semitones

I agree that it is probably not the optimal way to write an educational piece. However, in our year of 2022, the amount of content available online is absolutely staggering. If there weren't at least some pieces out there that tried to scenarize concepts like this, I would be disappointed - it's an experiment worth attempting.

Me too.... Fractal?

I used to play Worms so much as a child, it's nice to read about Team17's origins.

Was also looking for a way to buy this... The last RF transmitter I was tinkering with had to be connected to my raspberry pi via GPIO pins and the whole setup was janky and unreliable. Would love one with a USB adapter instead

I think almost all would pass the phone screen and maybe less than 90% would pass the interview again.

Not to mention homonyms, like the JS runtime Deno: https://deno.land/

You could use Django just for the backend and have your frontend code be written in React+Typescript, no?

It might be "common sense", but that doesn't even mean that it's not possible for competent and well-meaning people to fall into these traps when working in larger groups.

The equity one would receive now pales in comparison to the equity you'd receive as an early engineer.

Many people at FAANGS certainly care very much about money/comp, and for many of them, it is a large part of why they choose to work at those companies. While being smart and optimizing for comp is important, I empathize with your disdain for "professional professionals" - the amount of process and structure involved, and how it is now necessary to game it, does seem like a far cry from simpler organizations that just got stuff done.

That must have been such a serendipitous moment :)

It is not necessary for misery to avoid knowledge workers for the author's arguments to hold water.

Such strong praise, in a just tangential enough comment, reeks of marketing to me.

Facebook isn't just a "private business" or just a "free platform", they're a gigantic global entity that have integrated their product into the lives of billions of people.

If it was a free service by a mom and pop shop with "use at your own risk" in the agreement, then yes, it would be entitlement.

However, there exist people, for whom 90% of their communication happens via Facebook or social media. And it's not even by choice, kids are born into it being the status quo, and if 100% of your friends are using it while you're growing up, chances that you won't use it too are slim to none.

Thus, the company needs to hold responsibility for providing open communication. Censoring posts about their competitors goes against that.

Anyone have an archive link?

My peers on my team, and on our sister teams (we share the same manager's manager) have all had similar experiences in that: there is so much on everyone's plate, there is so much tech debt, so much to maintain, yet so much to build, so much that breaks, so much surface area to cover, and never enough time or energy.

I'd bet that you're not on one of the profit center teams... And that you don't have an oncall rotation.

I worked in one of the ads teams at Google. I quit a few weeks ago, with reasons similar to the ones described in the article. I was giving just way too much of my life away for that work...

Learn as much as you can, exercise a lot, and socialize with as many members of the sex that you are interested in as you can, because it will never get easier than it is in college.

License reads:

> "Copyright Bouke van der Bijl

I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it.

I’m not interested in changing this license. Please don’t ask. "

Used by counter on GitHub is at 464. The way it's worded would imply that they are all violating the license? How can this be enforced for inconsequential small pet projects? Is this really something to worry about, particularly with what (seems to me) to be a sort-of spurious license?

Write Everything Thrice?

I too, am now using Windows primarily to play games or record+edit music, because virtually everything else is easier and faster on Linux for me now.

Not enough evidence or reasoning to make an interesting argument. "Doing something everyone else is doing only because everyone else is doing it is bad" is obvious already. This article leaves a lot to be desired..

"Without systems that promote quality, non-ideological, nuanced, original, tolerant dialogue we will keep running into the false dilemma of unmoderated cess pools or heavy handed moderation." - it is impossible to measure the qualifiers "quality", "nuanced", "tolerant", "original", "non-ideological" while still being objective. Thus, whatever implementation for enforcing these qualifiers you choose, it will inevitably lean towards some ideology. Hence, contradiction.

For the desktop experience, or listening to music, that logic works well. But the network effect (winning the "popularity contest") is crucial for services that are much more network-dependent, i.e. what's being described in the article, or even hackernews (if there were only 100 people on this site we'd have much lower quality links/discussions)

It's a real problem. It's easier to suppress such content, but the problem is, it just goes elsewhere where it is almost completely unchecked, and it just proliferates in much darker circles as a result, and we have even less exposure as to its true volume.

Maybe there should be more of an effort to reduce peoples' incentive to engage in that sort of behavior in the first place. Why do people join violent extremist groups? Why do people engage with CP? Why do terrorist groups exist? Is it just human nature? Is it a fact that with 7+ billion people we are destined to have millions of people engage in this behavior?

De-platforming horrible material is better than nothing, but it feels like whack-a-mole

"At the end of the day, we won't have truly free speech because far too few of us really want truly free speech." - that's a terrifying prospect.

I agree, I don't think Google is trying to "protect" people. They are ultimately, almost always, protecting their pockets.

I agree with everything except "I think your fundamental error is in the fact that you think" - I don't think this, and I don't think my post implied that I think that either.

To clarify my statement: "We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority, to have truly free-flowing information." - I don't think that the structure provided by a company is sufficient to do this properly. Rather than companies/governments, we need protocols and standards. For instance, what if we had a decentralized app (dapp) built on something like cardano, that allowed one to edit docs that lived on an IPFS? We might have to sacrifice some micro-conveniences (e.g. google docs saves automatically for you as often as every few keystrokes) to make it tenable on something like a blockchain, but it seems feasible.

This is terrifying and is one of the main reasons I am working de-googling my digital life.

There's more to hosting than just spinning up a fleet of containers you know (not even that that is necessarily trivial...).

Also, how would you be generating revenue from these users? Just do what google does and run ads on the side? Then what's the difference?

maybe soon