snitko

How was it, when Gregory House put it... "...and no, I don't have a pain-management problem. I have a pain problem. But who knows, maybe I'm too high to tell..."

Perhaps the problem isn't your particular environment, but these languages infrastructure.

This is a friend of mine and I'm always skeptical of his ideas being overly technical, but sometimes we all tend to forget that programming can be a form of art and expression too, even in benign things.

Oh god, thanks you, something at least. That's gonna save us all.

Can we please stop writing html inside Javascript or Ruby in this case?

Explain the mechanism. How do I know this organization made this much money and that the amount I'm being paid is fair in regards to their profits? How can this code track all the money the company is making? It's not like they're being paid with their tokens.

And for minority of projects where indeed they're expected to be paid using their own token, how do I know the company owners don't run away with all the money they raised? Because this is exactly what happened with 99.99% of ICOs created on Ethereum. Now, of course scams happen in the traditional financial system too, but not to the same extent, because there's an enforcement mechanism in place. So, following your example, what stops a YC company from declaring bankruptcy and spending all the money on things founders want for themselves? Well, an investigation may be launched: founders are known, they can be found, prosecuted and sentenced. With tokens issued online, where you may not even have a company registered or have a company registered in some obscure jurisdiction, there is very little incentive NOT to steal the money. And, once again, that's exactly what happened during the ICO craze, which Ethereum is directly responsible for. A lot of people lost a lot of money funding scammers - and nobody blinks an eye!

I don't argue that everything has to exist within the traditional financial system. On the contrary. But in order to provide real value and allow investors to have some level of certainty that at least their money won't be outright stolen, the solution MUST include an enforcement or incentive mechanism strong enough to deter scammers.

Explain the mechanism by which people who invest can exercise their rights as stakeholders, receive dividends etc? Who's to enforce they actually own anything? What's stopping this project from taking all the money and producing nothing (which is exactly what happened with pretty much every ICO out there)?

Except Bitcoin. And the market justly reflects it via price.

What has it delivered exactly? Where is it being used that's not itself a scam? MakerDAO - which seems to be some sort of token issuance thing - has no real world mechanism for enforcement. That is, if an autonomous decentralized organization issues a token, who's to make it pay you dividends or enforce your rights for whatever this token represents? This is the thing that ETH fanboys are completely delusional about. Securities only work because state regulators enforce the laws guaranteeing their value.

Whether or not you're aligned with Bitcoin political values and goals, please don't be duped by Ethereum. It may appear as something useful, without the stigma of Bitcoin being black market money. However, you ONLY need black market money. Everything else that's ok with being regulated, does not need a blockchain. The hard problem that Bitcoin solved was "How do we create money that wouldn't collapse and lose value once outlawed". The proof-of-work solution cannot be replicated (for reasons I won't go into here, homework for you). And that's a good thing.

Ethereum is a scam and has always been a scam from its inception. Multiple reasons for that:

1) Overly complex, obfuscating its lack of problem to solve by having lots of features and code

2) Constantly coming up with new terms and features and "new hot thing" to try and pump the price and keep the interest going.

3) No real world use case. Only promises and cryptokittes.

4) Literally controlled by one guy (see the now famous "Can you guys stop trading" quote).

5) Only produced scam ICOs with 99.99% of ICO projects practically stealing money from investors with no repercussions whatsoever.

There are many more, but the thing to remember is - Bitcoin solves a real problem: it allows people to escape and bypass existing financial system and continue doing business, save and not be subject to policies outside of their control. It is black market money which governments hate and will try to outlaw in some way. That is the real pain Bitcoin solves for people: not agreeing to unjust laws peacefully and quietly exiting the system.

Vitalik and ETH are the definitions of scam and scammer. He's very good at obfuscating it by appearing very smart: read his articles and tweets, they always sound complex, but can be rewritten in much simpler terms. And ETH is the same: it obfuscates its uselessness and nonsense by being overly complex, every year employing new terms and coming up with tons of code that only increases the attack surface and complicates things even more.

I hope they donate to projects with anonymous developers, not businesses.

What? If I'm an open source developer online, I doubt local tax authorities have the means to track me down. I can be anywhere in any country.

How this works? They send btc and people use them. You're thinking in the old frame of reference: you don't need banks, legal entities or identities even to produce code. Who cares if it's recognized or not.

