tomnipotent

Processed cheese is ~20% of the US market, and Swiss cheese is less than 3%. Mozzarella by itself is something like 30%.

Clippy at least had the courtesy of only blocking the bottom right of the window, these ridiculous Gemini pop-ups appear next to whatever cell you have selected and block things like column headers or values that you actually want to look at while editing the formula/value. It's insane to me that this was ever allowed to get deployed without a rational human being calling out the obvious issue.

Google Sheets now has an intrusive Gemini pop-up that obscures other cells and UI when you try to do things like edit a formula, it's beyond infuriating and I can feel my blood pressure rise just thinking about it.

Dotted line reporting is very different. In these instances the VP/E is usually directly interfacing with other executives as the CTO's peer. This is even more true when the budget is managed by the VP/E and the CTO is more customer/sales facing.

It's very common to see a VP of Engineering managing the day-to-day operations while the CTO acts in a capacity like this.

I always thought it was about developer velocity, in this particular case front-end. With a traditional REST API the front-end team needed to coordinate with the back-end team on specific UX features to determine what needed to be done, which was further exasperated when API's needed to be specialized for iPhone vs. Android vs. Web UI.

GraphQL was supposed to help front-end and back-end meet in the middle by letting front-end write specific queries to satisfy specific UX while back-end could still constrain and optimize performance. Front-end could do their work without having to coordinate with back-end, and back-end could focus on more important things than adding fields to some JSON output.

I think it's important to keep this context in mind to appreciate what problem GraphQL is solving.

GraphQL still has schema constraints, the surface of the API you mentioned.

> double down on their support in the face of push-back.

Because the push-back was dumb. This idea what we have to isolate and attack every person that we don't agree with is dumb. That you consider DHH's position on immigration sufficient to label him a fascist is dumb. All of it is moral showboating with no actual substance, otherwise you'd put your money where you mouth is and not purchase from most companies in the world that work with actual fascist regimes.

And that is not a transitive property which then means Framework supports fascism. The US buys from China, does that mean we support communism?

I look at it and see just as many failed start-ups from engineer-founders as a do from non-engineer founders. The idea that being a programmer makes you better to run a business has nothing to back it up.

Tell me you've never a business without telling me you've never run a business. You're pulling things out of thin air and using it to support a position with no foundation.

So in other words you've got nothing? There is literally nothing in your links that backs up your claims.

So conferences in every western country should also not invite Chinese or Japanese speakers because they hold similar views to DHH? I'm so over this exhausting need to feel self-righteous.

There's a segment of people convinced that leadership must somehow be able to perfectly predict the future or they're incompetent losers, like running a business is somehow the easy part of capitalism.

Besides the graveyard of failed start-ups? There's plenty of evidence, just no strong conclusions.

Which only had weight because Sidekiq pulled funding because Ruby Central wouldn't deplatform DHH.

Now that I'm getting older I like to pull out my "curmudgeon card" and blame it on the younger generation. New graduates entering the work grew up spending more time on mobile phones than laptops/desktops, and I wonder if these changes are to cater to this market that's shifting from mostly-mobile screen time to mostly-desktop. I imagine it's not too long before this segment is the majority.

I feel like we saw similar changes with the previous shift where new graduates knew GSuite and MS Office was some the software their parents would complain about. It's my shibboleth for identify my generation of computer users.

So you've got nothing to contribute besides your prior virtual signaling? This is the best you can do? We get it - you're a knight in shining armor that's doing his best posting angry comments on HN, and besides posting angry comments you're going to somehow magically fix the processes of large orgs forever with your incredible knowledge of how things like this work since you clearly have all the answers.

Here's what I found for the definition - it perfectly captures 99% of the comments I'm reading.

"...the practice of conspicuously displaying one's good character, social conscience, or political alignment in order to gain praise, recognition, or social standing, often without taking meaningful action to support the cause one is professing to support".

People asking questions and attempting to engage are not virtual signaling, everyone else on their high horse throwing shade are doing exactly that. These comments are 100% pure worthless virtual signals that I expect to see on reddit, not HN.

> You seem to think people

I don't think, I know. Read the comments. No one here besides the original OP was impacted but everyone wants to pile-on and call them out with absolutely no real context while pulling conspiracy theories out of thin air and making statements about what must be true. I've seen very few actual posts where attempt to engage legitimately rather than some bullshit "gotcha!" comment.

> a response by the CPO of Slack

Yes, two days after the email was sent. Two days. Folks are whining that it wasn't "faster", that somehow these people are not reviewing every email that leaves the company. Worst case the OP wouldn't have paid, their Slack may have been disabled, and then when the CEO/CPO did find out the sales rep would have lost their job rather than what we're seeing here. But I believe that Slack would have done the right thing regardless.

> calling them out on the things their responses do not address

No most people are throwing accusations and making absolute statements of what they perceive to be truth. No one besides the original OP is entitled to a response from Slack, everyone else here is just using it as an opportunity to virtual signal. Why would anyone from Slack engage in this thread filled with hostility and zero lack of desire to understand what happened, because they're so convinced they already have the answer? These posters are tourists using this as an opportunity to show off how mad they are, not customers that deserve a response.

This thread is an embarrassment to the HN community, and we can go back years and find similar situations where company screwed up and will not find the vitriol found here.

