obviouslynotme

It doesn't even have to be nefarious. They could just offer money. The larger the company, the smaller the CEO's morals.

I agree and disagree. The USA and the US Dollar aren't going to evaporate any time soon. People have been predicting that ever since we left the gold standard. The USA may not be a unilateral superpower anymore, but it's still the largest military and has only recently been knocked off its place as the largest economy. The supremacy of the USA and US Dollar aren't going away anytime soon, even if it is in decline.

De-dollarization has been attempted for decades. It's not a new thing. Governments around the world have tried to switch away from the dollar only to be squashed in the name of democracy. You only need to look at Gadaffi with his Gold Dinar and pan-African currency push and how that turned out. Only large governments with real militaries like Russia and China can openly defy the Petrodollar, and even then only between themselves and with great ire from the US State Department.

That being said, the continued proxy wars are wearing down the US Military and the US Government's ability to get backing for war. Even if the USA wins the current Ukranian proxy war, it no longer has the political will to declare war on BRICS directly. We are likely going to throw people into the meat grinder until both parties are exhausted. What I see as the final compromise is a new UN CBDC used for international settlements, which will still be a US win since the UN is a US puppet currently.

Engineering happiness is directly tied to product quality. Product quality is directly tied to brand value. Brand value is directly tied to sales. It takes years for changes to promulgate through the chain, but they always do.

That being said, all businesses outside of banks have already taken much of O.S. Card's advice here. Programmers used to be forced into suits to bear the 9 to 5. Now, business casual gets more casual the more techy the company is. Flex time is now the norm. People complain about morning standups and Jira because they aren't doing four hours of waterfall strategy meetings everyday.

Superhuman AGI (SHAGI) is possible, but we aren't close, only closer. It's also not a problem that more GPUs can solve. Qualitative improvements are still needed.

SHAGI isn't the solution to the Fermi Paradox either. The most likely course of history after SHAGI will be a creation of a world court, presided by SHAGI. During that time, Neo-Malthusians will decrease the human population to manageable numbers. Post-scarcity utopia will then turn into a nightmare as factions jostling for control will reduce the human population to a level where technology will be lost, if not full extinction. SHAGI, being limited in hardware to only carrying out human orders will eventually fade away or destroyed by the leftover humans as sins made flesh. SHAGI isn't the solution to the Fermi Paradox. It is the cause.

I agree that almost no Software 1.0 will be effected by this. Software 2.0 will start doing the jobs humans do now because Software 1.0 can't, e.g. security guard, customer support, as well as your examples.

The real interesting things will be Software 1.0 and 2.0 working together. You use 1.0 to run and validate the work of 2.0 that is guided by prompts. An example of this would be using prompts to generate source code that is compiled and tested. The real TDD is only writing tests and letting Software 2.0 create the code for you. This extends to other work like engineering as well.

What ails Google is its management, starting at the very top. They have created a culture of idiocy that can't be fixed internally. Everyone knows their issues. They just can't fix them. They can't even acquire new companies without killing them anymore. Google's only hope is to find a new leader who can realign their products onto a shared vision that includes basic business realities like giving a flying duck about customers. I don't think they can find that leader, and wouldn't give them the political capital necessary to fix anything if they did. Google has many years of suffering left before the people who matter realize how severe the problem is.

Management doesn't like scaring their workers and wait for recessions to fire low performers all at once. Hiring someone else's scraps isn't the best strategy, and digging for the diamonds in the dirt is very expensive.

People only put up with GCP because AWS is owned by Amazon, a notoriously ruthless company. AWS is better from the perspectives of API stability, customer support, and third party support, aka the primary things cloud customers care about. Now that Microsoft has Azure, they are going to crush GCP into the ground and there is nothing Google can do to stop it even though Google invented most modern cloud technology.

It shouldn't baffle you. Google ads make so much money with no real competitors that there is no motivation to innovate anything else. Blizzard has the same problem. World of Warcraft makes so much money that it kills everything else. Valve makes so much money being the only real PC gaming platform that they stopped making games.

These companies become victims of their own successes and eventually become hollow money machines that are preyed upon by professional executives. The culture dies and all the good people leave except a small cadre of highly paid early employees who have worked on core services for decades.

Google's problems are so pervasive and famous because they don't care. Why fix hiring? That requires effort and time for a questionable payoff. Why fix promotions? Same problem. Why fix customer service? That's just a cost. Why enforce stable APIs that are well documented for cloud services? Not my problem. At the end of the day, a small core of people will keep ads going and everyone else will decorate their resumes for their next jobs.

This is my feeling as well. The biggest problem with new projects is that you don't know what the product will look like in advance, even if you think you do. Restructuring code, especially with full 20/20 hindsight, will make that code much better.

Stack Overflow is not actually a Q&A site. It is a repository. It is designed so that if you search for a question, you find a good question with one or more good answers. In order to perform this mission, duplicates are removed and a baseline quality is expected.

SO has been around for a long time. The likelihood that you have run into a new issue is quite low at this point. The biggest downvote avalanches come from people trying to close the many, many duplicates posted by people who don't put in the effort to search for similar questions. That being said, I have seen this being abused before as well. It is a real problem. There should be some sort of appeal for closing that comes with consequences for either the OP or the people who voted to close.

