FLUX-YOU

That phone should have been shredded way before you got pulled over.

Bit of a joke at first, but became more serious when people started to frame it as a compliment. I wouldn't blame anyone for missing humor on here.

Ultimately, it's a difference of opinion and social influences. It got an article click anyway, so mission accomplished for Bloomberg.

35-Year-Old Unknown

First of all, that's rude.

Second, if they have a $75b valuation and no profit plan, that's not likely a good sign. I doubt China's P2P and venture capital markets are related, but I'd bet they gave a high valuation just to grab headlines. Also, it'll eventually get censored like everything else in China, so 'doing better than Baidu' is probably temporary.

I'm not so sure, one of the other space companies could start poaching talent and there's no way they can continue the government contracts with a huge loss of critical staff.

more just that retail in the Amazon era is difficult and he has demonstrated no particular talent or qualifications for running such a business

"Right, I'm smart enough to realize that Amazon will crush us, and I can't outsmart Bezos, so why not enrich myself, say fuck the world, and go retire with a cool billion?"

Consent in the digital world is fraught with difficulty:

1) Do you have to repeat consent every time the ToS or another policy changes?

2) What about repeating consent every time there is a feature change?

3) Should your consent remain after controversial events involving security (FB using 2FA phone #'s for ads; data breaches like Equifax)?

4) What about internal company changes like leadership changes at the executive level?

Unlike consent involving intimacy, there is no big red line where it clearly becomes non-consensual. You can technically delete all of the data, but no one has built something that does that and is trusted. There isn't a right-to-be-forgotten law in every country, so archiving sites can still retain this information anyway.

Plus, it could always be on some flash drive that a malicious employee passed to other companies. Large companies like Facebook have pockets where people can essentially operate with impunity or oversight for periods of time. The core issue here is that consent to one site proxies affirmative consent to share your information out to other sites.

As a hypothetical, would you give consent to Facebook knowing that they will then share all of that information with anyone who asks (every site, every 3-letter agency, every stranger from anywhere in the world who likes your bikini pictures)?

What if they say they won't share that information, but they do anyway? Tech companies move too fast for law to keep up, and once the information is duplicated to multiple parties, it's almost impossible to track down every copy with certainty.

If you would like to offer a solution to the fact that the vast majority of people in this country now expect software to be free (save, some AAA video game titles), I am all ears.

Subscriptions? I pay for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Github, MS Office, a VPN, and probably a few others.

If you're B2B, use price per user/customer/developer? e.g. Highcharts was worth the money vs. free options.

The problem is there's no guarantee you don't also collect info or decide to play ads even if I pay for a subscription.

The passion/craftsman culture changed when we started selling our souls for the next ad-click or personal information collection system.

While it might have seemed good back then, we now have a massively cobbled-together web ecosystem. I know it's a cheap shot, but those same passionate people built the crap we have today. I don't think it speaks very highly of that time or the merits of passion.

(many individuals had passion back then and would be strongly against today's web practices -- I do get that)

When you start peeling away the layers of the career, the actual craft is only a portion of today's work. If I could code 8 hours a day, I would. But it's hard to spend a day in the workshop with that passionate, quiet, productive focus.

Most of the security bonuses feel anemic when it's still humans entering data into a system to track food vs. how cryptocurrencies use blockchains to track transactions.

But now you've also raised the technical requirements and are betting the security on non-technical farmers and farm staff. Even if they have technical chops since farm equipment is more complex these days, they likely don't have security chops.

There's already 'country-of-origin' scams in international shipping, so it's not a far stretch to apply the same concept to farming supply chains. Throw a disposable proxy farm in front of your real farms and change the origin. When it's human-entered information, blockchain doesn't prevent someone being dishonest from the beginning, and it lures people into a false sense of security because of IBM's advertising.

I guess limiting fraud to the beginning of the supply chain is a step in the right direction though. I don't think blockchain solves chain-of-custody well though.

Anything that requires hand/eye coordination is waiting on a good VR implementation.

I would totally pay $60 for a VR game that has you building a house from the ground up or doing woodworking in as much detail as possible (even if it's individual stages and tasks without a proper physics sandbox).

There may be something about alcohol that was helpful in the 1950s that is no longer so today, due to these environmental changes.

Maybe an interaction with the prevalence of leaded gasoline?

Probably a raw feeling in the brain instead of something intuitive like having a HUD with green numbers representing pitch/yaw/roll/velocity/etc. suddenly painted over your field of vision.

There's likely an encoding step that you have to teach the person before you can interpret the signals from the aircraft. I bet the process is similar to learning Morse code, but with tingling feelings instead of beeps.