There's no such thing as "compliant" in this context, you totally made that up which reinforces this is beyond your scope of experience. There's no covenant or other legal obligation they have to be compliant with other than internal systems and controls - you know, processes involving humans which are prone to errors.

This was a process error that you and others have decided to make into something it isn't. If it was systemic we'd be hearing about more instances, but here we are.

> Slack knew they were a nonprofit

"Slack" didn't know anything. Slack isn't a human being. Like somehow everyone that joins the company connects a collective consciousness with shared memory.

> deliberate decision to engage in the SaaS equivalent of rent-seeking

Clearly you were involved in the process and have fist-hand knowledge to be so confident lol. The crazy absurdity of everyone being so convinced of the conspiracy theories they've pulled out of their asses.

> given the circumstances I think people in this thread have been incredibly charitable.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

> don't perceive this as virtue signalling

It's the literal definition of virtue signaling - a bunch of folks with zero context jumping to conclusions of evil and malicious intent to satisfy their own needs to join the pile-on comments and show how fake mad they are.

I see a thread of accusations and statements, not questions and engagement.

> It also looks like it only got addressed

The issue was less than two days old, in what world do you think a senior leader is going to learn of an issue like this in an org with 3,000 people? Most managers don't even get back to their direct reports in 24 hours, nonetheless getting a decision to someone higher up the ladder.

> I think this is rightfully getting called out

We agree in spirit but not execution.

So in other words you've never worked at a large org, or been in a leadership position over hundreds of people. So rather than acknowledge that things like this can happen, you'd rather jump to the least charitable conclusion. Clearly the Slack senior leadership sat in a dark room smoking cigars while laughing evil about all the cash they were going to get raising the bills on non-profits. Got it. That explains 0 other non-profits that have had this issue and gone public.

Absolutely hostile. OP was talking to a human, not a company, on an issue they have no personal stake in in a forum that values decorum and engaging with the best interpretation of an argument.

I see accusations and statements, not questions and discovery. Folks seem too busy grabbing their pitchfork to engage in an honest conversation on shitty enterprise sales tactics.

People keep throwing out words like extortion and racketeering but clearly have zero idea what those words mean.

> Did they came with new calculation based on costs? No.

A regular review process flagged an account that it shouldn't have, and it was included in some low-level employees day-to-day. To try and act like this was some malicious planned attempt at extortion is an exhaustively stupid position to argue for, it has no legs other than to satisfy some dark urge.

It's a challenge to get a team of developers to adhere internal processes just affecting one team, imagine how hard it is to manage processes spanning managers, directors, and senior executives when those processes are a decade old.

It's absolutely naive to think the C-level executives of a company with 3,000 people are going to hear about an issue like this within 48 hours of it happening. But sure let's keep coming up with conspiracies to satisfy everyone's desire to virtue signal and show off how much they hate the cruel evil business.

> least a dozen explanations less charitable than this one

Because you've already made up your mind that they're the bad guy, so it doesn't matter what really happened. One of the prevailing rules at HN used to be engage with the most charitable interpretation of an argument. It's always a better conversation when it's followed - this thread has just devolved into a bunch of pile-on virtue signaling with no actual interest in engaging honestly.

> Slack changed the terms of a special deal

"Slack" didn't do anything. A uninformed sales process included a customer it should not have, which was eventually resolved. Terms did end up changing, but for the better.

I'm willing to bet money that no one from the team or even area of the org chart that made that deal are still in that part of the org, or that any of them would have been involved in any situation that would have brought awareness of what was going on. Sales team have relatively high turnover, over like 25% anually. In my experience it's usually the least stable org chart in the company.

> Unlikely to be generations of execs.

There's probably been no less than ~6 executives that have been responsible for sales operations in that time frame, and that the sales process has been revamped and changes to how revenue is generated just as many times.

The existing Postgres license already has an "as is" disclaimer, so adding this clause means you want to _punitively_ punish companies that sue you for reasons outside of this software. The interpretation then is you want to punish users of your software that find themselves in a (potentially legitimate) situation to sue you over unrelated matters.

For example, if Supabase failed to pay a vendor that happened to use OrioleDB they wouldn't be able to sue you for damages without compromising their stack. That's uncool.

My take-away from the Facebook/React license issue was that the community agrees this violates the spirit of FOSS and invalidates claiming to be open source (at least OSI-approved), with many taking offense to the punitive nature of the clause.

Granted Facebook was in a position to see litigation over a lot more reasons.

A gmail account and a public calendar and embed widget.

> brand throwing away the thing it's marketed itself for

I don't see what you see. It's a single product, not a realignment of their business model. They saw an opportunity and brought to market a product that will likely sell out, which tells us that customers are happy to make the trade-off of modularity and repairability for what the Strix Halo brings to the table. I think your interpretation of their mission is a bit uncharitable, maybe naive, and leaves the company little room to be a company.

All three comments to this thread have missed the point that OP said installable SPA, not website SPA. This means the primary bundle is downloaded offline and only API network requests are necessary.

Groups are great. It lets a child element activate an effect on a parent element.

    <div id="parent" class="group"><a class="group/hover:bg-black">Hover</a></div>

This eliminates the need for JS for a wide range of things.