Fraud is a huge problem in current mainstream finance and government money programs, so why would crypto be any different? The US’ Payroll Protection Program covid response paid out tons of money to fake businesses because a similar “proof of legit business-hood” was not easy to determine in a timely manner. And stories like that do a lot of damage to the enthusiasm for such social programs, even if the program was still mostly effective; I’m not sure where PPP falls on the spectrum, but people would focus on a 10% fraud rate over a 90% success rate for instance.
I think crypto is still a solution looking for a problem, but let’s not pretend that fraud wasn’t a massive pre-existing problem for humanity.
There are alt stores on Android though, it just seemingly doesn’t matter. The root problem is that consumers don’t care about this problem and voted with their wallets for the current situation. That’s not necessarily surprising: most people didn’t care that their clothes/shoes were made by suffering child laborers, so a few relatively comfortable devs having to essentially find a new job is barely going to register.
I think that forcing human recourse _is_ the solution. This problem is much bigger than just the “App store duopoly” axe. A law that required the ability to perform all account actions/appeals/etc realtime with another human (phone, chat, etc) would’ve also minimized the need for the recent unsubscription laws as well since the hassle would’ve been much less in the first place. These are the kind of foundational human-centric business laws we need instead of the reactionary hyper-focused ones that don’t address root problems and usually just wind up further cementing incumbents.
I’m often curious about situations like this, as I had similar thoughts while reading. Assuming the bird was truly abandoned, is it better to imperfectly raise them yourself or to leave them to die? Not everyone is going to want or be able to track down a wildlife rehab expert.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the response was a Chrome-esque “drown the competition in feature velocity” approach. iMessage could add new features (with totally necessary payload shape updates) fast enough to prevent any integrations from working well and competing effectively. Throw in some EME-style approval-requiring binary blobs to enable decryption and a dash of CSAM-style regulation compliance and open vs closed won’t really matter (like we’ve seen on the web so far).
I like the idealism of your arguments, but tech idealism doesn’t matter without users. And the majority of users have repeatedly chosen proprietary UX innovations over things like standards and interoperability. And many of these things are just an underlying standard with some changes/additions sprinkled on top, but those changes are differentiating to the product. Slack, Zoom, Gmail, etc. Some of their success is network-driven, but their unique work play no small part. And other companies tried different ideas and failed, and we’re lucky that Atlassian didn’t somehow get bad Hipchat-specific additions onto the IRC spec to albatross us all forever. On the web people chose non-standards overwhelmingly enough to basically kill the standards body (W3C) and push us into the land of “Whatever’s Worked on by Google” (WHATWG in essence). Until governments start funding competitive efforts (to relieve monetary pressure, which comes with its own problems) into projects pushing for your telos principles, profit (as an imperfect indicator of people’s choices) will continue to be the North Star for technology.
So company is making mice in bad place X, mice break after update, tech sleuths inevitably link mouse problem to protestware, people start asking questions about company? Isn’t that potentially causing change? Doesn’t that specifically rely on affecting downstream users? So you weigh the likelihood of positive vs negative outcomes against your risk tolerance and act accordingly.
I’d personally think that working on Truth Social would permanently affect your credibility in the industry, yet they have some devs who probably feel proud to work there. So people have different priorities in their lives.
A lot of protest is more about emotion than logic. Most individual actions of protest are not logical, like each of the individual protesting Russians who know they are likely to go to jail. But when enough “illogical” people do enough “illogical” things visibly enough, the Overton window (as it were) can start to shift as they prompt others to ask why they see more and more “illogical” acts in favor of a position. Some will go to far, some not enough, but it’s hard to predict what acts will move the needle.
Maybe this is a legitimately cool feature, and you’re just used to it by now from other ecosystems and products. Then both your and the author’s reactions can valid.
In case anyone else was left wondering about the outcome of the race, Schultz got the silver, not to Vos (who finished 4th) but to Canadian Tyler Turner. Turner had won the most recent world championships, so he wasn't exactly a dark horse.
At least in this hypothetical, that’s at least partly because Google owns the primary store on Android. It’s easy to envision them making Google Play for iOS and moving all of their apps exclusively into that and generating quite the beachhead while enabling them to increase their tracking capabilities and gathering more data. Especially if they exclusively release a true build of Chrome (everyone’s favorite monoculture) half of HN will immediately download the store so they can help give Google complete control over the internet.
A great heuristic would just be only granting notification prompt permission after you’ve installed the PWA to your Home Screen. That shows clear interest by the user in a longer-term relationship with the app, and they could grant other expanded prompt permissions based on that also.
It’s been kind-boggling to me that we haven’t been continuously updating the vaccines. Low turnaround time is one of the great benefits of mRNA vaccine technology and yet here we are crossing our fingers that evolutionary pressure doesn’t do what exactly evolutionary pressure always does. In some ways we’re creating a perfect environment to breed better Covid strains by applying “gentle” pressure against its imperfect initial form.
It’s kind of amazing that we’ve figured how to take a reactionary approach (waiting until vaccine “failure” to start updating it) to what is normally a proactive policy (vaccination).