Knowing the founder, find it hard to believe. The guy who fled Russia to avoid persecution has little tolerance for any government trying to mess with people's privacy. Culturally, Russia itself has a lot more in common with the west. China is completely separated, from, I would say, the rest of the world, in terms of mentality. It's even different from most Asian countries and Hong Kong. Find it hard to imagine why would anyone cooperate with China on doing things the western world considers immoral and unacceptable.

Ah, great, all the features we don't need, but would have to upgrade to anyway.

I feel like this is all insane and doesn't make any sense. At least to the general public. What difference does it make? It doesn't even improve our understanding of reality in any meaningful way, it doesn't impact us in any way. We might have as well been where we are now technology wise without knowing about Bing Bang at all. What is it even? Because when you actually ask that question - where did it come from - it's a question you can't really answer within the framework of our consciousness. And if you can't answer that question, yet another layer above Big Bang doesn't really matter.

Looking forward to it, very interested. However, I'm going to be honest with you - it'd be a hard decision to rely on a service rather than an open-source software. Like, you guys can go bust any time and while the runner is indeed open-source, as I imagine, the management console for it won't be. And I understand that's what people are paying for, but, perhaps, consider licencing it, rather than running from your own server and charging for the service.

Into a separate repo. See my other reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20647649

I'll give you a counter example: whenever I change CI workflow for something that has nothing to do with the repo - like a new deployment scheme to staging - I have to go and ask people to merge/rebase from master into their branches or they won't be able to deploy. It happens pretty often and I'd rather avoid this.

So, it's a very interesting situation. On one hand, I agree with you: when I start a new project, I am the master of it, I take care of everything and I need to make sure deployment and testing are implemented as early as possible. But this needs to scale. When we hired more people, I quickly realized no one wanted to deal with CI. They wanted it to just work and I wanted people to work on features and bugs, not fighting CI. So you can call me a devops guy by accident (turns out, that's a huge chunk of what I do as a CTO - remove obstacles by implementing and managing devops).

I think my ideal devops situation is the one where you start with a simple deployment script from your local machine when it's a one man show and then scale it to a large organization not by switching to a large piece of devops software, but by gradually adding pieces that you need as your team grows and requirements change. Exactly what happened to us and I think our devops workflow is really great and I'm very proud of it.

I hear you. I thought about it and I think you need to reframe the problem. If a change in the application breaks your CI, it means you need to adjust the CI so it doesn't break when such changes are introduced. In my experience, these kinds of things happen very rarely.

It's a horrible trend. CI should not be tied to version control. I mean we all have to deal with it now, but I'd much rather have my CI agnostic and not have config files for it checked into the repo.

I've browsed through the article you linked to, one of the subtitles was "Realizing the future of DevOps is a single application". Also a horrible idea: I think it locks developers into a certain workflow which is hard to escape. You have an issue with your setup you can't figure out - happened to me with Gitlab CI - sorry, you're out of luck. Every application is different, DevOps processes is something to be carefully crafted for each particular case with many considerations: large/small company, platform, development cycle, people preferred workflow etc. What I like to do is to have small well tested parts constitute my devops. It's a bad idea to adopt something just because everyone is doing this.

To sum it up, code should be separate from testing, deployment etc. On our team, I make sure developers don't have to think about devops. They know how to deploy and test and they know the workflow and commands. But that's about it.

I never said those products don't provide value, I only said they're not exceptional in providing that value and that value can be obtained by carefully considering alternative solutions.

This is the best advice.

I'm happy to pay. To me, however, the value lies in predictability, sustainability and avoiding the risk of deplatforming. Tech companies come and go and are subject to political issues (as proven by Github). Thus, sometimes, it's wiser to pay engineers to set things up than buy a product/service.

I'm a founder. I'm extremely careful not throwing money. And I'm especially am aware of the changing environment. The internet is no longer free. You depend on a third party, you lose. The only true way is to gradually build your own infrastructure as you grow.

Bitcoin.

Don't see it that way. If I set up a process once, using software that's been tested and been around for a while, it's extremely convenient. And free. And there's no risk of deplatforming.

We made it point now to avoid all US-based services. While we're not affected by the sanctions yet, it seems like it is a possibility in the future. There's really not a lot of reasons to use Gitlab or Github or Slack or a number of other services. They're not exceptional in any way and can be replaced by other open-source or commercial projects.