shruubi

I've tried blogging in the past, but have since given up on it. I found that I was putting in a lot of time and effort to have my work read by maybe 3-5 people and came to the conclusion that I had nothing interesting or worthwhile to contribute or say, nor am I a person who can compete with the usual horde of twitter-tech-celebrities who seemingly control a majority of the audience.

These days, whether it be blogs or social media, the end goal is becoming less about saying something worthwhile and more about building and maintaining some kind of personal brand. So while I'll continue being another worthless face in the crowd, consuming content, I also won't mourn the death of blogging or any other similar forms.

So what happens if I'm working on a feature that I can't deploy in small chunks meaning I make fewer but larger commits and deploys? Even if I'm deploying good work by this system I'm ranked less than my co-workers by the nature of the work.

So now according to the companies public ranking system that is viewable to my bosses and coworkers, I look much worse than everyone else and the nature of the work keeps me in that situation.

Instead of feeling motivated, I'd go into the office every day feeling like crap because I'm doing my job and being told I'm less than my coworkers for it.

But hey, so long as we "move fast and break things" who cares right?

Maybe it's just me, but every time I look at Rust I'm either turned off by the community or by this constantly shifting idea of what is best practice.

A lot of comments have talked about the idea of writing Rust like it is X year, which seems weird to me as I would imagine that a language with a strong ecosystem would not create a situation where five-year old code that was considered ok then is now looked back as bad code and a reason for derision. Besides the obvious learning better ways to do things as time goes on, shouldn't code written five years ago still be good if it works? Is code being a few years old the only excuse we need to rebuild it?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but what I want is to not have to think to myself a year after I build something "well, that was built in last years standard, time to rebuild in this years standard."

I just came out of being forced into running an offshore team from the Phillipines for roughly six-ish months, my experience was that they were very affable with good english skills and worked hard, there was a noticeable problem with technical skill which caused a number of bugs to occur to the point where I would just spend the time fixing them myself than throw them back at the team where they would cause more problems.

The biggest problem however, was that no matter how many times I asked or provided documentation/feedback, they would ignore established coding standards and established processes and just do things their way, and when I would ask about this, I would just get shrugs.

Finally, we got saddled with a "Project Manager", which I put in quotes as their contribution to the process was giving daily excuses as to not turn up to our daily progress calls, and the ones he did turn up to, he would visibly fall asleep. When I eventually pulled him up on this his response was that "he wasn't directly paid for but an included part of the cost so you can't complain about what you get."

Admittedly all of the above is rather negative, but I think this highlights the "get what you pay for" aspect of offshore outsourcing.

I want people to be capable and independent, they should be up front and honest about things but if someone is too stuck on the minutia of "how and how much" in terms of communication then what's the point?

On top of which, to be perfectly honest, the people I work with are barely a step above strangers to me, so the last thing I want is to hear about their personal life. I certainly don't know or trust these people enough to trust with anything more than "I've got personal/family/medical issues, can you work with me while I handle these things?" and quite frankly I don't want or expect anything more from my coworkers than that.

As someone who uses App Engine, it'd be nice if Google would stop treating their non-java languages as second class citizens. It seems, as per usual, there is only App Engine Java support...

If you are happy making sacrifices in your life like cutting out relationships then all the more power to you, but I personally find it kind of crazy that we've reached a place where people think that their business idea is so important that they are willing to sacrifice basic human needs like social relationships etc to try and strike rich.

You think you failed because you got to quit your comfortable job with high-valued stock options to chase your dream and turn it into a profitable business? To me that sounds like someone who is in it for possibly the wrong reasons.

Honestly, it doesn't shock me in the slightest that someone who markets themselves as an SEO expert would not only do something as unethical as this, but also brag about it, as though they think they've done something they should be proud of.

Seriously, do we need a stupid animation and a silly-looking "ka-boom" image? It just comes across as trying too hard to be cute and ends up looking childish and stupid.

Honestly, I can't stand YAML. Every time I need to read a YAML file I also need to bring up a reference for what the syntax is because to me, none of it is immediately obvious.

Personally, I don't understand why all these projects have defaulted to using such an esoteric markup language.

My god, This article is written like the author has just joined a cult and is about two more claims about serverless being the high-exalted away from drinking the cool-aide.

I mean, it's wonderful that you went to a conference and was able to take some interesting lessons that you could apply to your product, but coming back and dropping your entire platform to rebuild in a new language just to use the fancy new things you learnt is utterly insane.

But hey, Kubecon has just finished, so I look forward to the upcoming article "How I rebuilt everything around Containers", should be thrilling to hear about how you tore up your product and rebuilt it a third time based upon some cool conference talks.