I was remote before the pandemic, and I really enjoyed that my company had an office and vibe, as you say. I went there almost monthly and internalized the culture myself. I think a lot of people actually want to work from an office (if it is a nice one), and the mix of base office culture with remote workers visiting regularly works really well IMO and I’d love to return to it.
Part of the reason so many people wanted to go remote was that a lot of offices sucked (in addition to commutes, etc). It’s be great if we got better offices for those who wanted them and more flexible remote for others (but that’s probably too optimistic).
VCs have to put their monthly influx of FedBux somewhere!
Less sarcastically: cheap money effectively lowers the cost of risk, thus increasing the number of risky investments made. And Axie seems like less of a risky investment than Yo was, at least.
"What's fair is whatever both parties mutually agreed to"
You could argue there's an important caveat of symmetric information around this interaction if you want to talk about fairness. Asymmetric information is frequently considered an unfair advantage (see insider trading) but is also recognized as the source of much profit (see auction winner's fallacy), but you have to at least recognize that employers by and large have a huge information advantage in the labor market currently.
> You're paid based on supply and demand and your negotiating skills
Your ability to negotiate your own salary is pretty orthogonal to your ability to do most jobs. Some jobs definitely require the ability to negotiate in the form of compromise, but rarer are the positions where the brinksman-style of salary negotiation (where you credibly would scuttle the entire deal) would be useful. It should be pretty easy to figure out within a year how a new hire compares to the existing employees and were they _should_ be on the salary totem and set them on the proper trajectory from there.
There would certainly be other knock-on effects from true salary transparency, but bias towards salary negotiating skill is much closer to bias towards people-who-look-like-me than it is to bias towards people-who-generate-value-for-the-business.
They are also the reason many corporations are immoral.
Or: most unions are legitimately just trying to improve the situation for their workers, and many business owners have a conscience and weigh more than profits in their business decisions. It’s mostly the mega-wealthy who have become disconnected from normal humans and give us these Snidely Whiplash characterizations that ultimately paint both sides with a bad brush.
Pedantically, basing your stance purely on being tired of being told what to do _isn’t_ an intelligent strategy. Not saying that’s your entire stance, but emotional contrarianism is not a good reason to update your priors.
Either you’re using the medical definition of mild (didn’t require hospitalization) or you haven’t gotten a true influenza infection in a long time. So many people call strong colds a “flu”, which creates confusion around its severity and contributes to people avoiding the vaccines. But real influenza will have you in bed for a week and set back your fitness for a month (making you tired after even moderate exertion).
Getting my first real flu since childhood is definitely what got me back on the vaccine train. All this talk about mortality, I want to minimize even basic inconvenience to myself!
My biggest gripe with inferred types is that you wind up with errors at random usage sites instead of at where the actual type “error” is. For example, with inferred return types you can wind up returning `a | b` when you thought you were returning `a` and this might actually be coincidentally fine for a bit until you use it somewhere that only takes `a` and you get a type mismatch. You can then trace backwards until you find the source of the bad assignment, which can be a few layers after a bit of inference, and this always felt antithetical to the improved ergonomics of types. As a result I always enforce explicit return type annotations with inference only within scopes. But TS happily supports a spectrum!
Your 1) only matters if transmission is related to symptoms. If the virus is transmissible for a while before the symptoms like Covid, symptom severity matters less (pre-symptom R-value gains outweigh post-symptom R-value losses). Reductively, if you’ve already infected your social circle pre-symptoms, what happens next is much less relevant to the virus’ lifecycle.
Their north star should be taking market share back from Google, not getting sidetracked with these piddling income schemes or anything else. It is worth so much more to them in the long run to break Chrome’s monopoly than anything in my short term. So if privacy is what people want, give it to them now and figure out monetization after you’ve beaten Chrome.
But how much money can they possibly be making from a deal like this? It surely is a blip on MS’ radar. That’s what so confusing about dumb moves like this while Edge is still trying to gain market share.
> No ads and random anti-patterns I don't want in the interface
This is slightly ironic, since Chrome exists solely so that Google can more effectively sell ads on every page you visit and track everything you do. I guess sites themselves aren’t technically part of the browser UI though.
The big difference is Rust and Go are new and learned from their predecessors. If they live long enough, they too will become complicated (well maybe not Go since it’s central design paradigm is simplicity) and seem crusty compared to newer counterparts. Java started simple, but has grown and “forked” and now there’s Kotlin or Scala etc. All that variation was because Java was successful and people wanted to use it but in a slightly different way. JavaScript is the same: people keep evolving it _because_ it is so popular.
FWIW, you can replace __dirname with information from import.meta (and 2 lines of JS). It’s not quite as automagic but can yield the exact same info. You’re also right that it might just be a code-smell in general though.
Modern webpack is also much simpler than when it started, as they’ve followed their zero-config northstar (#0CJS) for a while now. Many simple projects can literally run without a config file at all. The config file only grows in relation to the complexity you want to take on, like adding Typescript or wanting to run WebWorkers, but that seems fair? It’s not like you can just start adding Kotlin or Scala to a Java project without changing your setup.
And there are plenty of higher-level tools than webpack that are pre-configured to handle most of your variations anyway (eg CRA) and are a much better starting point if you don’t need to fine tune your build or do complicated/exotic things (which isn’t a breeze in any language I’ve experienced).