Baby, meet bathwater. "Names are hard to change" is supposedly the reason to give things meaningless random names. Great, now you get the worst of both worlds, the meaningless name is now synonymous with a purpose (the very thing you tried to avoid, well, tough luck, that's not how human psychology works!) AND newcomers to the company/org will have zero idea what "galactus" and "goatpen" are or what they do.
The Linux philosophy was NEVER about supporting computers from 30 years ago. It was about supporting cool new architectures. Big-endian systems are ancient history now. No new cool bendian systems are being made. The kernel still supports them, for now.
Having graduated from high school, this isn't surprising to me. Why would it be? So I'm left to wonder what's going on with this story. Either Smithsonian magazine is read by people to whom basic biology is a mystery, or the editors think that's the case. Or, perhaps Smithsonian magazine is read by people who like this kind of gory horror porn (or the editors think that's the case).
This is already a solved problem. If I block every anti-vaxxer I see on Twitter, eventually Twitter will stop showing them to me. But if I view the tweet replies to President Biden, I see the anti-vaxxer replies right at the top. So they just need to apply the user preferences across the entire platform.
More importantly, not voting sends a message. A very important message. When no one votes (as is the case in Russia), it makes it clear to everyone that everyone else thinks that the system is corrupt. The government can still say "99% of people voted! WOohoo! Democracy!" but everyone knows that it's fake, because nobody they know voted. That's why some of the most corrupt countries on earth have mandatory voting.
The bill originally was going to make available to customers and independent service centers the same parts and manuals that manufacturer repair centers have. The governor edited the bill slightly in a way that makes it almost useless now. It was edited to say that manufacturers don't have to provide parts if they think that there's a safety issue. They can just make a "full assembly" available rather than individual parts. This means that if you have a $800 device, and a $10 part can fix it, but the manufacturer decides that it's a "safety issue" to sell anything less than a $700 "motherboard assembly" then this negates the entire purpose of right to repair. He says "this bill allows for malicious compliance in a way that makes it functionally useless".
A selection of the best Scott McNealy quotes: "When Steve Ballmer calls me wacko, I consider that a compliment." "The only thing that I'd rather own than Windows is English, because then I could charge you two hundred and forty-nine dollars for the right to speak it." "Shut down some of the bullshit the government is spending money on and use it to buy all the Microsoft stock. Then put all their intellectual property in the public domain. Free Windows for everyone! Then we could just bronze Gates, turn him into a statue and stick him in front of the Commerce Department." "Microsoft is now talking about the digital nervous system... I guess I would be nervous if my system was built on their technology too." "It's the good guys versus the bad guys, and the good guys are winning." "W2K (Windows 2000) will be a bigger disaster than Y2K." "A giant hairball." [About Windows NT] "The Evil Empire." [guess who] "The beast from Redmond." [yup] "Anyone heard any good monopolist jokes lately?" "Ballmer and Butthead" [Ballmer and you-know-who] ".Not, .Not Yet and .Nut" [Microsoft's .Net strategy]
Well, I am. Hacky workarounds like this might be ugly and slow, but modern chips are really fast, and I don't expect an RTOS graphics display to be the fastest thing in the world.
I think we agree. WFH itself can work with the right environment, but I question wether certain kinds of companies are realistically capable of fostering that environment. Personally I think that if a company finds that it can't do WFH effectively, it shouldn't even be doing tech, and should contract that work out to a company that can WFH. It's like, a code smell for business.
This is just "works on my machine" applied to businesses. If most businesses are struggling with remote work, saying "just get good at it" won't help - they would if they could. Fact is a lot of companies are going to be forced back to in-office because they can't stay competitive otherwise.
Well, yes, but new developers need to learn to always delve one layer beneath any abstraction they're using, and understand it. Usually they learn this the hard way by fighting with some abstraction until in a fit of insanity they dig beneath the surface (looking at the library source code or something) and realize that either (a) the docs were lying or (b) the code has a bug or (c) their understanding of what the abstraction was even capable of was wrong.
> This "3rd party library by default" bullshit is killing me
I've noticed that new developers tend to think of libraries are indivisible units. They never stop to think what React Query uses, it's an atomic unit that you use to do queries, duh.
In the native GUI world, this would never be a problem. The system gives you a native components, but it's expected that you'll potentially extend it with custom code. So native GUIs support, by default, use cases that the framework designers didn't anticipate. But HTML is supposed to be a standalone markup language, not reliant on a language runtime, and that includes forms. So we're at the mercy of browser developers to give us the params and options to modify standard inputs to our use case.
> Other reason is that kernel requires some minimal level of code quality and many of the closed source ones are basically "the minimum to make the customer use case work"
I think this is the real, actual reason. Having worked in embedded for a long time, the coding horrors are endless and routine. There's no way 99.99% of embedded software would ever pass the kernel's strict code quality standards. It's easier to just ship a "bastardized" (as others here are calling it) patched kernel.
Everyone has good things to say about Sun, but let's not forget that they tried to monetize Java (even trying to take money from open-source communities like FreeBSD) long before they were acquired by Oracle.
It's unfair to put 100% of the blame for this on Stanford. A lot of the things they're doing are responses to the current political climate in the world today. Any discrimination, or even perception of discrimination, is likely to have non-zero consequences for Stanford. Furthermore, people are actively looking for discrimination, because "$27 billion university has discrimination among its fraternities and sororities" is a juicy news headline, if you can make it stick. Is creating an "associate vice provost of inclusion, community and integrative learning" the right thing for Stanford to do? Hard to say. What would _you_ do?
I agree with this. If someone has put in the work to become good at programming, and perhaps has some innate intelligence required to become good at programming, then I think it's reasonable to assume that they might be able to put in the work to become a great manager, and perhaps have some innate intelligence required to be a great manager. Certainly many programmers here are saying that they only program because they love it, and they wouldn't give it up to go into management. Great, but that in no way proves that there aren't some or perhaps many programmers who would like to make a transition to management.
I wish HN had a way to mute submissions by certain users. That way I could be blissfully unaware of certain categories of tabloid news stories in here.