Even the idea of transmitting strings to a person's brain is a massive step forward. We're likely dealing with "is this a 1 or 0?" and it takes seconds to decide that. Bandwidth is likely really low still.

Maybe this feature isn't a good fit for your organization?

But based on what you've just asked, I'd definitely never create anything like what you're working with because it sounds like ANY addition to your infrastructure is problematic.

People have been awkward and people have been sociable before the internet, and people are awkward and sociable after the internet.

Yep. "How to Win Friends and Influence People" was published in 1937.

I assume you can check Vault's audit logs and see if the user was created there or not.

What does skipping gears get you that quick sequential shifts don't?

My feeling is the opposite. Paddle shifters are the closest I'll get to driving an F1 car, and I've put a decent amount of time in with a racing wheel and pedals and racing sims and that's where I get all of my muscle memory for my Golf GTI.

Get a sports car, put it in manual mode, and you get the perks of choosing gears during the drive without stalling your engine.

The problem with that definition is that sometimes there is mitigation you can do before the vendor can get a patch out and that effectively counters the problem.

It also isn't reasonable when the vendor simply won't or can't patch it (because they've gone out of business). To have it be labeled a zero day forever because the vendor doesn't exist is silly.

I have followed "public knowledge" as the key factor because IT systems in production are complex and some companies actually do defense-in-depth and sometimes vendors are shit.

Using zero day excessively leads to alert fatigue IMO.

Malware developers have started to use the zero-day exploit for Task Scheduler component in Windows, two days after proof-of-concept code for the vulnerability appeared online.

That's not a zero-day.

It literally stops being a zero-day after the initial day.

While this particular instance is dumb, there's definitely conversations in politics that need to happen about algorithmic biases. If this kicks things off, I'm fine with that.

Trump doesn't address other search engines though, which (hilariously) helps Google more than the threat of looming regulations hurts them. Getting attacked by Trump is a badge of honor at this point. Just about any liberal or conservative with a brain will realize only regulating Google's results is a very bad move when there is Bing, DuckDuckGo, and other search engines.

Why do I need to punch above my weight? So I can finally tell people 'no' when they try to take my time away with stuff that they can fix themselves?

I think it's clear we have two very different motivating factors in careers. You want to climb the corporate ladder and get power and influence, and I'm content building things.

Once you get to a certain level in your career, part of your job is to be the go to person that explains things, mentor, spend way too much time in meetings and just grease the wheels. The heads down developer is not seen as the multiplier like the team lead/architect is and they get paid accordingly.

Great. That's exactly what I said in my original post -- hire someone specifically to do that. Problem solved. Now your junior/mids don't have to explain that. But that's not the career trajectory of every developer, let's be honest.

If someone's going to deny me a promotion for linking a wikipedia page that answers a basic question and completely ignore my technical contributions, I absolutely do not trust that place has the best interests of its developers in mind and is likely driven more by politics than anything else.

That's just silly, you can build relationships in other ways.

If you want to be the go-to guy/gal that gets constantly interrupted with this sort of stuff, your time won't be respected.

Plus, you're teaching them to go research things on their own. Why is that a bad thing?

YMMV but I spend a LOT of time communicating difficult concepts to other engineers (not only mentoring juniors, but also just doing hand-offs and stuff to others), to product managers, sales people etc.

This is a good use of time though. You won't find this on wikipedia, obviously, and is not considered basic technical information.

This is what I want to spend my time explaining.

If you come to me for basic stuff every time without effort on your own part, you're not likely a good fit for the team.

If they come to me for basic stuff, I tell them to go research it on their own. I'm not going to regurgitate wikipedia if they haven't put in some effort.

At some point, we need to start demanding basic technical competence from the people around software developers.

Otherwise, people will just be interrupting you all day and how much have we collectively written about that problem?

Isn't a lot of the job of software engineering to quickly and concisely communicate complicated concepts?

No, I write code daily but I might have to distill down technical concepts once a week or so (usually not even that much) and even then if I happen to be the only one who can distill it down.

If your devs are often explaining basic stuff like 'what is a relational database?', you need to hire someone specifically to do that. It's not a good use of time especially when they can go google/wikipedia those concepts and figure it out themselves.

You can't trust this because candidates do get petty when they get rejected and invent or omit details. That happens often on glassdoor.

They're not easily understood though. The upfront knowledge cost is high and they can be difficult to debug with the zoo of things from libraries like rxjs

Higher tuition (skyrocketing tuition, actually) should have already done that