whatever can forever be attributed to them and be dug up later in life.

I'm just glad I'm in my 30's and don't have to go through puberty in a world with social media.

> ASP.NET Core that runs on top of .NET Core

Confusing, ASP.NET Core can actually also run on top of the Full .NET Framework right now, although it was announced this won't be a trend which will continue.

> features such as dependency injection

And DI isn't actually a feature limited to ASP.NET Core, .NET Core itself has DI "built-in".

My personal (and possibly unpopular) hot-take on these types of schemes are that they should be against the law. It's the same concept with the Brave browser.

I don't feel like these organizations have a right to attempt to represent other entities without express consent.

I mean they take money on behalf of other individuals/organizations, advise those paying them that they will forward the money on and then attempt to coerce the target entity to sign their contract, accepting based on their terms/pay out ratio, usually based on some opaque "formula".

The more popular the service becomes, the more leverage they have.

It's different in that I am the customer, I literally give them money to host my stuff. They can of course stop hosting my stuff at any time, but then I will also stop giving them money.

I'm not 100% sure since I'm a developer and not an entrepreneur, but I think they prefer to receive money rather than not receive money.

Has anything like this ever been hashed out in court?

I'm curious where the line is from a legal perspective? Ad blocker (purposely deny some scripts from running)? Custom user styling? User scripts (greasemonkey/tamper monkey etc), browser "reader views"? Accessibility tools? The browser dev tools?

From my experience, "those evil companies" isnt actually a common argument in free software circles. It's only a problem in the sense that they fail to pass on the freedoms required by the license (breaking copyright law) or attempt to circumvent the intent of it (see Tivoization).

It's pretty common to actually see the opposite. When companies genuinely create/modify/support free software they tend to be praised and actively supported in the free software community.

Hyrum's Law

With a sufficient number of users of an API, it does not matter what you promise in the contract: all observable behaviors of your system will be depended on by somebody.

http://www.hyrumslaw.com/

I'm in a team where all the consumers are only other internal teams and yet this still happens. I've found that it doesn't matter if you explicitly state to not rely on a particular behavior in your documentation, clients still will. It's always your fault if you break it because "it was your change that broke this client" and "it was working fine yesterday".

> I have never seen ORMs as tools for completely abstracting away the database.

Some are advertised that way. Entity Framework Code First, Migrations etc.

At our place, our DB dev team is larger than our api team, which in turn collectively dwarfs our front end teams. ORMs in this sort of environment have never really been given a chance, but I feel like it would be easy to justify them in many situations...

Plenty of other countries have similar, or even stronger consumer privacy protection laws. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine the US eventually becoming the outlier to the point they have a sort of self imposed "great firewall".

The rest of the world will continue on without them, especially as the ~middle class~ population explodes in countries where there previously wasn't one.

The US is really only the "center of the Internet" for primarily English speaking countries, as the others have regional variants of popular US based services. There is no real reason why things wouldn't just split out to Europe and Oceania even more.

I have almost 15 years on the OP and aren't even half as talented. It looks like they've received almost $60k from Google across five bug bounties, very impressive.