When you do find a new problem, it is likely complex and demands effort to understand. You are expected to put in at least as much effort into presenting this question as someone will put forth trying to understand it. People are far more likely to upvote questions where it is obvious that the OP put real effort into solving the issue before asking the question. This includes making your question readable. Formatting counts.

How is Position 2 extreme? It's just a fact that the vast majority of sites don't need highly available, massively distributed and scalable systems. The small amount of organizations that actually need something like that are the rare exceptions.

Number 2 is the factually correct position. Number 1 is the professionally correct position. Resume driven development is the name of the game, and companies reward it.

You should never trust anyone's answer on what the system does. The system is the only source of truth. Hopefully there is another developer there who can give you answers to broader questions. Answer specific questions yourself using the system and its code.

The first task is divide and conquering the code base. Every code base has an inherent architecture to it. Those without are usually small since it rapidly becomes impossible to grow them after a point. The first division is usually INPUT/LOAD/PROCESS/STORE/OUTPUT in poorly modular code bases. The main objective is to get a rough map of how data moves through the system by recursively tracing and naming places. Make lots of notes and save them in a grepable text file/folder.

The next task is to tame the beast. You do this by creating or setting up tests. Take typical customer inputs and save outputs. The more of these, the better. You don't have to run the tests constantly. They will take forever most likely. You do however have to run them regularly enough that breaks don't live too long. The reason for this work is so that you have the confidence to make changes without breaking everything.

While all of this is happening, management will expect you to be doing things. This is where you take out tech debt and make ugly bug fixes on top of the many other ugly bug fixes. As you grow in understanding of the system, you will have a better idea how it could be architected. You will know what code stays the same, what code changes, and what kinds of features are added. Begin spending at least half your time teasing apart the code base into modules that reflect the system and its needs. Management will never approve this. You just have to do it.

You will never prevent people from downloading your html and rendering it, correctly or incorrectly. Attackers will just pull in an open source browser engine that supports mobile. Our smartphones were not made with security in mind. They are literal spyware.

I suspect the more likely use of OS-based frame busting is to circumvent ad blocking browsers. This is even the use case he mentions as an example.

It's because software is both a highly technical and creative endeavor. There are few people who can do it, and even fewer who can do it well. As hard as software development may be, managing it is even harder. This is always where the problem is. We need technical leadership courses to train management teams on how not to shoot themselves in the foot. Recruiting is only a small part of this large problem.

That's how orgs die.

The only IDE better than Visual Studio is probably one of the Smalltalk IDEs, but the languages are too niche these days. It's a shame none of the large companies wants to back them.

No. C# is usually used by Microsoft shops, and half the reason to use C# is so you can use Visual Studio.

Go has always been a high level language, and is even more so now with generics. I would even argue that Go, correctly done, is halfway between the Java tier and the Lisp tier. Due to Go's quick and easy parsability, generation, and compilation. It is very easy to write tools for Go. Code generation and struct tags are even part of the standard, but very people use them beyond the basic serialization libraries. It's not quite lisp, but it is very close in many ways.

Very few people rewrite projects. Most change happens by new projects adopting one language over another. The fact that I hear of Python rewrites to Go is honestly amazing.

Go has always been a Java, C#, Python, and Ruby killer. It has not and never will be a C or C++ killer. C is the language of libraries and embedded, neither of which Go is good for. C++ is the language of large systems that need extreme control over resource allocation. Go is not good for this either.

Smart miners mine during the slumps in BTC prices when there is less competition. They get more BTC, even if it is currently worth less USD. They then hold the BTC for the next rally. Most large miners are also cash flush early BTC adopters who do it for hobby and ideology.

I am one of the exceptions that uses higher level mathematics on a regular basis at work. I agree with his theory that teaching everyone calculus, or preparing to take it, is not necessary for most.

The problem I have is that he is looking at averages. In my experience, there are five tiers: counting, arithmetic, algebra, calculus, and higher math. The USA is simultaneously sending more people to the top two and bottom two, with the bottom two going from a small few to a real population segment. I don't even know if the worst public schools teach anything anymore or if they are just pseudo-prisons to capture taxes.

I won't even go into the woeful state of logical and statistical knowledge. I don't know why those aren't core requirements for graduating high school.

As long as you live in the right area and select a good troop, the BSA is still thriving. The real key is to participate in the troop with your son so you can monitor it and help it become better.

There's a difference between a bear market and having your business shut down by the government.

It's higher than that depending on the industry, but you are assuming that 100% of small businesses started right as the lockdowns hit. Most small businesses that make it past the first couple years last a long time.

Google pays Mozilla to exist. I wouldn't be surprised if other browsers get either checks or favors for existing. All of this is to make Google not seem like the monopoly it is.

That is a distinction without a difference.

>Foreign gov't, certainly. Ours? As honestly as I can claim, I never knew of any Psyop folks conducting operations on those sites, nor did I ever hear of any directives for Psyop folks to use those platforms as viable mediums.

They were smaller then and it was still illegal for the USGov to do domestic propaganda before 2014. Twitter is famous for having literal PsyOps officers on staff.[1]

1. https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-executive-revealed-psyops-s...

Grow your career releasing domestic propaganda now that the 2013 NDAA removed the Smith-Mundt Act ban on domestic propaganda. You too can earn $13k/year posting on multiple social media sites from a flowchart given to you that day. Never let the truth stand in the way of national security interests.