>“Culprits” because they used the service they paid for within its advertised limits?
"Culprits" because it was their (legal) use of the service that made Hetzner rethink and change their service plan.
9,913 karma · joined September 1, 2011
"Culprits" because it was their (legal) use of the service that made Hetzner rethink and change their service plan.
There is no such thing as "planned obsolescence". The trade-off is price vs quality. You can buy or source a hammer that will last you a lifetime, but will cost 10x the standard rate of hammer ... most people opt for the $20 option vs the $200 option, knowing full well, the $20 option may not last as long.
>Boeing airplanes that need to be rebooted if their computers are up for too long, an Ariane 5 blowing up because using the old thing should be "good enough", Microsoft Windows on ATMs and vending devices that literally can't not have pop-ups.
Couple things here:
1) None of those are examples of 'planned obsolescence'.
2) You really do not want to have every software application built the same way you build software for NASA. It would make software development incredibly expensive and slow.
3) I think everyone agrees that Boeing has major quality problems when compared with Airbus. But again, not an example of 'planned obsolescence', and it is not necessary for Boeing to build software like NASA builds software for the space shuttle, in order to produce quality airplanes (with quality software).
>if businesses had their way, would the Internet be run on Novell,
Huh? The software business is fully private. Most companies are not running on Novell because other businesses 'had their way' and competed.
Git is a tool built around the needs of software developers. Because git is too complicated and branching, though in principle, would make sense in some situations, is actually pretty difficult to manage (especially for binary documents).
Also, they do use version history built into tools like Sharepoint/Office, or the document itself.
US building codes are pretty good and well enforced, just as they are in the UK ... but even with that, you have a Surfside condominium collapse - so not perfect.
I think Biden's decision to run for a second term was what sunk them. That was a selfish decision. He then bowed out too late, and Democrats had to scramble and nominate the only viable alternative. Biden should have refrained from running last year in order to give the Democrats a full primary to choose a candidate.
Sure - but we're talking about pragmatic considerations. In hindsight, preservation or expansion of abortion rights was not enough to get men to turn out to vote for Harris in sufficient numbers to swing the election, so another kind of message should have been crafted for that voting block.
I asked because it is confusing. My assumption would be that if this is an independent organization they couldn't use 'Flutter' because that is a registered trademark of Google, and they would say they are not connected to Google. I'm looking through their website and github repo for any statement that either asserts or denies a connection to Google - and I'm not seeing it.
You can do better than "testTheThing".
Have your team (or a working group composed of your team, if your team is too big) put together a set of guidelines on naming conventions for unit test methods. Have your team agree to these conventions (assumption is that the working group would have consulted with rest of team and incorporated their feedback).
Then make that part of the code review checklist (so you aren't the one that is actually enforcing the policy). Do spot checks for the first little while, or empower some individuals to be responsible for that - if you really want to. Do a retrospective after a month or 2 months to see how everyone is doing and see how successful this initiative was.
Or do you expect the marketing folks to go and setup this static page caching?
Because they don't want to call you every time the need to fix a spelling mistake, or adjust fonts or colors or layout, or add/remove a section. What if you're busy or on vacation?
It may also be your personality - do you think you may come off as inflexible and arrogant to your colleagues?
Huh? What are you talking about? Marketing is the job of Marketers, which in most companies (certainly small to mid companies) includes the content on the marketing web-page.
>You’d think that at some level the ‘faster websites sell more’ speech gets through to them
The technical aspect of how a web-site works, or how it is deployed or how quickly it is rendered, is NOT their job. Optimizing render speed of a given web-page is not part of their skillset - nor should it be. There are folks who specialize in that, typically software engineers. It is also not reasonable to expect marketing folks to create html/css/javascript and deploy via git. You really do want those folks to be independent and create the necessary content without needing an engineer anytime they want to add a new sub-section or fix a spelling mistake.
One "problem" is that most small/mid size businesses are not willing to hire technical folks or use engineering resources to do the technical part of this work. Another problem is that there should not be a tension between ease-of-use by editor and page rendering speed. Maybe WP is a bad product, and if so, what is the alternative that covers both use cases?
Is it really confusing?
They are the ones that are supposed to maintain it (from a content perspective) ... unless you want to be called every time they want to fix a spelling mistake, write a blog post, add a section, adjust the color scheme, add/remove a section - because that's what would happen if force them to use git and raw css/html.
Every database, Relational or Nonrelational, requires approximately the same level of management and maintenance when you start dealing with non-toy levels of transactions.
The "Fast" part is a little funny. If you don't care about joins, then row inserts and retrievals are pretty damn fast too =)
Not really ... If you're looking to hire workers in a particular region, how do you know what a competitive wage is? Well ... you look at what similar firms are paying their workers. How do you know what similar firms are paying their workers? You read surveys, industry reports, public statements, etc.
Nothing about any of that means you cannot offer a higher or lower salary for the same position.
Why does it affect the poorest disproportionately?
In principle I can imagine that being true - but that's not represented in our world, so it is an open question if you can 'build more and use less energy' in the real world.
With the scale we're dealing with decentralization does not work. You need to centralize for efficiency (i.e. optimize power generation and maintenance per unit of land-area). Though in this case the point is moot, since we don't have any grid-scale storage solutions for wind/solar - making them non-viable as the primary power generation regardless of price.
Why? They are correlated and so are reasonable metric to gauge progress when starting from a subsistence economy (as all economies in the world began). At some point, this may be less true when you hit a energy generation ceiling and you start 'optimizing' and trying to do more with the same amount .. but again, we're not there yet so it's a good metric today, and especially for developing economies.
Put another way, you show me GDP per capita or per capita Energy use and I can get a reasonable ballpark for the other as well as a measure for the wealth of that nation.
I think that's a statement of fact backed-up by a biological reality. There is always variability, and a minority of people, I admit, are probably not cut-out for establishing a family. Underneath all that is choice, you are free to choose one way or the other - a freedom that OP certainly has.
What is the aggressive push I'm making? Is it that I suggested to OP that the lack of meaning OP finds in their life, even though they have a good job and a comfortable life, is maybe due to the fact that they didn't establish a family so that they can actually give something of themselves to another human being? So that their day-to-day life isn't just about them? Is that advice worse than medicalizing the issue prematurely? Or to just find another hobby? Why not at least consider doing something that we have been biologically built for, that was a fact of our existence for eons?
Seriously, I do not understand you. Why shouldn't OP JUST CONSIDER it. You and I can't force OP to do anything. OP has already tried everything else. Why is that so distasteful to you personally, that you would rather OP seek medical attention, based on nothing, instead of having them really thinking about one of the most fundamental and meaningful institutions that a human being could engage in - starting a family.
>This what leads to deeply affected people: being born and raised because the parents had some secondary goal in mind and needed children for that goal.
We live in a society with a negative replacement rate. This is not a problem for our society.
Don't you think there's a difference between suggesting that someone start a family (and itemizing benefits of that life path), and FORCING someone to start a family? If OP does not want a family, they don't have to have a family. Geez.
Sure it is. And if it isn't, why would the suggestion to seek medical treatment be a more universal solution?
>and also exposing both the potential parent and child to the risk of lifelong unhappiness together.
That is a warped perspective.