It's frustrating because I can see both sides having valid concerns, however, while Signal's position may be the right one ethically, AWS/Google are in the right practically.

Should these countries kick up a stink about a private business acting from their perspective to undermine the laws of their country, it could very well blow up into an international incident. From the point of view of AWS/Google, allowing this to happen or turning a blind eye makes them just a culpable if this were to turn into an incident.

That's not to say I don't support what Signal is trying to achieve, in fact, I very much do, however, given that in essence they forced Google/AWS into this situation without much thought makes me less sympathetic to their plight.

The title of this article is terrible, and gives off the wrong impression right off the bat. However, this could also come down to a regional dialect issue, as people from my region could just as easily read that title and see "why we don't have female developers on staff" rather than "why we don't hire female developers".

> So the CEO of Trustico, Zane Lucas, mailed the private keys of 23000 Trustico customers to Digicert

How is it that these guys have managed to stay in business for this long?

As someone who is an outsider looking in on this whole situation (someone who both does not live in Silicon Valley and does not live in America), I honestly think the whole place and everyone there is fking insane.

Both sides are seemingly entirely incapable of accepting that people, with all their complexities can have differing view points and not just assuming they are the devil incarnate.

I used to think that I was pretty far-left leaning, but recently, with the attitudes of the so-called progressives, I honestly want nothing to do with these people. How is it that more people aren't terrified that the left has turned themselves into an echo-chamber so against even slightly differing ideals that those who do even slightly go against the norm will have a social-media storm come down upon them to ruin their career and life.

And don't think conservatives are any better. Here is a hot tip for all the conservatives out there - white supremacy and neo-nazi's are not the types of people you want to associate yourselves with. The fact that it's been over 70 years since the end of WW2 and you haven't quite figured that out yet is almost as baffling as the idea that conservatives cannot accept that gun-control does not mean people want to take your guns away, but simply want to make sure that people who would abuse guns can not get them.

Honestly, if the lot of you could start acting like mature adults who can have a reasonable discussion of actual issues without resorting to calling each other names and organizing mobs, the rest of the world that still follow America's example would be thankful.

That's all well and good until it isn't anymore. And to top it off, your recommendation is to either hire someone to manage k8s full-time or be at the mercy of your cloud vendor and hope that one day you don't turn up to work to find that the new update you weren't aware was being rolled out has just broken everything.

You can't ask a large-scale company to take a dice-roll on k8s for their infrastructure when the only promise of long-term reliability is "trust us not to make any breaking changes".

This article concerns me, especially considering the first thing you see is "There is no such thing as Kubernetes LTS (and that’s fantastic)".

What is so great about running your infrastructure on a platform that has no intention of ensuring long-term stability? Irregardless of how well backward-compatibility is maintained, the idea that we should all move our infrastructure to something that lacks the fundamental promise of "updating won't break everything" seems downright irresponsible.

This reminds me of something I read long ago that was along the lines of "make the computer change for you, don't change for the computer". As such, I have a small list of common typo's that I make that alias themselves to their correct forms.

Since then, I've found that these aliases have been the best workflow improvement I've ever made.

Honestly, it tickles me pink to see ad companies having a public sook about a company standing up for the end-user.

What is amazing is the level of arrogance these ad companies have to accuse apple of damaging the "infrastructure of the modern internet", and speaking as though they care at all about the consumer when if it meant that these ad companies could make even a single dollar more or could track people even a little bit more they would burn the internet to the ground to achieve that goal.

Susan Fowlers piece was powerful, and definitely deserving of some kind of award/commendation, but I'm not sure if a Pulitzer is the right kind of award. My understanding is the Pulitzer is for investigative journalism, which I wouldn't call her article purely because the intent was not to embed yourself into Uber for a year and research/experience all the messed up things that went on with the intent to publish an expose.

Also, and maybe I have the wrong impression from TV/Movies, but I was under the impression that the Pulitzer usually gets awarded to investigative journalists who expose corruption/scandals on a larger scale than this.

It seems almost a right of passage for a programmer to build/attempt a lisp/pseudo-lisp implementation. Quite honestly, when I made my (very poor) attempt, it was one of the most fun, and most frustrating projects I had done at the time, and I would highly recommend every developer have shot at building some kind of lisp.

One thing I did notice in this implementation, is the lack of quoting and cons notation. Although, cons is a weird one in the lisp world given it is the only infix operator in the language.

Sure, he is a very public figure in his role as Uber CEO, but to say that he is instantly recognisable by Uber drivers is a little much. As someone who follows a lot of tech news etc this is the first time I've even seen what he looks like. What is more likely is the driver overheard the previous conversation between Kalanick and the two ladies he was with and figured it out from there.

Personally, I believe whether you're the janitor or the CEO of a company there are moments in your life which should be considered personal-life rather than "a good time to talk about your company".

And no, it isn't someone hunting him down in the street, but taking advantage of a guy, whether a person is a CEO or not, by blindsiding them with questions while they are with company and then sending the recording to a news company in a very TMZ-ish manner, irregardless of whether permission was given for filming, is as good as sticking a mic in his face and in no way is fair game.

Honestly, as much as I don't like Kalanick and would love a reason to dislike him even more, to some degree I have to side with him on this situation.

The footage with the girls, while incredibly awkward, is nothing more than a flirtatious conversation. Now, fair enough that the driver realises he has the CEO of Uber in his car and wants to talk about his situation as a driver, and I give props to Kalanick for actually taking the time to listen and explain.

Did the ending clip not paint Kalanick in the best light? Sure, but keep in mind that in this situation he is a guy in his private life who has been blindsided and accused of ruining this guys life, with, what it seems like from other posts here, lies.

If telling the guy he needs to take responsibility for his own choices instead of looking to blame someone else is the worst thing that Kalanick could say to anyone, then there really isn't a story here from my point of view.

Also, Bloomberg should really take a good hard look at themselves for posting that video without cutting out the conversation with the women. Posting that section of the video is the kind of disgusting shit that TMZ and other gossip rags would pull.

> Regardless of where one wishes to put the blame, this problem will _not_ be fixed. Period.

I realise that floating-point numbers are, to use the technical term, "whack", and I also realise that triaging the issue seems to point to a hardware error, not a software error, but I can't get passed this "yeah, there is a problem, so what?" attitude. Am I missing something critical here that makes this unreasonable to work around or fix?

Reading this, at least from my perspective, makes it seem like the author asks three questions, then provides an answer that doesn't really actually answer the three questions.

In particular, from my own experience in blogging/twitter etc, getting an audience is a really hard thing to do, so much so that years later I haven't succeeded yet.

On top of that, what about people who don't blog because they feel they have nothing interesting to say? Why should I write about my experiences with moving to modern javascript practices when 500 other people have already written the same thing, said all the same things I would have and actually have an audience that gives a shit?

As someone who is Australian and not American, if anything like this happened and HR failed in the trainwreck like manner that they did in this story, we have a government organisation that oversees and enforces workplace legislation.

It seems insane to me that the only recourse you have after HR is basically "gather evidence and sue" which seems to be common advice in this thread.

I disagree. At the end of the day you are nothing but a piece of meat to your employer that they are obligated to pay. Almost every employer is actively working to get as much work out of you for as little cost to them as possible. That is to say, there are those employers who aren't like this, but they are few and far between and are the exception, not the rule.

What I see when I look at the whole Wikileaks/Assange situation is a guy who started off well-meaning and really did want to make a difference who through a stroke of right-place-right-time happened to receive at the time the largest leak of classified documents in history.

I honestly feel that being suddenly thrust into the spotlight as the most notorious person in the world at the time put Assange in a position he was not physically nor mentally equipped to deal with, and everything that has happened since then is a combination of not being able to deal with the fame and notoriety he gathered and an ego that prevents him from asking for help. He had isolated himself in a self-created cocoon of paranoia and ego long before he did so literally in the Ecuadorian embassy.

In some ways, I feel bad for the guy, his intentions were well-meaning, and I respect the hell out of a guy who would stand up to the most powerful nation on earth and call them out for what they were doing, but Assange is his own worst enemy, and his current situation is of his own making.

This kind of thinking is why even as a heavily left-leaning person, I have a real problem with the current attitude of the social-justice movement.

I believe Sam is right, Trump is a reprehensible person who has done horrific things and has no right being president. But just because I find him and a large majority of his supporters as ignorant, racist, homophobic and hate-filled people doesn't mean I have any right to exclude or excommunicate them just for their beliefs.

It sets a dangerous precedent to work towards silencing and vilifying a party whom you disagree with, and while it seems fine when from your point of view it is for the greater good, what happens when someone who works to silence and vilify you claims it is for the greater good?

On top of which, it makes us no better than the ultra-conservative isolationists to vilify and excommunicate based upon belief. Don't believe me? Just look at the language and justification used by Trump and his supporters and compare it to the language that we left-leaning use against Trump and his supporters.

A true democracy means every person, no matter how repugnant, gets their voice heard. A truly diverse community means that all people, no matter their race, sexual orientation or their political beliefs deserve to be heard. And a truly free society allows for the free exchange of ideas and beliefs, what defines us as people is our ability to recognize what is morally right or wrong in those ideas and rather than vilify, try to educate.